Postelection talk of "lessons learned" is often exaggerated and misleading, and so it is in 2012. A week after President Obama won re-election, two themes are dominant. First, that Mr. Obama kept his job because key elements of his base—notably young people, African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans—turned out for him. Second, that the growing size of these voting blocs represents a decisive challenge for the Republican Party. Both points are true, but most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP´s problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was
I´m thinking "lessons learned" in election 2012 is massive election voter fraud by the DemocRATS. We learned that 53 or was it 59 voter precincts in Philadelphia did not show one single vote for Romney? Also until we can quash the big DemocRAT lie that voter ID is an attempt by the Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters we will never be able to get honest elections. In effect, they are saying "The Racist Republicans want to disenfranchise black voters using Voter ID". This lie is spread all around large urban areas with mostly black populations. The despicable DemocRATS started this lie in earnest during and after the 2000 vote in Florida. We cannot let them get away with this big lie.
What a doofus this writer is - Mitt was a great candidate and would have made a great president unlike the flapeared donkey that the idiots voted for. The only good thing that will happen for these loser voters is that they will ave to live with the prez and his spending and tax raising. Hope all that voted for him will be so delighted with mr. flapears.
Mitt never effectively combated all the negative advertising. In our area the negative ads ran for 6 months straight. Sometimes there were multiple negative ads back-to-to-back on TV. He should have pointed out that Obama is a [Blankety-BLank] liar during the first debate.
No. 4, Santorum and Gingrich drained Romney´s money dry and after defeating them he had nothing with which to fight for six months. Since they never had a chance to get the nomination due to not being on the ballots of some states and counties, they had no business throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery and their supporters should have understood the futility and not encouraged their folly.
Another blue-blood Ivy League Country Club Republican will go down again. And again. And again. The Skulls and Bones set will never win again. If we keep sending them up, even dirtbags like Obama will defeat them. Until we get the idea-someone like Sarah would have been better. Our base would have been secure. The fools that vote the ´Firsts´ would have been attracted. We keep producing these weak candidates and then are surprised at the result.
Then there is the Republican GOTV infrastructure which was swamped by the competence of Axelrod and Co. Our side tried out a Beta product on Election day and it crashed. The Democrats had three secret dress rehearsals the previous three weekends prior to the Election, and theirs worked beautifully. To our chagrin. Throw in a couple cups of voter fraud and you have the reason the Rats won- again.
Agree w/ #8 that Santorum, who could not even win in his own state, made a vanity run. I fear that he was only encouraged to think that he could win in 2016 by making a few changes to his campaign staff. Gingrich is a bit in this category also, in that his unfavorables could not be overcome with the GOP primary voters.
The next set of candidates had better have a spouse with nerves of steel because the Dems have learned how to destroy candidates by threatening their families, like they did with Cain. They are doing the same thing with Petraeus and Allen right now. They had better start right now, with good accountants, lawyers, investment advisors, and technology experts cleaning up and sanitizing every little detail.
Mitt was a very good candidate and certainly the most electable among those GOPers who sought the job during the primaries. In fact, I think that he was our only shot at retaking the White House. Would Jeb Bush been the better choice? Maybe if he had changed his last name. Should we have run Clint Eastwood?
If Mitt was weak it was only because he staggered out of the most brutal (and pointless) primary in my memory.
I´m with posters #8 & 12. Mitt was a the best and most electable of the available candidates. Two myopic and tin-eared egotists named Santorum and Gingrich hurt him. I´d be willing to wager that neither one of them is displeased with Obama´s re-election.
And Cain? Palin? It must be fun to live in a fantasy word.
The fact that Romney needed to spend $15 million in attack ads to beat Gingrich in Florida should tell you something. Mitt got the primary campaign he sought: personal and negative. Romney´s strategy was to render each potential rival unacceptable through attack ads and adroitly-placed opposition research. It worked, but it cost him, and not just in monetary terms: Romney´s national favorable/unfavorable poll numbers plummeted during Florida BEFORE Gingrich´s own negative ads started running. They never fully recovered. As I pointed out at the time, no nominee has ever won the presidency with favorability numbers that bad. Romney destroyed himself before Obama spent a dollar against him. Then Mitt´s excellent acceptance speech was wiped off the front pages by Clint´s little chair chat, and his campaign´s over-reliance on bad polling assumptions left him standing pat on a non-existent lead in the final weeks. Team Romney insiders declared key swing states "baked" and sent Mitt chasing votes in Pennsylvania. It was a bad campaign, badly run. Mitt Romney is a good man who might have been a fine president if he hadn´t hired such lousy campaign operatives and listened to so many delusional advisers.
A lot of people, including me, would like to know who the all-powerful Republican "elite" are. Name me some names. They have produced such losers as Dole, McCain and Romney, ever in search of the elusive Independant voter. It would be helpful to toss them overboard as we´ll as the actual politicians. How do we get control of the guys who control the party?
I owe Mitt Romney an apology. During the 2012 Republican presidential primary season, I repeatedly criticized Romney — and personally challenged him during his editorial board meeting with the Washington Examiner — for promising that if elected, on day one of his presidency, he would grant Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. As I reported, under the text of the law, the ability to offer waivers to states was subject to many restrictions and wouldn’t even be an option until 2017, four years after his hypothetical swearing in. Though I still believe I was right about what the statute said,
One interesting, but not always precisely reliable, measure of partisan preference is what pollsters call the generic vote -- which party´s candidates people would vote for in elections to the House of Representatives. Over the past two decades, responses have tended to underpredict Republicans´ performance in subsequent elections, though that was the case more in 1992-2002 than recently. The last two months have seen sharp shifts in the generic vote, as National Journal´s Charlie Cook notes, with Democrats peaking during the government shutdown in the first half of October and then a sharp swing to Republicans after the spotlight shifted
In 1970 the eccentric but insightful economist Albert Hirschman published a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty." It explored how people respond when a private firm´s or a government agency´s performance is deteriorating. Some people choose to leave, buying another product or service or leaving the government´s jurisdiction. Others use voice, complaining about defects or lobbying for change. Hirschman tended to deplore exit and exalt voice, and urged firms and governments to nurture loyalty so consumers and citizens would stick around and improve things. There´s obviously some relevance here to a current government program now performing far below even its detractors´ expectations: Obamacare.
One striking thing about the new White House Obamacare promotion campaign is that so far it hasn´t had much to say about the central focus of Obamacare, which is helping Americans buy affordable health insurance. Look at the cases President Obama has highlighted. There are young people who say they have benefited from being allowed to stay on their parents´ health policies until age 26. There are people suffering from serious illnesses who say they are thankful there will no longer be lifetime caps on insurance benefits. There are stories of people with pre-existing conditions who will be able to purchase
If life under ObamaCare is as wonderful as supporters tell us, how come Harry Reid is keeping his staffers from enjoying it? As part of the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and their office staffers are required to purchase their health insurance through the new ObamaCare exchanges. But Reid is the Senate majority leader. And he has just taken advantage of a loophole in the law that allows leaders in Congress to exempt their committee or leadership staffs. It makes for an illuminating contrast.
WASHINGTON—It is now apparent that our President has lied to us. He lied when he crooned soothingly about improving the healthcare of millions of Americans through vast changes in health policy that would actually lower their costs. Those costs are now going up, and they are going up for almost everyone. They will not come down. He lied when he said we could keep our present healthcare policy. Those policies are rapidly disappearing. He lied again when he said we could keep our doctors. He lied when he said his plan would not involve rationing. I could go on, but
Over the weekend, the Obama administration announced that it had met its self-imposed deadline to fix its balky health insurance exchange website for the "vast majority" of users. U.S. Health and Human Services officials issued a graphics-heavy, information-light report that claimed great leaps of progress from the earlier crash-prone website that frustrated most users for weeks. The administration says, Mission (Largely) Accomplished. The feds set the bar low and now claim to have cleared it. Federal officials crowed over the weekend that the website can handle 50,000 users at a time. But many more than that will likely flood in,
The question all week long was this: Who are you going to believe, an illegal alien or the president of the United States of America? Obviously, if it’s a president who once went by an alias, Barry Soetoro, you go with Uncle Omar, 100 percent, no questions asked. And so it was that the White House finally admitted to another, uh, misstatement — despite previous denials, Barack/Barry did sleep on his beloved Uncle Omar’s couch in Cambridge when he first moved here to attend Harvard Law School (speaking of which, we’re still waiting to see the president’s grades and his LSAT scores). But the
More young men in California rise in pitch at the end of their sentences when talking, new research shows. This process is known as "uptalk" or "valleygirl speak" and has in the past been associated with young females, typically from California or Australia.But now a team says that this way of speaking is becoming more frequent among men.The findings were presented at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in California. "We found use of uptalk in all of our speakers, despite their diverse backgrounds in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, bilingualism and gender," said Amanda Ritchart, a linguist at the University of
How do you get your arms around the catastrophe known as Obamacare? Is it even possible? At this point, I’m not sure it is. The list of individual disasters which threaten to ruin one-sixth of the U.S. economy and what has been, up until now, the best healthcare system in the world is exhaustive, and exhausting. The examples I will identify here barely scratch the surface. First but by no means foremost, we have the supposedly new and improved HealthCare.gov. Except it’s not, even the visible part. Stories still abound of people still failing to get in or to get through the enrollment
DAVID CORN: I saw a president who remains frustrated with the political-media culture that he has to work within, and that he´s looking to rally people, students here, and supporters, and people within the media. CHRIS MATTHEWS: But David Corn, you skeptic. He came to us today. He came amongst us. CORN: He´s trying to rally people behind this vision that he´s been promoting for a couple years. FINEMAN: By the way, he did it the end here, today, Chris, not by defending specifics, but by explaining why he´s in the game to begin with. And I don´t know about you, he´s
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced a new five-year strategic plan to improve safety for elderly drivers and passengers. Although they are statistically among the safest on the road, the number of older drivers is increasing dramatically — and with it, that group´s numbers of injuries and deaths. Since 2003, the population of older adults, defined as age 65 and older, has increased by 20% and the number of licensed older drivers increased by 21% to 35 million in 2012, according to NHTSA. Last year, NHTSA reported that 5,560 people older than 65 died and 214,000 were injured
The most curious thing of all about the November jobs report released on Friday was the huge drop in the unemployment rate — and the fact that the Labor Department chose not to disclose that the data going into that figure are under investigation for falsification. On Nov. 19, I broke the news in my column that the Census Bureau, which collects data that goes into the jobless rate on behalf of Labor, had caught one of its enumerators fabricating interviews in 2010. The culprit said back then (and to me during an interview) that he was told to do so by
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack,