The Professor makes an interesting point

Post-election observation from InstaPundit:

Finally: I keep hearing demographic deepthink about population shifts and how if Romney had gotten as many Latinos as George W. Bush he’d have won. Maybe so. But if Romney had gotten as many Republicans as John McCain he’d have won, too. I kept going on and on about the importance of showing up, and that seems to have been what mattered. Why didn’t people show up? Good question. Was it undercover anti-Mormonism? Or was it simply that Romney — who campaigned for independents and deliberately distanced himself from the Tea Party — didn’t pay enough attention to the base? Maybe the numbers will answer this, but obviously the Obama people thought this was a base-turnout election and Romney’s people didn’t. Obama’s people were right.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “The Professor makes an interesting point

  1. browbeater44

    i like Romney, think he’s a good person, and I am certain he was the right man for the moment considering the issues we face. But, when your opponent, who struts around like he is too cool for school, is able to shine a lot on the fact that Romney doesnt imbibe and consorts with those who wear magic underwear….these subliminal messages paint a caricture of a person you would not want to hang around. thus people were unwilling to walk away from the devil the know for an unfamiliar entity. call it what you want

  2. Peg

    Actually, I read somewhere that bean counters think Romney got more votes than McCain did. Apparently literally millions of votes are counted AFTER the fact …. it takes a few days to get various ones into the mix. So – when the dust settles, Romney will have “earned” more than McCain.

    For whatever that is worth….

  3. Anonymous

    You never get a second chance to make a good first impression

  4. Jerry Fletcher

    Or could it be that millions of Romney votes were deleted by computer programmers? How is it the Republicans registered millions of new voters from ’08-’12, all of them gnawing at the chance to boot Obama, and they never bothered to vote?

  5. Dollar Bill

    Nonsense. There wasn’t any anti-Mormonism that Obama was channeling. Simply not true. The Teabaggers got spanked Tuesday night, plain and simple, and they can’t admit to themselves how out of the mainstream their extreme, right wing ideas play with the general public. Any political movement that relies on voter suppression to win at the ballot box is doomed to irrelevance. Bye, bye Allen West! Bye, Bye, bye Joe Walsh!

  6. Anonymous

    “Or was it simply that Romney — who campaigned for independents and deliberately distanced himself from the Tea Party…”

    Whaa?? He scared off any potential moderate independents, women and Hispanic/Black voters. Many people did not simply vote for Obama… they voted against Mitt and his non-moderate views.

  7. Inagua

    Peg and Dollar Bill are right. Millions of votes get added to the final tally weeks after election day. It is astonishing that so many so-called experts are unaware of this elementary fact.

    And Dollar Bill is right that there was no measurable anti-Mormonism. Also, and that we Tea Party types got spanked badly. There simply aren’t enough of us to carry a national election anymore. Ronald Reagan himself could not get elected today. The Left has won. Free stuff from a Big Government is what a majority of voters want. End of story.

  8. browbeater44

    so the result would have been the same if mitt was episcopalian?

    • I don’t know about that, browbeater – the day of the WASP has passed forever, I suspect, but given the current state of the Episcopal church I’d prefer a Scientologist, let alone a mere harmless Mormon, over a current product of an Episcopalian pew.

  9. Anonymous

    Romney is too much of a gentleman versus the lowlife!
    Bloomberg News this AM added up how many votes he was shy when
    adding up only the swing states – Would you believe 130,000.
    Just want to cry!!!!

  10. Dollar Bill

    Inagua is right: Teabaggers alone will never carry the day. Their numbers are dwindling, and their angry, warmed over Birch-ite message is completely anathema to broad swathes of America, who believe in tolerance and democratic governance. What has changed in the electorate is not that minorities have gained ground, although that is true, but that the rest of the country has decided to assert itself against a plutocracy, which with its massive tax breaks and other govt perks, is robbing us blind. Tuesday’s results were a loud and throaty “NO” to the patriarchal and oligarchic class that has dominated our politics for too long. (And yes, that includes corporatist elements of the Democratic Party.)

  11. Independent

    That lower than McCain turnout statistic was the most surprising one to me, followed by Obama’s ability to match his 2008 turnout numbers. Tea party candidates can win House seats. But most statewide and national elections are a different matter. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would both be considered liberals in today’s Republican party. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Bush 1 would not fit into either party. If someone ever figures out a way to create a party who caters to their centrist constituencies, they would probably lock-up 60% of the vote.

  12. Balzac

    Well, the election was disappointing, but we won’t be disappointed for long. Not much changed. The Republicans had held the House of Representatives 242-193, and the new House will be Republicans 233-193 or so. The Democrats held the Senate 53-47, and the new Senate will be Democrats 55-45. Obama won the popular vote by 2.4% this time, and 7.3% last time. By groups, Romney won males (54-44%), whites (60-38%, very strongly), and 45-64 year olds (54-46%). Obama won blacks (93-7%), females (53-45%), Hispanics (68-30%) and 18-29 year olds (60-37%). Republicans were governor in 29 states, which will now become 30.

    There will be a lot of media commentary that Democrats are the party of the future because the growing groups are Democrats: the young, Hispanics, blacks, women, gays. Republicans are supposedly doomed to failure because their group is shrinking (white men). This is spinach. Conservatism has the largest base. Gallup surveys in 2010 and 2012 found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71385.html#ixzz2Bew2emWI)

    We wish Obama well and we hope he succeeds.

    The political contest is always the same. It is to work out the proper role of government, especially the Federal government. The Democrats and liberals recommend a constantly growing government to solve important problems, and the Republicans and conservatives put more faith in individuals acting on their own initiative to better the world and pursue their ambitions. There are no permanent victories in this contest; the oscillation never stops.

    This election is a good occasion to re-examine what we believe and why.

    “Conservatism is a way of understanding life, society and governance. The Founders believed and the conservative agrees in the dignity of the individual, that we as human beings have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government said so, but because these are god-given natural rights.” (Mark Levin) The founders really did something extraordinary in 1787. Working from a resistance to government (Britain’s), they created a system to limit government’s size and power. This 225 year old insight was a work of genius – it succeeded! It resulted in our exceptional nation – the most prosperous, the most free. The nation that is so strong it gave freedom to others again and again, in world wars and elsewhere. The nation to which more people have chosen to immigrate than any other. The conservative understands that all these are the fruits of limited government. That is why conservatives are faithful to the constitution, and to protecting individual freedom.

    We prefer conservatism not only because it provides liberty and prosperity. We select it because it conforms to the nature of man. What is man’s purpose? It is to pursue his ambitions: to be kind, smart, competent, to make and love a family. Remember the three keys to happiness: self-respect, the love of others and having a meaningful task or job. Each of these is a matter of personal responsibility. Not one of these can be provided by government. The liberal philosophy is that government will transform society and lead us to happiness. Before the 2008 election, Obama said: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” While a liberal seeks to use government to transform man, the conservative designs government to fit man. Individual freedom and responsibility will always determine a man’s destiny. Only a conservative government respects and encourages them.

  13. So Greenwich

    1. What’s the deal w/ Episcopalians?
    2. The Republican party did Romney in – they bashed him from begining to end during the primaries, Christie did not support him at the last minute (and he could have), and frankly he just had to take a more moderate position and forget the fringe right – let them go.

    • 1. There is no “deal” with the Episcopalians, they no longer matter in modern politics, society or, dare I say it, religion. The church has become so distracted by lesbian rights, baptism for favorite pets and the elimination of any ties to tradition or dogma that it’s about as relevant as shinto in our country (and even less relevant in Japan, undoubtedly). Gone with the WASPs.
      2. Conservatives never trusted Romney, ever. By the time they figured out that whoever he was, he was light years better than Obama, it was too late.

  14. Inagua

    Chris – The problem is not that conservatives came late to Romney; the problem is that there are not enough conservatives.

  15. So Greenwich

    Yet again, the Republicans have a few years to gather themselves and get their house in order. Perhaps they will stop bickering amongst themselves long enough to figure that out and drop the far right.

  16. Riverslide

    I think plenty of Republicans (and Hispanics who might for social reasons have supported the GOP) just couldn’t understand Romney’s supporting bailing out AIG/Goldman Sachs but not GM.

    I think we simply nominated the wrong guy. He was so articulate and non-threatening in the debates, that we all, in final weeks, thought we had nominated our greatest candidate ever. Instead, Dollar Bill is right, Romney still represented Bain/AIG/GS, and much as we in the Greenwich area think that’s just great, most Americans don’t.