How Long Before Republican CD'ers Stop Analyzing Romneys Loss

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by Mayiask

So you're saying that they won't analyze it? They should.

Better they don't and drift off into insignificance and obscurity.

[theunbrainwashed]

Originally Posted by Mayiask

So you're saying that they won't analyze it? They should.

They will, they just won't obsess over it like the Left is doing. Even in 2006 you didn't see the Right obsess over their win in the House. It's like when the Left wins one contest, even by a very small margin, it's "OMG OMG OMG WE WON WE WON HAHAHAHA NEENERNEENER!!!!" as if you guys had never won anything before? When you guys lose, you take it equally as pathetic and shameful "OMFG YOU STOLE THE ELECTION, WE'RE GONNA BURN THIS MOTHER****ER DOWN NOW". There's little to analyze. I already said a long time ago Romney is going to be 2012's John Kerry. Kerry lost because he was a bad candidate with a bad campaign organization, Romney was the same way. It's hard to compete with a professional community organizer in getting the vote out, that's all that it was. Obama's living was to turn out people for a cause, that was his career, of course he was able to win by turning out people who would have otherwise stayed home. Romney failed to motivate his base, not to mention a lot of Ron Paul supporters punished the GOP. It's already been said that writing in Ron Paul cost Romney the battleground states

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

It's already been said that writing in Ron Paul cost Romney the battleground states

Really? I checked the NYT site. Romney needed almost 104,000 votes to surpass Obama in Ohio, which had the smallest margin of 1.9%, next to FL's .6%.

Third party vote in Ohio totalled 88,000. Write-ins aren't given, but it's kind of a stretch there were 104,000 write-in votes for Ron Paul in Ohio.

Anyway, if it's true - all I can say is YEA - "hoist on their own petard." Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Let them keep disenfranchising their own and see where it gets them. Into the dustbin of history permanently, I hope.

[sickofnyc]

No Republican presidential nominee has won more than 50.8 percent of the popular vote since 1988.

At the same time, the election also confirmed the reversal of roles in the competition for 270 Electoral College votes. From 1968 to 1988, Republican nominees dominated the Electoral College so thoroughly that analysts spoke of a GOP lock. But with Obama’s victory, Democrats have now won 18 states—the “blue wall”—for at least the past six consecutive elections. That’s the most states Democrats have won consecutively for that often since the formation of the modern party system in 1828.

The American Electorate Has Changed, and There's No Turning Back - NationalJournal.com

They are under the assumption that all they have to do is offer up a candidate with a latino name to secure the vote. All I have been hearing on CD is "Rubio". No policy changes, just "Rubio".

[Mayiask]

Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed

Romney failed to motivate his base, not to mention a lot of Ron Paul supporters punished the GOP. It's already been said that writing in Ron Paul cost Romney the battleground states

And why couldn't he motivate that base? Could it be that there are more moderates in the GOP than they thought? Could it be that playing to the right wing by choosing Ryan alienated many of the moderates? Could it be that not embracing some of Ron Paul's ideas into the platform and giving him a role in the convention cost them those votes?

Romney came in as the 'Not Obama' candidate and the TP and the RW thought that should be enough. It was a miscalculation that shows that they don't even understand who their 'base' is.