Analysis of Romney's defeat

[JollyRoger]

What's also interesting about this election is Repubs only faired well in one area... The House. After the last election, congressional district lines were redrawn, and in a way favorable to the Repubs who won heavily in 2010.

They lost ground in the Senate... and Romney lost, despite Obama getting millions less votes than 2008.

Republicans lost the popular vote in the House, so gerrymandering might be papering over the cracks a little. It'd be dangerous for the Republicans to look at their House majority and say everything's fine.

Yeah, the way things are gerrymandered (wide Dem districts, narrower GOP districts), the GOP's hold of the House will get crushed in a wave election that is pro-Dem. The GOP apparently learned nothing from 2006 and 2008. 2010's gains were a combination of a wave and getting back two waves.

 

[kochman]

When you find your self agreeing with and proving Michael Moore theories, it's time to re-evaluate yourself.

 

[dexters]

In my view, there are three principle ways of looking at things:
1) They did everything right, and it was only a combination of bad luck and coincidence that favored Obama in the end, like the Sandy relief and so on.
2) They have moved too close to the center, Romney was too liberal, abandoned too many of their positions to appeal to independents. In consequence, they should continue to oppose Obama on all issues, and try with a more socially conservative or economically right-wing candidate next time.
3) Their platform is too far right from the center, Romney's more moderate positions couldn't make up for the noise from the religious right, war or budget hawks that have scared off independents. In consequence, they should try to move left on a few issues, either socially or economically, and cooperate with the administration more.

And as a corollary to 2 and 3, was it Romney's fault, or was it the underlying ideology that was the problem?

I'm curious about your thoughts.

1) Sandy certainly didn't hurt Obama because Obama proved competent, which is more a credit to Obama than anything. But Republicans using it as an excuse for Romney losing is probably not doing them any favours as they will lose again in 2016.

Romney miscalculated badly and thought if he can get the white vote, and assumed lower Democratic turnout, he will win.

There's no shortage of analysis of this. This is a good summary (Why Romney never saw it coming)

How did the Romney team get it so wrong? According to those involved, it was a mix of believing anecdotes about party enthusiasm and an underestimation of their opponents’ talents. The Romney campaign thought Obama’s base had lost its affection for its candidate. They believed Obama would win only if he won over independent voters. So Romney focused on independents and the economy, which was their key issue. The Republican ground game was focused on winning those voters. “We thought the only way to win was doing well with independents and we were kicking ass with independents,” says a top aide. One senior adviser bet me that if Obama won Ohio, he would donate $1,000 for every point that Romney won independents to my favorite charity. (That would be a $10,000 hit since Romney lost Ohio but won independents by 10 points). In the end, Romney won independents nationally by five points—and it didn’t matter one bit.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign was openly dismissive of the Obama ground game. Why are they wasting so much money with neighborhood offices, they asked? (In Ohio, for example, Obama had almost 100 more offices than Romney.) In retrospect, the Romney team is in awe and full of praise of the Obama operation. “They spent four years working block by block, person by person to build their coalition,” says a top aide. They now recognize that those offices were created to build personal contacts, the most durable and useful way to gain voters.

As for being too moderate, the reason their Latino vote collapsed below McCain levels , which was below Bush II levels was because Romney was too far right.
Asian votes being 3/4 against Romney also shows minorities, even ones who should be natural allies to the Republican message of small government, and lower taxes for 'producers' have no traction, as Asians believe in a strong government backstopping the economy, and dislike all the racism and anti-science stance of the party.

 

[Arwon]

Aren't "indepenedents" mostly just disgruntled Republicans these days?

 

[AlpsStranger]

As for being too moderate, the reason their Latino vote collapsed below McCain levels , which was below Bush II levels was because Romney was too far right.
Asian votes being 3/4 against Romney also shows minorities, even ones who should be natural allies to the Republican message of small government, and lower taxes for 'producers' have no traction, as Asians believe in a strong government backstopping the economy, and dislike all the racism and anti-science stance of the party.

This is exactly how I view the Asian vote.

They are probably natural Republicans and have very little use for the labor/Moore type of liberalism. On the other hand, I doubt they are big fans of evolution denial and Todd Akin.

I'm open to Republican economic ideas and even ( to some extent ) social ideas, but I'd rather burn the whole country down around my ears than be ruled by someone's religious whims.

 

[classical_hero]

Well then start a new country. This is what John Adams said about the US.
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Clearly he saw the value in the religion of the day, which is of course Christianity and those laws that America are founded upon are clearly founded upon the principles and precepts found in the Bible.

 

[ace99]

I didn't realize John Adams was the sole individual responsible for the founding of the entire United States and the writing of all its laws. And you're likely taking that quote of context and misinterpreting it. Also you're Australian, what do you know?

 

[useless]

The treaty of tripoli would disagree with you, infact the founding fathers would, but what do they know?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well then start a new country. This is what John Adams said about the US.
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Clearly he saw the value in the religion of the day, which is of course Christianity and those laws that America are founded upon are clearly founded upon the principles and precepts found in the Bible.

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." - Thomas Paine

Sorry, these silver bullet arguments don't work. We're deciding who we are in real time, every time we vote. Right-wing Christianity dearly wishes that quotes like this entitled it to automatic victory, but they don't.

I realize the existence of people like me makes you wake up in a cold sweat, but tough luck. We're going to have our freedom too, and the world isn't going to end because of it.

Besides, take what you're saying to the obvious conclusion. Suppose 75% of the country ends up being okay with gay marriage. Should the other 25% simply be allowed to ban it nationally because of scripture?

I don't want to come into your church and stop your service. I'm not trying to kill your religion. I want to be left alone.

 

[CivCube]

Romney lost because Obama beat him.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Well then start a new country. This is what John Adams said about the US.
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Clearly he saw the value in the religion of the day, which is of course Christianity and those laws that America are founded upon are clearly founded upon the principles and precepts found in the Bible.

Cool, but this is the 21st century now.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Cool, but this is the 21st century now.

I'm not sure that's a good argument. Time alone doesn't prove anything.

A good argument is that government by religious belief is less popular now, and those who still cleave to it don't have the right to tyrannically impose it once they are a solid minority. And no, I'm not saying Christians are a minority. I'm saying theocratic Christians are a minority.

 

[dexters]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/u...conservatives-failed-to-sway-voters.html?_r=0

Evangelicals and Religious Right reeling at repudiation of their message

They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency, but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, and saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Obama’s policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.

However, they acknowledge that they are losing ground. The evangelical share of the population is both declining and graying, studies show. Large churches like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, which have provided an organizing base for the Christian right, are losing members.

“In the long run, this means that the Republican constituency is going to be shrinking on the religious end as well as the ethnic end,” said James L. Guth, a professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

Meanwhile, religious liberals are gradually becoming more visible. Liberal clergy members spoke out in support of same-sex marriage, and one group ran ads praising Mr. Obama’s health care plan for insuring the poor and the sick. In a development that highlighted the diversity within the Catholic Church, the “Nuns on the Bus” drove through the Midwest warning that the budget proposed by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, would cut the social safety net

 

[AlpsStranger]

Many of the votes that are blocking things like SSM and marijuana legalization are literally dying. I'm not saying I'm glad they're dead, that would be terrible, but I do appreciate the side effect of them not being able to vote any longer.

The fact is that secular people are coming into our own. We believe in a neutral, as opposed to an explicitly Christian, public square. I know some very religious people who are politically secular, and it's about damn time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hopefully, they don't get any medical marijuana from Obamacare to ease the pain of the dying process.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well then start a new country. This is what John Adams said about the US.
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Clearly he saw the value in the religion of the day, which is of course Christianity and those laws that America are founded upon are clearly founded upon the principles and precepts found in the Bible.

John Adams was an authoritarian who arrested dissidents to his government, I don't really care what he said. Read Jefferson or something

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." - Thomas Paine

Most Evangelicals really don't. You may think we do, but we don't.

God is a God of love who wants every person to come to him and be saved.



Besides, take what you're saying to the obvious conclusion. Suppose 75% of the country ends up being okay with gay marriage. Should the other 25% simply be allowed to ban it nationally because of scripture?

I don't want to come into your church and stop your service. I'm not trying to kill your religion. I want to be left alone.

There are some people on here who have implied that the state should force churches to marry gays. They are a minority on here, and thus an extreme minority IRL, but the fact that they exist still scares me. And the extreme hyperbole from some parts of the gay rights movement makes me less sympathetic to it.

I don't see how not recognizing SSM ISN'T leaving you alone however. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. At best, they're being somewhat discriminatory (And fairly minorly so if the alternative is a civil union.)

I don't even really care anymore. I can't vote for it, or based on it, but you can have it state by state as far as I'm concerned, as long as my church doesn't have to get within ten miles of it.

Many of the votes that are blocking things like SSM and marijuana legalization are literally dying. I'm not saying I'm glad they're dead, that would be terrible, but I do appreciate the side effect of them not being able to vote any longer.

The fact is that secular people are coming into our own. We believe in a neutral, as opposed to an explicitly Christian, public square. I know some very religious people who are politically secular, and it's about damn time.

You'll have it within 20-30 years. Just rememeber to leave us alone when you end up in power

 

[kochman]

Suppose 75% of the country ends up being okay with gay marriage. Should the other 25% simply be allowed to ban it nationally because of scripture?

Obviously not, that's enough to make an amendment for marriage rights.

I really don't understand the opposition to it. What do you get from marriage being legally recognized in the USA? Tax breaks, basically.

I recent survey showed that less than 4% of the population is gay...
So, let's say they ALL got married and filed jointly, is the tax revenue loss that important? Not really...

So, people want to get bent out of shape about a legal term...

How about a compromise? The US and state governments won't recognize ANY "marriage", but they will recognize civil unions, which anyone can have with another person, tax break included...

DOMA doesn't even need to go away with this idea, because it becomes defunct defacto.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Obviously not, that's enough to make an amendment for marriage rights.

I wasn't the one who said it. Alps did.

I really don't understand the opposition to it. What do you get from marriage being legally recognized in the USA? Tax breaks, basically.

There are other rights there to, which I support.

I do somewhat object to the use of the word "Marriage" which you addressed below. I object to it based on natural law principles but I honestly am prepared to just about let them have it. But I still don't really support it. It just has zero effect on what candidates I support.

I recent survey showed that less than 4% of the population is gay...
So, let's say they ALL got married and filed jointly, is the tax revenue loss that important? Not really...

Oh, I couldn't care less about that. "Civil Union" them all. The less the gubbamint pockets the better.

So, people want to get bent out of shape about a legal term...

Honestly, that is my concern. I'm not rabidly "Anti" it, but I am mildly opposed for this reason.

How about a compromise? The US and state governments won't recognize ANY "marriage", but they will recognize civil unions, which anyone can have with another person, tax break included...

Go for it.

That way government isn't changing the definition of marriage.

 

[say1988]

They are a minority on here, and thus an extreme minority IRL, but the fact that they exist still scares me

You really think that a society that allows churches to refuse to marry people because they are black will force them to marry gays? The whole idea is utterly ludicrous.

 

[say1988]

I don't see how not recognizing SSM ISN'T leaving you alone however.

It doesn't affect most people personally, but for those that lose numerous rights and privileges it is certainly not leaving them alone.
What would you say if the government said evangelicals cannot have their marriages recognized? Is that "leaving you alone"?