Conservatives, such as myself, were presented a raw deal by the GOP in the past election. Their chosen one, Willard Mitt Romney, was no Conservative. He was a Moderate, who, regarding many Social Issues in his past history, took stances to the Left of the Political Spectrum. On top of that, “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, was the Godfather of the State-run Healthcare Monster known as Obamacare.
That was an awful lot of baggage for a Republican candidate to be carrying.
When the Conservative Base raised questions about the GOP Elites’ predetermined candidate, were their concerns met with empathy?
the GOP Establishment and New England Moderate wing explained.
So, dutifully, out of love for our country, Reagan Conservatives held our noses and voted for Mitt Romney…because anyone would be better than the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
Why? How could he? Obama was, and is, an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, card-carrying Communist.
Michael Barone, writing for the Washington Examiner, presents the following theory:
In both elections [2004, 2012], each candidate concentrated on a more or less fixed list of target states, and in both elections the challenger depended heavily on outside groups’ spending that failed to achieve optimal results.
The popular vote margins were similar — 51 to 48 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, 51 to 47 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.
The one enormous difference was turnout. Turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections rose from 105 million to 122 million, plus 16 percent. Turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections fell from 131 million to 128 million, minus 2 percent.
Turnout is a measure of organization but also of spontaneous enthusiasm.
In 2004 John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had four years before. But he lost because George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had four years before.
Kerry voters were motivated more by negative feelings for Bush than by positive feelings for their candidate. They disagreed with Bush’s major policies and disliked him personally. The Texas twang, the swagger, the garbled sentence structure — it was like hearing someone scratch his fingers on a blackboard.
Bush voters were more positively motivated. Political reporters had a hard time picking this up. His job rating was weak, but Bush voters tended to have a lot of warmth for him.
He had carried us through 9/11, he had confronted our enemies directly, he had pushed through with bipartisan support popular domestic measures like his education bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
His criticism of his opponents was measured and never personal, and he blamed none of his difficulties on his predecessor (who had blamed none of his on his).
This affection evaporated pretty quickly, in the summer of 2005, with scenes of disorder in the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans. But it was there in 2004 and you can see it in that 23 percent turnout increase.
The 2012 election was different. Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.
In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yes, examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them.
That enabled him to carry Florida by 1 percent, Ohio by 3 percent, Virginia by 4 percent, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by 5 percent. Without those states he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.
But the conservative bloggers who argued that the Obama campaign’s early voting numbers were below target may have been right. If Mitt Romney had gotten 16 percent more popular votes than his predecessor, as John Kerry did, he would have led Obama by 4 million votes and won the popular vote 51 to 48 percent.
Romney, like Kerry, depended on voters’ distaste for the incumbent; he could not hope to inspire the devotion Bush enjoyed in 2004 and that Obama had from a diminished number in 2008.
But, to continue this counterfactual scenario, if Obama had won 23 percent more popular votes this year than in 2008, he would have beaten Romney by 85 million to 69 million votes and by 54 to 44 percent.
Unfortunately, if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we all would have had a Merry Christmas!
The reality is, Mitt Romney lost. And, now, his son, Tagg Romney, tells us, his Dad never really wanted to be president, in the first place.
Okay, kid. Thanks for telling us…after the election is long over.
I have a couple of questions, then.
1. If he did not want to be president, why did he run?
2. If he did not want to be president, why did he attack the other primary candidates, especially the Conservative Republicans, with a fury reminiscent of Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan, rolling around in an African river, as he killed a humongous crocodile with his knife?
Was he put up to this by the GOP Elite, so desperate for an easily-manipulated Washington Insider, that they overlooked Romney’s failures as a candidate in previous elections?
If you will notice, immediately after the man-made disaster, known on November 6th, 2012, the GOP Elite were calling for the direction of the Party to move even farther Left, in order to “be more competitive”.
Sorry, boys. All that backroom cigar smoke has rotted your brains.
The majority of Americans, except for those little blue dots in the urban areas, denoting Democrat voters, on the map showing the election results, remain Conservative.
If you would have presented a Conservative candidate, who could articulate Conservatism and the Party Platform, and thereby, connect with us average Americans, living here in the Heartland, then that Republican would have beaten the Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
Instead, what we had heah, was, failure to communicate.