Steve Sailer: iSteve: If Romney loses ...

September 18, 2012

If Romney loses ...

What lessons should Republicans draw?

What lessons will Republicans draw?

164 comments:

Koop said...: What difference will it make if they learn their lesson, if it is learned too late?

The U.S. govt credit rating has been downgraded again, and the loans that had been propping up the budget for the short term are now untenable. The QE3 money printing machine will destroy the dollar, and they stood by watching.

We will learn to value the civilization our ancestors fought to achieve in our regret.; 9/18/12, 5:32 AM
Carol said...: Oh they probably *should* conclude that they did not put forth an articulate advocate for conservative values etc. But I don't know who that would be. I don't see any more Reagans on their bench.

But they *will* conclude they should have run a woman or minority, and done more outreach.; 9/18/12, 5:33 AM
DaveinHackensack said...: Should draw: Candid Romney (at fundraiser) could have won if he emphasized policies that could get some of the 47% of non-income tax payers up into tax-paying income levels (e.g., tightening labor market via immigration, promoting balanced trade instead of unilateral free trade, etc.).

Will draw: Smart, socially moderate candidates with track records of managerial competence = fail. Must appeal more toward social conservatism of Catholic, Latino voters, plus promise them tax cuts that will benefit them when they become wealthy entrepreneurs, and easier immigration for their cousins in their home countries. Also, run George P. Bush.; 9/18/12, 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: They will draw the conclusion that they didn't try hard enough to attract blacks, Mexicans, and single women by promising to give away white men's income. They should instead try to be the protector of the tax payers rather than the tax eaters. A funding crisis in the bond market would help a lot.; 9/18/12, 5:55 AM
Jenni said...: Should draw: none. Romney is a good candidate and generally running a good campaign.

Will draw: the cultural conservatives will say he should have pushed social issues more (they are wrong). A large part of the Republican party will whine about how they needed to nominate a "true" conservative to excite their base. Their depression will cover up the fact that they don't agree what a "true" conservative is.; 9/18/12, 6:09 AM
Bill said...: I fearlessly predict that Steve's readership will read "What lessons should Republicans draw?" too literally as "What lessons do I personally want Republicans to draw?"

Then they will answer "Republicans should be more glibertarian."

It would not help if Steve re-phrased as "What should Republicans do to increase their chances of winning," because glibertarian's will still read this as "What lessons do I personally want Republicans to draw?"; 9/18/12, 6:11 AM
Laguna Beach Fogey said...: To ask these questions, Steve, is to answer them.

Americans are screwed.; 9/18/12, 6:12 AM
Orthodox said...: I'm assuming by Republicans you mean GOP establishment.

They will learn that they can't send a Massachusetts moderate to act like a conservative. If they want a cipher, they need to get one from a state such as Texas. So they will give Rick Perry public speaking lessons.; 9/18/12, 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: They will draw the lesson that they must double down on invade-the-world-invite-the-world. And on abortion. And that they must never allow anyone like Ron Paul to emerge again.

In 2016 Jeb will be considered as the logical nominee. "He has paid his dues," they will tell us. "Plus, he has name recognition." Rubio will be veep pick to add a little color to the ticket, and to attract the coming tidal wave of public-affairs-minded Hispanic voters (any day now). Paul Ryan will be left out in the cold. Too young. Hasn't paid his dues.

The alternative or "dark horse" candidate will be Rick Santorum. There will be a lot of talk about Palin's possibly joining him on the ticket, but Rick will say he prefers Huckabee. Huckabee will be noncommital.

The Bush machine will sweep all before it with the announcement that it intends to make John McCain Secretary of Defense. Whiskey will consider this a near-ideal pair and will swoon at length on here. The usual commenters will offer the usual arguments about the usual things. McCain will pull a James Stockdale during the convention, but only people outside of the party - i.e., 90% of America - will consider that to be important.

Bush will lay down because Michelle Obama will be the Dem nominee. Her 2012 convention address will be retroactively regarded (suddenly) as the greatest public speech since Lincoln at Gettysburg.

And that is how America will finally break the glass ceiling and elect its first woman president.; 9/18/12, 6:14 AM
Mark said...: If they lose, the lesson they should draw is that the voters don't want a bellicose foreign policy or a focus on social conservative issues like gay marriage or stamping out pornography. Most people have declining incomes and are struggling to make ends meet and they want a government that focuses on improving the economy. As someone once said, "it's the economy stupid". The lesson they will probably draw was that Romney wasn't made "likeable" enough or that the Republicans need to spend more time courting hispanics and blacks.; 9/18/12, 6:16 AM
Dahlia said...: I don't think he'll lose when the economy is this bad, so I can't even deliberate on the hypothetical. I would want to get my hand on every bit of data in the case such an event occurred.

Do any history buffs have examples of a president winning re-election with this kind of an economy?

I remember in 1992, my uncle voted for Clinton and when asked why by my grandmother, he just shook his head and replied that the economy was so bad. As if he didn't have a choice. He then went on to describe the woes he was seeing in his state.

During Bush's presidency, his poll numbers tracked perfectly with gas prices.

Yes, you can say on the one hand the people are venal, but on the other, there is no greater impetus to not screw up the economy than knowing it is the end-all and be-all.; 9/18/12, 6:21 AM
WMarkW said...: The parties have devolved into the tax PAYING party, and the tax RECEVING one. The Republicans (if they lose) SHOULD draw the conclusion that the list of net taxpayers include a lot of people who work for a living, and that their pro-wealthy economics and narrow views of social issues, turns off broad segments of potential supporters.

The lesson they will draw, is that Romney screwed up and they need a more "core" candidate to energize the base. They are wrong.; 9/18/12, 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, for starters they should cease being the corporate whores of the 1% - and actually look out for the vast bulk of the American population whose incomes (but not expenses) have frozen for nigh on 45 years.
Secondly, get rid of that Irish square-headed big eared monkey-faced putz Paul Ryan and actually put up someone with a brain as VP.
The silly wanker has a juvenile Ayn Rand fixation, a fixation that's giving many of the golf-buggied nose tubed crowd the willies as they think (rightly) that he's just itching to stop their medicaid leaving their fat bodies to be picked clean vultures in the street.
Let's face it, the Party is beyond saving, beyond caring and beyond salvation - it deserves to die, as I keep banging on, the Repubs are totally and utterly, absolutely and completely, 100% bought out by the 1% - in reality they are just the tax avoidance scheme of the plutocrats and the malicious little elf guardians (nasty,deformed, poison dwarves who nevertheless are able to render enormous evil)of the ill gotten loot of the 1%. Never unestimate the malice or cunning of the gnome guardians and their evil god.
The evil gnomes exist by 'conning the mugs'. Those whom they secretly hate, loathe and despise "white trash, artificial fibers!, flyover people," as the paid for whores of the 1% contemptuously sneer down their Brooks Bros blazers are conned into keeping their squid-vampire opressor alive by pandering to religious bullshit, hints to white privilege (without actually ever doing anything) and general hucksterism.
No, reality to senior Repub establishment is plunging - ball deep- into the oft abused and oft exposed cooze of porn starlets whom their masters, the 1%, reatin as a potent reward, that and a ready supply of cocaine. With these blandishments the deformed gnomes have, from their evil god a taste of heaven on earth, from that drip feeding by the plutocrats they will fight like tigers to keep the plutocratic existence going.; 9/18/12, 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: What would Joe Scarborough say?; 9/18/12, 6:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Honestly, I doubt the Republicans would care to draw any lessons that would really matter. They'd probably rather win with Romney than lose with Romney, but they'd certainly rather lose with Romney than win with a genuine small-government candidate who would dismantle the gravy train.

The lesson that WE need to learn is that we need a true conservative party.; 9/18/12, 6:41 AM
Jason said...: They WILL draw the lesson that they should nominate someone more right-wing. But I'm not convinced that's a winning strategy.

I know we're all supposed to hate this idea, but I really see no way the GOP can remain a viable political party without significant hispanic outreach. I suspect that, paradoxically, will be a major lesson as well, which may lead to a very incoherent nominee in 2016, say a Marco Rubio, who has a position on immigration as muddled as Romney's on health care.; 9/18/12, 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Should: (1) don't let the party be captured by socially conservative christians and hawkish jews, and (2) don't alienate a sizable constituency during a close election by snubbing a popular candidate with a dedicated following.

Will: double down on socially conservative christians and hawkish jews, because they were the only ones who voted Republican.; 9/18/12, 6:50 AM
Puggg said...: What lesson WILL the Republicans draw?

That Romney was too right wing. So in 2016, they'll nominate Olympia Snowe, and she'll lose. They'll say she was too right wing, and nominate an Obama daughter in 2020.; 9/18/12, 6:54 AM
Amigo said...: They should figure out that RINO's are losers. But more likely,the Republicans will learn nothing.; 9/18/12, 6:56 AM
Cyprian Korzeniowski said...: "What lessons should Republicans draw?"

Sailer Strategy.

"What lessons will Republicans draw?"

None. Were I Mitt's campaign manager, I'd be running ads featuring Jeremiah Wright and Michele "First time I've been proud of my country" Obama 24/7. Joe Ricketts, of the Ricketts family which owns the Chicago Cubs, wanted to do this but Romney shot him down:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-17/ricketts-super-PAC-Rev-Wright/55046250/1

"Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, repudiated the Wright advertising strategy hours after the Obama campaign complained he had responded too tepidly.

"I think it's the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign," Romney said. "I hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the future and about issues and about a vision for America."

Romney is unwilling to play rough and unwilling to control the frame. This is why he will lose. This is the reason McCain lost.

It's worth pondering that Romney and McCain would love to start another bloodbath in the Middle East, yet they get wet feet over something that would get them labelled as racist by the MSM. (Imagine if Jerry Sandusky was overheard using racial slurs!); 9/18/12, 7:01 AM
Henry Canaday said...: 1) It is going to be increasingly difficult for the Republican Party, dedicated to limited Constitutional government, to win elections in a country in which a majority of voters, as either employees or recipients of public benefits, receive at least a significant portion of their incomes from the government.

2) It is going to be increasingly difficult for the Republican Party, dedicated to limited Constitutional government, to win elections in a country in which a majority of voters, as either employees or recipients of public benefits, receive at least a significant portion of their incomes from the government.; 9/18/12, 7:09 AM
The Anti-Gnostic said...: Grim ones, and they won't.; 9/18/12, 7:32 AM
Seth said...: When Romney loses...

The GOP will have lost with Dole, McCain and Romney since 1996. America doesn't want to elect these septuagenarian grandpa types.

The GOP will take away nothing of value and will probably nominate Haley Barbour in 2016.; 9/18/12, 7:33 AM
Harry Baldwin said...: 1. The GOP should realize it isn't producing good candidates. The primary process was reasonably fair and yet it churned out Romney, a candidate for whom support among the base is lukewarm. Yet which of the other candidates would really have been better?

The obsession with not raising taxes on the rich is not winning any working class and middle class votes (except maybe in the upper reaches of the middle class). I'm no longer buying the proposition that super-rich people are producing jobs with their tax savings. I understand it's good for fund-raising.

The GOP should also realize that it's demographically doomed. In another dozen years (if the US hasn't fallen apart by then) the more leftward candidate will always win the presidency. I think it's too late to do anything about that, not that Republicans were going to anyway.

2. The GOP will probably increase its (futile) efforts to attract Hispanic voters. Other than that it will draw the same lessons it drew after the 2008 loss: that is, none.; 9/18/12, 7:37 AM
PropagandistHacker said...: I left the GOP a long time ago. I now will democrat. Why? Although the Dems are associated with the anti-white, anti-male, pro-immigration, multiculti subculture that puts me as a white male at a disadvantage and that is also destroyed the unity of the electorate and thereby facilitating elite control of the government, the GOP is even worse. The GOP does nothing but give lip service to anti-immigration, anti-multiculti, anti-race spoils.

At least the Dems have done some few things for working class people. I don't care what the GOP learns from this. They are pure evil, as opposed to the Dems, who are only 90 pct evil.

I would encourage all whites and especially white males to vote Dem. Go to the Dem party. By splitting the white vote between Dem and GOP, you allow the minorities to have a say in things. Go the Dems and force them to be anti-multiculti, anti-diversity, anti-immigration. The white majority can only enforce its will by being unified.

Vote for Dems in the primary that are anti-immigration, anti-diversity. Immigration and multiculti was born of a subculture created by and for the rich, the upper class. Those ideas serve the best interests of the upper class and work against the white majority working class bloc. The GOP is pure evil. You can never change them. Go over to the Dem side and make them serve US.; 9/18/12, 7:44 AM
Anonymous said...: The Republicans could back off on their war on women and their pandering to the religious right.

I am pretty right wing. I believe that Romney would be a good responsible manager and would do a good job. Obama, with his ties to race hucksters and his refusal to protect our borders, is ripping the country apart.

Nevertheless I will vote for Obama. The Republicans, whose Gods tell them that they must keep their hands firmly implanted in the reproductive tracts of our families' women, terrify and repel me.; 9/18/12, 7:48 AM
Pat Boyle said...: I'm not so sure that there will be any Republicans around if they lose this election. Many Tea Party types are making noises about abandoning the Republican Party if they lose this one. There is also the possibility that Eric Holder in a second term might just arrest Republicans.

Albertosaurus; 9/18/12, 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Will: rollover harder and faster

MDR; 9/18/12, 8:08 AM
Pincher Martin said...: They will draw two contradictory lessons.

One lesson will be drawn by the conservative and populist wing of the party. They will argue that Romney was too moderate and didn't make enough contrasts between his positions and those of Obama. In their minds, we need another Reagan.

Another lesson will be drawn by the GOP establishment. They will argue that Romney was a bad candidate who didn't appeal to Hispanics, women, gays, young people, etc. The specific demographics Romney didn't appeal to will change depending on the establishment figure making the argument, but the general argument will be the same in all cases. In their minds, we need another Bush.

I agree with neither of these two arguments, but if forced to choose between them, then I prefer the populist approach.

The lesson Republicans should draw is to abandon the imperial ambitions of Neoconservatism - which have become increasingly unpopular over the last half-decade - and to broaden their populist appeal. But certain habits of thinking are so fixed among the Republican establishment that I don't see this happening any time soon. The continual failure of their policies doesn't make much of dent in their confidence that they will ultimately be proved right.; 9/18/12, 8:09 AM
John D said...: If the tax users(who will always vote for whoever promises them more of your money) outnumber the tax payers, and how can they not, ever more so, as we continue to replace First World wealth creators with Third World tax users, I'm at an utter loss as to how Republicans ever win the presidency again, especially with the crazy electoral college system, where we forfeit the biggest electoral prizes right off the top.

The only way we get a majority again (and that, but for a short window) is to vote explicitly in our own racial self-interest, and there are way too many ethnomasochist SWPLs around to ever see that happening.

I think it's over for Republicans winning presidential elections.; 9/18/12, 8:12 AM
irishman said...: What lessons should they draw?

1. Stop running psychopaths.

2. Offer something, anything to those still stuck making their first million.

3. Remember, the microphone is always on.

What lessons will they draw?

1. We lost because what the American voter really wants is more immigration.

2. This is what happens when poor people don't pay taxes.

3. We need a truce on social issues to concentrate on tax cuts for billionaires and the next round of trade agreements.; 9/18/12, 8:15 AM
Hunsdon said...: a) Less Whiskey.

b) More Whiskey.; 9/18/12, 8:19 AM
Robert Holmgren said...: High school elections have taught us that that to win you have to be popular and promise to bring the Rolling Stones to school for a free concert. Everyone knows the Stones won't be coming, but wouldn't it be cool?; 9/18/12, 8:23 AM
Think-King said...: Well it seems democracy is on its last gasp. Does it matter which side wins?

Let the winner fail rather than let America win.

The loser will...

Protest...
Sue...
Call independent prosecutor...
Investigate...
Attempt to impeach...
Invent conspiracy theories...
Obstruct...
Filibuster...

If you can't game the system to win, then let it all burn and hope the dumb sheep will be frustrated and disappointed enough with what results to ignorantly vote for "change" next time.; 9/18/12, 8:28 AM
Alcalde Jaime Miguel Curleo said...: Should--Romney-Ryan wouldn't have shifted the bureaucracy colossus one bit; Supreme Court appointments are now worthless anyway; and the Democrats' iron triangle will disintegrate the minute interest rates come back, so plan accordingly. Will--I have no idea, probably some canards about "outreach"; 9/18/12, 8:32 AM
FWG said...: What lesson should they draw? Follow the Sailer strategy and satisfy those who butter their bread.

What lesson will they draw? Diversity coming to a GOP near you!; 9/18/12, 8:42 AM
Assistant Village Idiot said...: The Democrats will demonise anything, so you can't make that go away. However, some things resonate more in the press than others, and the Republicans would do well to limit their damage there, though they cannot eliminate it without losing credibility with their own base. Don't tell me it is unfair and hypocritical that Democrats can score points on war and big business issues, the fact is that they do. Their branding has been good for decades in this regard, regardless of reality.

Secondly, if they are going to be concerned with the hispanic vote, they should focus their energy on what issues actually motivate that vote, not what new strategies they can find to brand themselves according to what popular wisdom says they care about. Liberal hispanics are framing the questions. Let that 20% of the hispanic vote go and focus on the other 80%, who don't think that differently from nonblack Americans. They have variations on the standard conservative, libertarian, and independent lines but are not out of range.

What the Republicans will conclude is that they should do the same thing, but harder.; 9/18/12, 8:49 AM
LemmusLemmus said...: Assume your words are being recorded.; 9/18/12, 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: A commenter at View from the Right puts it thus:

Two scenarios:
1. The election goes to the GOP and Mitt Romney wins with 52 percent of the vote, with exit polls showing that 65 percent of the white vote went to Romney but 95 percent of the black vote and 70 percent of the Hispanic vote went to Obama. Would the GOP come to its senses and realize that there are no “conservative minorities”? Would the GOP realize that the demographic trend is going to turn this years four percent victory margin into a five percent loss in 2016 and a 15 percent loss in 2020? Facing those stark numbers would the GOP remain unfazed? Would a radical change in immigration policy be forthcoming?

or

2. Obama wins by four percent with every “conservative” in America voting for Romney. Even if a defeat of that magnitude wakes them up, it will be too late anyway. What do you imagine will happen to the national psyche if Obama does win? What will whites do when they realize they are now powerless in the country they built?

Those are the two choices. Either immigration policy changes radically after Scenario 1, or we have Scenario 2. What else is there?

And another:

Texas is about to become a “blue” state within a few election cycles for the same demographic reasons that put California out of reach to Republican presidential candidates roughly a decade ago. At that point, people who are trying to restore this country (and/or combat the left) via Republican politics will be confronted with the futility of their efforts in a way that they’ve never been confronted before; the game that they’ve been playing with the left will be over given the painfully obvious nature of their defeat on the national scale. Once that happens, I expect real politics to begin again and for conservatives to start fighting back like cornered animals.; 9/18/12, 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I would say that they should let the dems tax and spend the country into oblivion, don't resist any spending proposals, hell, even offer a bunch yourselves. Then be waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.; 9/18/12, 9:01 AM
Auntie Analogue said...: Republicans can draw? Who knew?!; 9/18/12, 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe they should allow full on proportional quotas. Call the liberal elite on their bluff. I wonder how Harvard would feel if they were forced to make their student body 40% latino? How would Jews feel if they were only allowed to be 2% of Harvard? How would Brandeis feel?; 9/18/12, 9:07 AM
Beefy Levinson said...: I don't know what lessons they should draw but I know what they will draw: do the same thing only harder. Republicans, collectively, are the Bourbon monarchy: they forget nothing and learn nothing.; 9/18/12, 9:08 AM
Bobby said...: The only lesson is your strategy, but even that is doomed in the long run. Still, going all in on white males and married women is the only chance. No matter how far the GOP shifts left they will always be outflanked. Blacks are nearly 100% left, Hispanics 2 to 1 at least. Add in more and more never married/divorced/single mom women and it's over for Republicans in presidential elections, just sooner then we all may have thought.

Check out this video from Michael Moore on HuffPost. He says that Obama won in 2008 by 10 million votes, yet the only age demographic he won was the 18-29 group. He also lost the white vote. If he is right, and I don't doubt it, then that is one of the most frightening things I've heard in a long time.

Our president was chosen by the affirmative action crowd and the under 30 year olds. Think about the future and shudder...

Part I'm talking about starts at about 3:40. Notice who the bad guys are in the electorate who need to be defeated. Not hard to guess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE13hHvbS7w; 9/18/12, 9:08 AM
Severn said...: What lessons should Republicans draw?

That going along with - or in one cases avidly promoting - the racial replacement of your own electoral base (whites) with people who vote Democratic (non-whites) is stupid.

Note that McCain beat Obama fairly easily among whites in 2008, 55% to 43%. Romney will certainly do even better than that this time.

Of course, the biggest obstacle to them learning this is that the Republican party is run by and for libertarinianish businessmen for whom it is an article of faith that people ought to be a fungible commodity.; 9/18/12, 9:16 AM
TFD said...: To not throw their lot behind a soul-less, corporate stooge, who has no allegiance to anything other than money?

Both these political parties are hopelessly corrupt and rotten to the core (which I don't necessarily blame the members themselves for... the incentives inevitably guide these parties to their present state).

Would be interesting to see how a Nigel Farage type would do... although I doubt the Republican party would want to try something so "crazy" and "out of the box" as that. They prefer their party-line stiffs.; 9/18/12, 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...: That the Republican party is now completely bought by neocon interests.

Dan Senor owned Mitt's foreign policy.

Wehner(another neocon from the Commentary crowd and who tried privatize social security) was rising up the ranks on his domestic side.

On immigration, Obama has deported twice as many illegals(and that ain't saying much as we all know) than Bush did.

A few days ago, Romney went full circle and basically endorsed the same kind of amnesty program that Bush protogé Rubio proposed a few months ago.

How are they going to pay for all these things, all these wars? Well, massive tax cuts for the 1 % and then load up the debt massively.

That's what happened under Bush.

Yes, Obama's bad. But really, Republicans are as of now worse.

Obama's not controlled by nearly the same amount of sheer tenacity by the Israel lobby.

Did you see the DNC spectatcle where 50 % of the crowd booed against putting Jerusalem back in?

Obama is a Rockefeller Republican on foreign policy.

Old school WASP. That's why the neocons hate him, like Bill Kristol.

Yes, he's a disaster on immigration, but by now Republicans are a bigger one.

2016?

Either a neanderthal like Santorum, who will never win, or more likely Jeb Bush will try to slither back in.

But we know the drill by now.
Massive tax cuts to the 1 %, massive amensty/illegal immigration(like under his brother).

Throw a few bones to the neocons, shed more American blood, and go on a debt-fuelled binge.

The answer is simple: the Republican party now needs to finally die. The Democratic party will suffice until we find a new, more suitable home.

It's far from perfect but ANYONE deluding themselves that the modern Republican party on issues of the economy/debt/immigration/war isn't, on equal balance, worse than the Dems is kidding themselves.

And again, that ain't saying much.

The neocons drove the party to the ground completely. They're losing control step by step of the Democrats.

Again: bury the fucking party.

I think it will take at least one or two elections before most white conservatives get the message and the need to start over.

The neocons aren't going out until they are pushed out.

And so far it's the left that's doing the heavy lifting against the neocons, like it or not.

Dowd's recent column in the NYT predictably got attacked as 'anti-Semitic', but her column is yet another sign how it's only the left that stands up to the neocons.

The Republican party is now a sick and diseased cancer beyond redemption.

Destroy it.; 9/18/12, 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I hope a Romney loss would entail the end of these American puppet shows.

A humiliating loss will cause the Republican establishment to either A: Learn to embrace racial politics, purge the "diversocrats" from their ranks, and get ready for some nitty-gritty tribal elections that actually entail representing some kind of large population of constituents.

When America was White and homogenous most elections at their core were merely choosing your preferential Elites. Those Elites would then use their power to support their preferential co-Elites with gov contracts and handouts and so forth.

Corporations won't matter much for Republicans in the future as:
A. Americans get poorer, and B. the corporations continue to become multinational and tech-heavy. (i.e, less White Americans)

The Jewish lobby and the military industrial complex won't matter much because, war with Iran notwithstanding, America is clearly becoming more insular and will only countinue to do so as our power recedes.

That pretty much leaves "socialist vs capatalist!" raceless economic battles and calls for great crusades out of the future election jargon. The only real thing left is: "what are you going to do for my people?".; 9/18/12, 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: "What lessons should Republicans draw?"

Don't let the extremist wing of your party drive away competent politicians early in the nomination process.

"What lessons will Republicans draw?"

We need to nominate a "real" conservative to win elections.; 9/18/12, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Not you too, Steve.

The Dems and the media want Romney supporters to be dispirited and thinking this is a loss.

This is about affecting the votes of bandwagoning suburbanites who just want to vote with the majority.; 9/18/12, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: The ONLY lesson is that the media must be attacked.

Listen, I didn't know it was this bad until I started randomly listening to the 3 major networks at least 2 times a week and until I started sampling their morning shows.

Coverage of Holder's justice department was/is just atrocious. NBC didn't even mention the phrase "Fast and Furious" (Issa's investigation had been on-going for over a year) until Issa said he was going to bring contempt charges against the AG. Then, and only then, did NBC "cover" the story (it did 2 more pieces) and they didn't give the story headline status.

The unemployment numbers for each month, even when most dire (like last month when the rate actually went down because so many people gave up looking for jobs that they weren't counted as unemployed, have always been spun by the major 3 in Obama's favor, either by not mentioning the more important "dropped out of the market" number or by placing mention of the story in the newscast's last 5 minutes, signaling, "Hey, nothing immportant here."
The examples of spinning for Obama are endless. For example, the WA press corps held their press briefing on Air Force One yesterday, and the transcript of that briefing shows there were NO QUESTIONS about the Prez's MidEast policies--none. WTF?

Since most American voters still get their news from these 3 networks and since these guys have ties to the Democrat Party (like George Stephanopoulos and many others), what's to expect but shilling for the Democrat, esp. when that Dem. is black? I am sure next cycle they'll be promoting a woman or perhaps a Chicano (whoops, Latino...where did the word "Chicano" go, btw?)such as the ineffective mayor of LA.

Check out today's Daily Caller blog for the emails that show the direct collusion between DOJ and the tax-exempt Media Matters.
Think the msm will give it play? Nope.; 9/18/12, 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: con't.

Ordinary citizens who were concerned enough about taxing and overspending to join the tea party groups across the country now have to turn their attention to the media. They have to--they must march, picket, yell, scream, do what it takes.

I don't know, Steve, but I once thought secession movements to be the idiotic province of idiotic people. I'm not at all convinced of that anymore.

Here's a question that I ponder: Just say that Romney were to win and a rosy scenario unfolded, that this made business people open up their wallets and hire, that Obamacare was repealed and something else much less "grand" and intrusive replaced it and so on. Say the economy started a real recovery with the debt crises being addressed, spending cut, entitlements reformed, and so on. Would this do anything to please the other half of the people who voted Obama?

That is, are we irrevocably divided into two diametrically opposed camps when it comes to our belief about how large and how active government should be in our lives? About how active judges should or shouldn't be? About how flexible our Constitution is or is not?

If we are, then it seems we cannot coexist: there simply isn't enough to hold us together.

When that happens, it's useless to talk about "right" and "wrong," isn't it? One doesn't expect a Frenchman to behave as an Irishman or to share the same cultural values. Then why do we now expect that a country as diverse as this will be any better suited to share values that hold us together?

I am sick of working for people who live in my neighborhood in a house that is valued the same as mine only to find that they are repsonsible for paying only 1) 1/3 of the rent; 2) that their food is paid for; 3) that all their medical, dental, and vision needs met w/out a dollar's contribution from them; 4) that the county gives them free vet service for several procedures for their pets; 5)that their children are given free breakfasts and lunches five days a week and babysitting service after school is over; 6) that their children are in classes that have the lowest student-teacher ratios...and I won't even list all the other educational services their kids are offered that are incredibly expensive and show no results; 7) that their cell phones are paid for by others and their bills subsidized; 8) that they sit on their asses wasting "retraining" money ...all these things and more, and I pay for them while they take and take and take and teach their kids to take it all for granted and be as lazy, as inept as they.

When values and behavior are this divided, the house cannot stand. Two countries are down the road at some point. I don't know how or when it will happen, but I no longer think a civil war of some sort is the silly notion of silly people any more.; 9/18/12, 9:31 AM
David said...: What lesson they should draw:

Lesson 1:That conservatism is NOT the same as Wall Street.

That you can't cut taxes if it's going to blow the budget.
There's nothing wrong with tax cuts. There is something wrong when they are used in ways that do not balance the budget.

A lot of those people Romney dissed as in the 47 % are people who can't find jobs because of massive inequality and jobshipping overseas.

Romney who contributed a lot to both.

Conservatism can be small state, limited government AND still not on the side of Wall Street but the base needs to get this, as well as the independent(what's left of it, that is) conservative intelligentcia.

Lesson 2:

Break with the RINO Jews. Quite simply. What I mean by that is simply Jews who are in the GOP for one reason and one reason only: wars on behalf of Israel.

In short: neocons. A rolling and utter disaster.

Obama's fight with them and AIPAC wins him sympathy. Romney, Ryan, Santorum, you name them. Each and everyone one of them is a menial slave to the neocons.

The American military and defence establishment hates them.

But the professionals don't have tons of Wall Street hedge fund managers to draw upon who will make sure the candidates sell America's interests out of the window for a small 'client state'(or is it master state) out in the middle of nowhere.

What Republicans WILL learn, instead of SHOULD

1. We need more hispandering.
Elect Rubio!
(I would greatly prefer Cruz, but he isn't nearly as cynical as Rubio).

2. More tax cuts for Wall St.
The American people will get it soon.

3. More subservience to the neocons and promise more war, blood and treasure for Israel's war. Who cares about American lives, our economy or our national debt!?

You're not an anti-Semite, are you?

4. Most likely more immigration, in the name of 'moderation', thereby permanently sawing off the tree branch they are loosely sitting on.

The effects of all of the above:

The Republican party becomes, rightly so, a marginal force. A force whose main power is saying "No".

Now, some will be fooled and think that this more pure-bred version of the GOP in opposition will be the same once in governance and lament over the permanent occupation of dems in the WH and think, romantically, that the GOP would be much different.

But it won't. It will be more of the same:

invade the world, invite the world, tax cuts for the 1 % and screw the rest(and load up the debt).

They can get some wins in the off-year house elections(like in 2010) but again, never again the WH.

Lament it all you want. But the Republican party is a poison today.; 9/18/12, 9:32 AM
Roberto Masioni said...: I live deep within RedTeam country. If Romney loses, "conservatives" will work harder but they will learn nothing at all and will believe what FauxNews, Sean Insanity, and Slow Limbaugh tell them to believe. Why would they change now? Have they ever repented? The old farts still have no understanding that they have lost nearly every battle for over 100 years and are about to lose the whole war. America ends with their generation.

You saw how Republicans savaged or ignored Ron Paul, the only politician to fully and truly stand for everything they say they want. They did it because the mainstream media and the GOP told them to. I predict they will not repent this time either just as, for example, they did not give Ross Perot credit for his NAFTA opposition; just as they will never, ever give a Democrat any credit for saying something true (accidentally, of course).

Liberal democracy was, as every wise man since the dawn of time feared, a really bad idea. Thank God it's almost over because it will take all of Liberalism with it.; 9/18/12, 9:34 AM
Marlowe said...: Bet on black?; 9/18/12, 9:37 AM
RWF said...: Right Lesson- You need someone who is a good communicator.

Wrong Lesson- You need some who "fires up the base".; 9/18/12, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Should draw: Gee, running an unlikable Wall Street plutocrat wasn't a swell idea.

Will draw: It's Todd Akin and the social cons fault.; 9/18/12, 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: If the Republicans lose, they'll blame it on the anti-immigration rhetoric that alienated the Latino vote. However, they'll be wrong in their assessment. Every poll shows that a majority of Latinos aren't into the limited government approach espoused by the Republican Party. And besides, they currently make up 9% of the electorate.

In truth, Republicans will have lost because they failed with college educated whites(especially single, white women)and blue-collar whites. Their groveling to big business, pro-interventionist foreign policy,and anti-science bent will unnecessarily hurt them with those constituencies.Blue-collar whites, in particular, are the group they should go after.; 9/18/12, 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: We're screwed; no matter how badly a President performs, being Democratic is sufficient to ensure re-election. We can make gains at the State level, but a new generation of Supreme Court rulings will transfer all power to the Federal level.; 9/18/12, 9:54 AM
Dutch Boy said...: Lesson: people dependent on government tend to vote for Democrats
Solution: make fewer people dependent on government
How? - bring the jobs back from overseas and restrict immigration
Chance that Republicans will learn such a lesson? - a snowball's in Hell; 9/18/12, 9:55 AM
Thomas said...: My guess: many, and none.; 9/18/12, 9:58 AM
RKU said...: Republicans Should Draw: "We're total dummies!"

Republicans Will Draw: "We need to raise much more money and nominate a Bush/Rubio ticket!"; 9/18/12, 10:18 AM
Udolpho.com said...: A) the primary system is broken, and attracts/selects the worst candidates

B) THE NEW BLACK/HISPANIC/GAY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!; 9/18/12, 10:29 AM
Paul Mendez said...: If Romney loses, there are only 2 scenarios:

1) The economy rebounds before 2016. The Democratic model of Big Government gets all the credit, and the GOP goes the way of the Whigs.

2) The economy hasn't rebounded before 2016. BOTH parties are blamed and both go the way of the Whigs.

BTW -- the same scenarios are true if Romney wins.; 9/18/12, 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: What lessons should Republicans draw?

Don't nominate somebody so gosh-darned boring (not that you want the opposite extreme- John McCain, to his credit, wasn't boring, but unfortunately he was visibly insane). To this end, the primaries and nomination process should be redesigned so that they are less a formal coronation ceremony for an early, respectable-looking front-runner, and more of an actual fight- i.e., exactly the opposite of all the changes they made at the convention this year. With slow-motion demographic replacement eroding the GOP's position year after year, a little more spontaneity would also have the effect of keeping young Republicans active and involved, further delaying the date at which America becomes a de facto one-party state. Yeah, Clint Eastwood going off-script was slightly weird and disconcerting to some people, but at least viewers didn't change the channel (and I suspect it was more scripted than it was meant to look). A tighter primary fight has a lot of advantages- TV stations chasing high ratings would give more airtime to GOP candidates, and a more rigorous vetting process would make it harder to nominate a surefire loser.

Most importantly, the GOP needs to learn to stop letting Democratic-leaning opinion journalists frame the terms of the discussion. Get a little mean. Play a little dirty. If I wanted to channel my inner Lee Atwater, I'd depress black and Hispanic turnout by producing an ad that takes Obama's position on same-sex "marriage" and uses selective editing to make it look like POTUS is on the down-low, then run it in every 'hood and every barrio in the swing states. It's not a recommendation (I wouldn't actually do it myself, because I have a soul), just an illustration of the kind of outside-the-box thinking that should be bandied about in the strategy meetings. Here's a general rule: the Republican campaign strategies that Democratic pundits denounce most furiously as "immoral" are usually the ones that are actually effective (e.g. the "Southern Strategy"). In some rare cases they actually are immoral (and should therefore be avoided), but usually Leftist denunciations of your campaign strategy are just a sign that you should be doing twice as much of it as you are already.

What lessons will Republicans draw?

I thought hard about this for a bit, then realized the very simple answer- they won't draw any lessons at all, just like the GOP never really tried hard to explain the losses of 2006 and 2009, which were directly caused by the disastrous Presidency of Bush the Younger. GOP pundits first pretended not to notice, then treated the whole thing like a fluke, some natural disaster like an earthquake, just caused by the uncontrollable shifting of tectonic plates.; 9/18/12, 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: I think the lesson Republicans will draw is: game over. Romney has finally come out and said what everyone knows. Obama starts with 48% of the vote from parasites who love big government but pay no federal taxes. On top of that, he gets the vote of highly paid government workers who do pay taxes, not to mention all people who work for universities which float on a big green ocean of Stafford loans and research grants.

We will have a fifty-fifty election tilted in favor of the Democrats by minority voter fraud. Take it to the bank.; 9/18/12, 10:47 AM
fish said...: What lessons should Republicans draw?

Get ready for higher taxes to continue funding the FSA!

What lessons will Republicans draw?

Probably none! This is probably the end of the Republicans as we've known them!

Buh bye!; 9/18/12, 11:04 AM
Thomas said...: One modest suggestion: stop nominating old primary losers. Election after election, the GOP keeps nominating the last guy they thought shouldn't be President, apparently on the expectation that the country will somehow think better of the guy. George H.W. Bush (lost to Reagan in 1980) was a one-term President. Dole lost to Bush-41 in '88 and took the bullet in '96. McCain lost to Bush-43 in 2000 and Obama in '08. And Romney lost to McCain in '08 and is losing right now to Obama in '12. The GOP should adopt a "one bite at the apple rule" for prospective nominees: each gets one shot and one shot only to win the party nomination and then they either get to go be President or to go be a Fox News commentator.; 9/18/12, 11:20 AM
Jason Sylvester said...: Lesson they should draw (at least one of them):

You don't win elections by enthusiastically embracing, voting for, and helping implement policies that enlarge the demographic base of the opposing party's voter pool.

Lesson they WILL draw, and babble on about ad naseum:

"We need a bigger, better Diversity Outreach committee!"; 9/18/12, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: What they should learn is fairly easy. They should learn that "invade the world, invite the world and in hoc to the world" is not a viable political strategy.

What they will learn is worse than if they learned nothing. They will probably learn or believe that they were failed by their nominee who was not conservative enough.

We are doomed.; 9/18/12, 11:25 AM
Lisa said...: 1 They should learn:
. Put the needs os the 300+ million Americans that are already here above the interests of corporations, Israel and other powerful internationalists

2. They will learn:
We need more Hispanic Catholics to win so keep the boarder open!; 9/18/12, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm guessing your implied answer is "something about Mexicans". Been tired lately?; 9/18/12, 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: The election is about one thing and one thing only: race. Obama's performance as President is virtually irrelevant, the minorities and the far left will vote for him no matter what. They are part of the 47% and most always will be. So the only lesson that can be drawn is "Damn, we shouldn't have allowed our country to be colonized." Too late. Of course, the Republicans won't do the decent thing and go out of business, not while there's a nickel to be scarfed, they'll probably just move a little farther to the left and nominate Rubio. But why vote for the imitation anti-white party when you can vote for the real thing?; 9/18/12, 11:34 AM
vandelay said...: They'll learn that settling for non-conservatives is not the way to victory, and they will unlearn that lesson shortly after the midterms, in time to nominate Pawlenty for 2016.; 9/18/12, 11:43 AM
Tony said...: I'm liking Romney more now after his 47% comments came out.; 9/18/12, 11:44 AM
Paul Mendez said...: I'm liking Romney more now after his 47% comments came out.

I'm wondering who really leaked the video. IMHO, it's the most effective Romney ad yet.; 9/18/12, 11:56 AM
Ex Submarine Officer said...: If Romney loses, the conclusion they will draw is that they need to be more like Democrats - give away money and attract minorities.

The conclusion that they should draw? I dunno, the one I've already drawn is that a return to a limited government republic is no longer any sort of practical reality in the U.S.

The 1990's was the last chance to get immigration under control and cut the military/industrial complex down to size in the wake of the Cold War and still be able to carry on as a recognizable continuation of the U.S.

Those days are gone, long gone, and we main street republicans lost completely.

They should probably adopt the Sailer Strategy, but even the days of that are numbered if there aren't strict limits on even legal immigration, massive deportations, and reinterpretation of birthright citizenship (and stripping it from recipients and descendants of recipients to whom it was wrongly granted and then deporting them).

These are hard conclusions to make, given how unrealistic they seem in today's environment. But ethnic tensions/warfare/conflict has a way of arising suddenly and seemingly from nowhere in what were previously considered placid societies.

I'm not advocating this, fwiw, I've pretty much given up on the U.S. ever being in a form that at all conforms to my ideals or those of my forebears, who, going back far enough, helped get the whole shebang rolling.

Maybe the Republicans could focus and evolve into something that will just allow people like me to live in U.S. w/relative peace of mind - start really supporting gun rights (shall issue/open carry in all states, etc), challenge the portions of the Civil Rights Act and all the various gov. "diversity" machinations that clearly infringe upon the right to free association and property rights, etc.

That won't happen either, thow. The R's, just like the D's, are the marketing arms of organizations that seek to gain power by whatever means necessary. They have differing marketing strategies, but the R leadership would move to the left of Obama in a second if they thought that they could pull it off and increase their power/influence.; 9/18/12, 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: On top of that, he gets the vote of highly paid government workers who do pay taxes, not to mention all people who work for universities which float on a big green ocean of Stafford loans and research grants.

Compare -n- Contrast:

Clinton Family Tree

Romney Family Tree

The sorts of Blue State SWPL whites you are talking about are simply going extinct - in another decade or two, they will have largely disappeared.

If we can simply hang on and outlast them, then we might be able to engineer a peaceful [non-violent] resolution to this mess [a resolution that doesn't involve a full-blown shooting war].; 9/18/12, 12:12 PM
Truth said...: Not calling half the American government losers dependent on government handouts, should be high on the list.; 9/18/12, 12:12 PM
not a hacker said...: I am pretty right wing. ... The Republicans ...reproductive tracts of our families' women, terrify and repel me.

Classic concern troll.; 9/18/12, 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: IMHO, it's the most effective Romney ad yet.

No kidding.

I don't know whether Steve started this thread before or after that video surfaced at Mother Jones, but that video is a game-changer.

If Mitt will stick to his guns on that issue - are we a nation of makers, or are we a nation of takers? - then we could have a watershed moment in USA political history.

But it is imperative that he stick to his guns on it.; 9/18/12, 12:18 PM
Sid said...: Romney will most likely lose, but I expect that the Republicans will strengthen their grip in Congress, claiming the Senate.

The two reasons why I expect Romney to fail are:

1. He's not a good speaker. He's stiff and fumbles around while speaking. He comes off as if he's hiding what he's really thinking.

Worse still, he's not a good communicator. He hasn't outlined a coherent vision as to where he would take the country if elected. His message boils down to, "Obama's economy sucks. I'll fix it because I was successful in business. Trust me."

In the age of television, you need to be a good speaker to be remembered in politics. Eisenhower was a better president than Kennedy, but Kennedy was a much better speaker, and so liberals to this day still get antsy when they think about the Kennedy years and legacy, while only a few cerebral conservatives will praise Eisenhower. People to this day still dread Hitler, a terrific speaker, as the embodiment of evil, while Stalin and Mao only garner outrage today from people who have read books about them (who are fewer than those who have seen Hitler speak).

The most fondly remembered Democrat of the 20th century was Roosevelt, a marvelous public speaker, just as the most beloved Republican was Reagan, another titan communicator.

2. Karl Rove's strategy of attracting Hispanics to America so that they would be attracted to the Republican Party was a huge, huge disaster, as any of Steve's readers here could you tell.; 9/18/12, 12:24 PM
Chicago said...: It's not over yet, even if the mainstream media is blatantly pushing Obama and undercutting Romney at every opportunity. We might yet have an October surprise or some unexpected events that could shift the balance one way or another.
If they lose then the lessons they'll draw will probably be the wrong ones: more diversity, outreaches to gays, etc. The lessons that they should draw would probably be a good subject for a small book.; 9/18/12, 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Should draw: It might be a good idea to nominate someone who represents the voters of America, rather than nominating someone who represents only international conglomerates and King Bibi, in equal measures.

Will draw: Santorum 2016: time to nominate someone who is loyal only to the Pope and international conglomerates.; 9/18/12, 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: For all of you Libertarians (you think Republicans are the Stupid party) attacking social consevative positions have you not noticed that whenever "legalized" sodomy paper has been put to the vote it has ALWAYS lost. You are the same people that think you can have limited government with 90 IQ types.

Please go back to playing with your pet donkeys and leave the adult conversations to, you know, adults.

MDR; 9/18/12, 12:50 PM
Anonymous said...: They SHOULD realize that the G.O.P. cannot win imitating the Democrats,( i.e. moving so far Left and pandering to "minorities") and instead embrace their strong Libertarian Republican roots and its Ethnic White base and mock the media/societal PC mentality by allowing equal numbers of strong men and women to leadership roles .

What they WILL believe is that they need to have evener more intensely "nutless wonder" male models turning ever farther Left and pandering harder to minorities, and disavowing any and all even sightly conservative Republicans as the enemy.; 9/18/12, 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Obama's bad. But really, Republicans are as of now worse.

It's election season, and like the swallows returning to Capistrano, the moby's are out in force.

Some things never change, eh?; 9/18/12, 12:58 PM
sane_voter said...: What should they learn?
Whether Romney wins or loses, the rich GOPers funding SuperPacs should invest their money in taking over some main stream media outlets. It would be much more effective is changing attitudes and yield better electoral success.

What will they learn?
Nominate Rubio in 2016.; 9/18/12, 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: There's a reason that I generally refer to our two-party system as the dimocrats versus the stoopid party. Unlike the Bourbon the stoopid party both never learns and always forgets. And the dimocrats will destroy this country unless they face competent competition before it is too late; a point in time which we are perilously close to reaching.; 9/18/12, 1:03 PM
Enoch Powell said...: The Republican leadership is incapable of learning the proper lesson regardless of the outcome. Everything they appear to believe is so counterintuitive and self destructive that we can only conclude that they are mentally ill. The Democrats suffer from the same pathology, but they are enthusiastic and happy about it. They gain strength from their madness. The Republicans insanity is destroying them.; 9/18/12, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I am pretty right wing. I believe that Romney would be a good responsible manager and would do a good job. Obama, with his ties to race hucksters and his refusal to protect our borders, is ripping the country apart.

Nevertheless I will vote for Obama.

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.

Do they still teach this nonsense in moby-school?

You'll vote for Obama because you're as racist as he is.; 9/18/12, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "America doesn't want to elect these septuagenarian grandpa types."

Romney? He's 65 and a fit 65, looks 53. You only hope you'll look so good then....or maybe you're his age and look 85?; 9/18/12, 1:17 PM
NOTA said...: Plausibly useful lesson:

Having the talking heads and conservative media personalities control your party's internal dialog and its public positions is a really bad idea. As much as anything else, this has hurt Romney, who is a very smart and accomplished man forced, at times, to mouth stupid slogans and claim to believe silly things, to keep the talking heads on his side.

Also,echoing a couple previous comments, the nomination process is a disaster. Romney was perhaps the best of a bad lot of candidates, but it's hard to believe the GOP couldn't have done a little better.; 9/18/12, 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The two reasons why I expect Romney to fail are:

1. He's not a good speaker. He's stiff and fumbles around while speaking. He comes off as if he's hiding what he's really thinking.

Worse still, he's not a good communicator. He hasn't outlined a coherent vision as to where he would take the country if elected.

Obama is a poor speaker and if he has a coherent vision for America, it's one he prefers to keep hidden. Hope! Change! Forward!; 9/18/12, 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The Democrats have learned to keep quiet during the campaign about issues that play well to the base but frighten and repulse independent and swing voters.

Romney, a candidate who objectively ought to be very appealing to swing voters, has run a campaign that's played almost entirely to his base. It's bizarre.; 9/18/12, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "We need a truce on social issues to concentrate on tax cuts for billionaires and the next round of trade agreements."

I am so freakin' sick of hearing this. I presume you mean gay marriage and tax payer funding of abortion and forcing churches to buy health insurance which pays for abortions and contraception for their employees, some or all of these.

Do you really think a Mitt Romney can suddenly undo Roe v. Wade? This isn't Rick Santorum, after all. And even if it were, Santorum would be unable to change the abortion laws.

Stuff it.; 9/18/12, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid is right about Romney's speaking ability. While I am sure he's great leader whom others have loyalty for in the conference room, I do realize that the tv age has changed not what we need in a President, but what networks, anchors, and media WANT.

I really do think he can be a very good President....but defeating a guy the media pulls for and covers for is awfully hard.; 9/18/12, 1:24 PM
Mac said...: I still have some hope Mittens will eek it out, but:

If He Loses:

Lessons the Gop Will Learn: More minority outreach! More photogenic female candidates! Free trade and upper class tax cuts haven't been tried hard enough!

Lessons the Gop Should Learn: Research the viability of secession of mountain West and Great Plains red states.; 9/18/12, 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The media, the media, the media.

Do you really think ANY other candidate put up against Obama would not face the same problems?

A huge part of defeating an ineffective incumbent is the scorn heaped upon him by the media. Ha. What scorn has either the news media or the entertainment media heaped on the guy who stood before Greek columns?; 9/18/12, 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: "Not calling half the American government losers dependent on government handouts, should be high on the list."

Come on, Truth, (misnomer), that's not what he said. He was asked how he hoped to win by those wondering if they should give money.

He gave an honest answer: about 47% of Americans are not likely to ever vote against the other guy because they feel they are getting something from him.

You've got Romney telling people taxes should be lowered in order to stimulate the economy, free up business to hire. So, those who aren't paying taxes to begin with are not likely to ever find that a compelling reason to vote for him.

He didn't call them losers but if they assume he did after listening to his remarks, that tells me that they are....losers, that is.; 9/18/12, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm still here, clinging to my guns.; 9/18/12, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: They will learn nothing. They are so much smarter than we peasants.; 9/18/12, 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: The conclusion to draw is the Presidential system of democracy has become as big a problem in the US as it has in the other countries that possess it. There is a reason that the US is the only one of two industrial countries with it ( South Korea is the only other "success" ). Virtually every other country in the world with a presidential system instead of a parliamentary system is dirt poor and authoritarian. The people want Republicans to run Congress, that much is clear after the first follow up elections of the last 2 Democratic Presidents. Both Clinton and Obama lost over 50 House seats in 1994 and 2010 midterms. The difference is that Clinton tacked to the right and won an easy re-election and took credit for the House Republicans then spending restraint to get a budget surplus. Obama defiantly stayed left, but will still probably get reelected although probably less decisively than Clinton. The problem as Walter Bagehot pointed out in late 19th century is that the American system is based on picking the most electable leader, not the most capable or most experienced. And you are stuck with that guy for 4 years at least no matter how bad he is at the job. Bush got reelected, Obama will probably as well, but the Democrats may pay an even heavier price come 2014 than the Republicans did in 2006 because of it. The economy is going nowhere, and the Fed knows nothing more to do than to print more money and drive interest rates even lower. This will eventually when combined a recession lead to stagflation which will make the Democrats a permanent minority in the House. The problem may be though that Democrats can still get elected to the presidency, which will lead to still more divided government.; 9/18/12, 1:45 PM
Alcalde Jaime Miguel Curleo said...: Geez, that's a lot more nutroots raving from anonymous than usually washes up here. Did you link it at the Craigslist forum for concern trolling; 9/18/12, 1:55 PM
Alcalde Jaime Miguel Curleo said...: W/ Romney having now written off the indignant-moocher vote at least the election will have some special exotic use to our top psephologists & credit rating cartel; 9/18/12, 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Thomas said...

One modest suggestion: stop nominating old primary losers. Election after election, the GOP keeps nominating the last guy they thought shouldn't be President, apparently on the expectation that the country will somehow think better of the guy. George H.W. Bush (lost to Reagan in 1980) was a one-term President. Dole lost to Bush-41 in '88 and took the bullet in '96. McCain lost to Bush-43 in 2000 and Obama in '08. And Romney lost to McCain in '08 and is losing right now to Obama in '12. The GOP should adopt a "one bite at the apple rule" for prospective nominees: each gets one shot and one shot only to win the party nomination and then they either get to go be President or to go be a Fox News commentator.

That's not a problem exclusive to the GOP, look at W.J. Bryant and Adlai Stevenson as well as Gary Hart, Joe Biden and numerous other Democrat perpetual candidates. The problem is that in the US we have a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary system. Read Walter Bagehot's commentary on the difference from the 1870's, the faults he finds with the American system could be lifted verbatim and seem completely accurate right now. The American system picks candidates based on ( sometimes perceived ) electability, not competence for the job. In other words, bad presidential candidates are not a bug, but a feature of our form of democracy. Could you imagine Bush II or Obama handling Prime Minister's Questions every week? One guy knows nothing and hates having it pointed out and the other guy thinks he knows everything, but in fact knows very little other than race-hustling. Neither of them would have gotten past back bencher status in the Westminster system.; 9/18/12, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: If Romney loses... What lessons should Republicans draw? What lessons will Republicans draw?

Okay Steve, the very next thread should now be, "If Romney WINS..."

Same questions, same dilemmata.; 9/18/12, 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/09/cranston-bans-f.html; 9/18/12, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: The GOPs anti-science bent is a huge problem because it scares off future political talent. It is one thing to be pro-life, and pro-family, but to deny evolution and put it on the same level at creationism is crazy and oft putting to a lot of smart people. People we need for the party to succeed in the future.; 9/18/12, 2:42 PM
irishman said...: "Anonymous said...
"We need a truce on social issues to concentrate on tax cuts for billionaires and the next round of trade agreements."

I am so freakin' sick of hearing this. I presume you mean gay marriage and tax payer funding of abortion and forcing churches to buy health insurance which pays for abortions and contraception for their employees, some or all of these.

Do you really think a Mitt Romney can suddenly undo Roe v. Wade? This isn't Rick Santorum, after all. And even if it were, Santorum would be unable to change the abortion laws.

Stuff it.

9/18/12 1:20 PM"

Whoa calm down dear...

I said that this is what they GOP establishment would say. Not what would actually happen.

I heard this line first from Mitch Daniels. I agree it's a silly self interested view of things but that's the Republican party for you.; 9/18/12, 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I no longer think a civil war of some sort is the silly notion of silly people any more

Wow - Komment Kontrol must have gone on a coffee break when that one snuck through.

What's next - the debut appearance of the S-word?; 9/18/12, 3:04 PM
Eric said...: If Romney loses it simply means we've reached the tipping point where more people are net beneficiaries of the government than contributors. We're irrevocably on Hayek's road to serfdom.

It doesn't really matter what the Republicans or even Democrats think. We're on that road until the host dies.; 9/18/12, 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The GOPs anti-science bent is a huge problem

The GOP does not have an anti-science bent. The Democratic Party has a lot more anti-science people in it. Of course the Democrats in the media don't remind you of that, and you can only think the thoughts the media place in your head.; 9/18/12, 3:12 PM
Mr. 90 IQ said...: For all of you Libertarians (you think Republicans are the Stupid party) attacking social consevative positions have you not noticed that whenever "legalized" sodomy paper has been put to the vote it has ALWAYS lost. You are the same people that think you can have limited government with 90 IQ types.

Govermint should ban soddemy, it is bad, look what it does for my blud presher. I'd like to see big goobermint take all the sodommie from food and save millouns of lives from hart ataxs and strokes. Anyone putting saddamy in food needs to be drawn & quarted.; 9/18/12, 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Romney, a candidate who objectively ought to be very appealing to swing voters, has run a campaign that's played almost entirely to his base.

Because those swing voters just HATE all this talk about the economy?

The left really do live in an alternate reality.; 9/18/12, 3:15 PM
ben tillman said...: The party's leadership will learn that its strategy of losing on purpose guarentees victory for its own interests.; 9/18/12, 3:18 PM
Cameron said...: "What lessons should Republicans draw [from Romney's loss]?"

I am breaking with most commentator here who are obsessed with racial politics. While important, the Republicans are ignoring a substantive opportunity to attack Democrats on the issues.

The Republicans need to develop a novel platform attacking the Washington centrist consensus with respect to 1.) fiscal policy and 2.) the foreign policy of Bush/Obama.

With respect to fiscal policy, Republicans continually get stuck on lower taxes for the rich, and lower taxes on investment. These taxes cuts are targeted at high savers and therefore are the least stimulative taxe cuts. Voters intuitively know this and scoff at "trickle down economics," deservedly so.

Instead, The Republicans should press the message that wage-earners are over taxed in this country and that they are te party that will deliver you more of your take-home pay for every single pay check

To get there, you have to admit that higher G doesn't crowd out private investment and that, as Reagen proved, deficits don't matter except for inflation. Only then will Republicans have something to offer the wage earning electorate.

On foreign policy, which most voters don't seem to care about, but still, Republicans should criticize Obama's reckless interventions in Libya/Egypt/Syria as idealistic grandstanding that will as a harbinger of future danger. Instead, Republicans compete to denounce Obama for not supporting rebels enough... truly mind-blowing.; 9/18/12, 3:20 PM
beowulf said...: Govt spending is never going to go down, the best the Republicans can do is redefine "Big Government" to mean waging jihad against government workers, while still quietly kicking out money to voters (sooner or later, employer health insurance will be replaced by universal Medicare, Republicans might as well take credit for the inevitable).

I'd point out that Australia has a robust welfare state (Medicare for All, Social Security benefits so broad they'd make Dennis Kucinich weep) and yet it spends less on govt (as a % of GDP) than we do.
The biggest thing they do to keep spending down is keep the minimum wage pretty high (A$15.96/hr, August unemployment was 5.1%). How does this cut spending? A full-time minimum wage worker in America making that much would literally earn too much to qualify for virtually all means-tested welfare benefits. Instead, we have people making $7.25/hr who qualify for food stamps, Section 8 housing, utility subsidies, Medicaid, free cell phone and refundable tax credits. Australia has this shocking wish for employers to assume the cost of putting food on their employee's table, instead of leaving it to taxpayers (did I mention their unemployment rate is 5.1%?). That is one idea I can promise you the Republicans should learn but never will.; 9/18/12, 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Romney has finally come out and said what everyone knows. Obama starts with 48% of the vote from parasites who love big government but pay no federal taxes.

No, that's not what everybody knows but nobody says. What everybody knows and nobody (in the GOP at least) says is that politics in the US is a racial competition, pitting the white peoples party against the non-white peoples party.

McCain beat Obama in 2008 by twelve points - among white voters. Romney is certain to beat Obama by more than that this time around. Obama starts at 48% because of the racial transformation of America. Even wealthy non-whites, such as Asians, vote heavily Democratic. It's ultimately not a class conflict, it's a racial and ethnic one.; 9/18/12, 3:25 PM
Eric said...: Instead, The Republicans should press the message that wage-earners are over taxed in this country and that they are te party that will deliver you more of your take-home pay for every single pay check

The first thing the Republicans should do is come to grips with the reality that there's no money for tax cuts. At the very least taxes need to stay as high as they are and spending needs to be cut. The political reality is so much spending is insulated from cuts that taxes will need to be raised, probably by currency devaluation.; 9/18/12, 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Should learn: We are doomed. Buy rice and ammo.

Will learn: Need more diversity in 2016.; 9/18/12, 3:51 PM
Anon87 said...: Assuming Romney loses, and all is lost for the GOP and the White House from here on out, what is the strategy?

How about let the media elect whatever Dem they like, but make sure to actively support state and local elections. It is much more difficult for the MSM to try to cover the hundreds of individual races going on nationwide, so they can't pull their typical nonsense. And although the demographics are shifting, there are still a lot of "core" right wing voters in the country. While 1/3 of the government may be out of reach for the foreseeable future, don't discount the power of controlling the House and Senate.

Also, the Democrats are trying to cobble together a coalition of disparate voters to win this election. But what happens if the mean old GOP is a non-factor in future presidential elections? Dem candidates will split along those loosely formed bonds and it will be every special interest for themselves. What happens when the Democratic primary debate is a black guy, a Hispanic woman, and a gay man?? Who is the last person standing to crush the weak Republican candidate, only to have to satisfy highly competing groups for limited goodies?; 9/18/12, 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Buy rice and ammo.

And I'll be darned if that isn't the inaugural appearance of the A-word.

What the heck is going on at Komment Kontrol right now?; 9/18/12, 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: On foreign policy, which most voters don't seem to care about, but still, Republicans should criticize Obama's reckless interventions in Libya/Egypt/Syria as idealistic grandstanding that will as a harbinger of future danger. Instead, Republicans compete to denounce Obama for not supporting rebels enough... truly mind-blowing.

Romney criticized the war in Libya.; 9/18/12, 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: What lesson they will learn: they should be more inclusive, like democrats.

What lesson they should learn: know thyself.; 9/18/12, 4:24 PM
Truth said...: "Come on, Truth, (misnomer), that's not what he said. He was asked how he hoped to win by those wondering if they should give money."

Exact quote: "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it," Romney said. "These are people who pay no income tax"

It is what he said. It is EXACTLY what he said. What he MEANT is up for interpretation.

"You've got Romney telling people taxes should be lowered in order to stimulate the economy, free up business to hire."

Yes, that's what he told people and it's right, his policies will stimulate the economy and free up businesses to hire: In Beijing.

Mitt Romney did not make his money by opening a shoe factory in Joplin Mo. He created it by saddling companies with bribes, saddling companies with debt and then selling them off. I wish people would just for once start being real about him.

Does that mean I think much of Barry? No, he's an idiot, a coward and a war criminal, but if I were voting for the lesser of the two evils, in this election, it's Barry.; 9/18/12, 4:29 PM
Cail Corishev said...: "That is, are we irrevocably divided into two diametrically opposed camps when it comes to our belief about how large and how active government should be in our lives? [....] If we are, then it seems we cannot coexist: there simply isn't enough to hold us together."

Yes, we're divided into those who get a significant amount of their living from government and those who pay for it. Pretty hard to imagine many in the first group voting for a guy who's more likely than the other guy to take away their check.

On the other hand, if we split the country up, the first group quite simply can't survive without the second group, so why would they allow it? The elites and welfare consumers would fight tooth and nail to keep the producers from leaving.; 9/18/12, 4:32 PM
Truth said...: " has finally come out and said what everyone knows. Obama starts with 48% of the vote from parasites who love big government but pay no federal taxes."

Oh for Christ Sakes, it just gets more and more ridiculous here the closer we get to election day.; 9/18/12, 4:39 PM
Cail Corishev said...: "The GOPs anti-science bent is a huge problem because it scares off future political talent. It is one thing to be pro-life, and pro-family, but to deny evolution and put it on the same level at creationism is crazy and oft putting to a lot of smart people."

You should stop letting the media pull your chain so easily.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that nonsense were true, and we elected a bunch of creationists. Then what? How is that harmful to you or anyone? Are they going to shut down NASA and transfer that money into a quest for the Ark? Will they shut down all drug research funding and declare that sick people should depend on the power of prayer? I understand that you don't like them, but what is it that you think they'll do that's so scary?; 9/18/12, 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: On the other hand, if we split the country up, the first group quite simply can't survive without the second group, so why would they allow it? The elites and welfare consumers would fight tooth and nail to keep the producers from leaving.

Okay, now that's getting perilously close to the s-word - in fact, it even starts with an "s".; 9/18/12, 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: RUH-ROH, Dick Morris agrees with Whiskey: "A Sept. 13 poll I conducted (912 likely voters, national sample) found that while married white women back Romney by 55 to 40 percent, unmarried white women back Obama by 60-32! Since unmarried white women are 45 percent of all white women, this marriage gap poses a huge problem for Romney - the central problem.

In his recent off-the-record comments, Romney characterized his opponents’ supporters as relying on government entitlements and handouts. He said that 47 percent of Americans get checks from the government and are likely to vote for the hand that feeds them: the Democratic Party...

But the ranks of those who get means-tested benefits are insufficient to win this election. It is only when they are joined by unmarried women - some of whom get benefits but many of whom do not - that Romney’s opposition swells its numbers and becomes a threat..."; 9/18/12, 5:55 PM
Eric said...: On the other hand, if we split the country up, the first group quite simply can't survive without the second group, so why would they allow it? The elites and welfare consumers would fight tooth and nail to keep the producers from leaving.

The problem is the moochers make everything less efficient and in doing so increase their own numbers. It's a positive feedback loop.

Hell, if taxes go up too much I won't work either. What's the point?; 9/18/12, 6:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I think you are asking the wrong questions.

Instead: What should whites learn? What will whites learn?; 9/18/12, 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: "Okay, now that's getting perilously close to the s-word - in fact, it even starts with an 's'. "

Dude, try ctrl+f sometime.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/09/if-romney-loses.html?showComment=1347985899451#c3574134247953027197; 9/18/12, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Should learn: good jobs are more important for the country than corporate profits.

Will learn: waaaaah moochers are oppressing the job "creators"; 9/18/12, 7:29 PM
Evil Sandmich said...: After taking in a few comments, I'm disappointed that:

a) Repubs haven't been able to thieve some black votes by appealing to their lack of love for immigration (among other things) and maybe a Sailer-esque style of affirmative action (I don't expect them to thieve against Obama per se, but still).

b) Royally upset that they haven't been able to sell themselves better to clueless whites who care more about how small of a garbage they can use than section 8 housing destroying their neighborhood. Seems like conservatives could sell, you know, conserving stuff.; 9/18/12, 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Rather than

What lessons should Republicans draw?

What lessons will Republicans draw?

let's ask

What will happen to the Republicans?

In the tradition of Jeopardy, I'll answer with a question: What happened to the Whigs in the 1850s?; 9/18/12, 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Lessons they should draw: Do better among white college graduates, the voting bloc that actually turns out to vote in every election and Republicans used to win by 60%.

These days Republicans need to win a supermajority of the white vote to win a bare majority of the electorate, and that requires winning moderate white women, not just hardcore conservatives.

Once in office, limit immigration so that you don't have to win an ever increasing share of the white vote every four years.

Will draw: Clearly the public is itching for president Santorum in 2016!; 9/18/12, 9:46 PM
Vermicious Knid said...: Maybe that running unprincipled rich guys with the empathy of a reptile is a bad idea? He makes Bob Dole seem super-likable and charismatic...; 9/18/12, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Dick Morris agrees with Whiskey: "A Sept. 13 poll I conducted (912 likely voters, national sample) found that while married white women back Romney by 55 to 40 percent, unmarried white women back Obama by 60-32! Since unmarried white women are 45 percent of all white women, this marriage gap poses a huge problem for Romney - the central problem.

Morris is a dope. McCain carried the white womens vote in 2008 in a terrible year for Republicans. You can put it in the bank right now that Romney will win both the white mens and white womens vote, and by a considerable margin.

The only problem is, this may not be enough to counteract the overwhelming non-white support for the Democrats.; 9/18/12, 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: The Empty Vessel Spake:

Exact quote: "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it," Romney said. "These are people who pay no income tax"

It is what he said. It is EXACTLY what he said.

And yet, Troot, what you claimed he said was "half the American people are losers dependent on government handouts". So you're now calling yourself a liar.

Remember, folks, Troot has voted Republican in every election since Truman!; 9/18/12, 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: A lot of those people Romney dissed as in the 47 % are people who can't find jobs because of massive inequality and jobshipping overseas.

No, the great majority of them are not.

Romney who contributed a lot to both.

You're an idiot if you believe that. Obama has contributed vastly more to both inequality and jobshipping overseas.

But then, 'tis the season for concern trolls.; 9/18/12, 10:22 PM
Maya said...: Are you suggesting that there is some sort of a learning process involved? Doubtful.

And does it matter? It's not like the general population pays attention to politics. The reason a bunch of working white guys support Romney isn't the appeal of his platform when compared to that of Obama. It's that they vaguely remember that the Republican Party is supposedly anti welfare and pro working white guy. And the democrats don't actually know what Obama is promising or not promising. On average, only abouts 14.72 people nationwide watch the pre-election debates. But democrats kinda assume that their guy is pro-choice, gay-friendly-ish and has noble Robin Hood sensibilities. And, well, Obama is sort of a special case because he's black and so a vote for him is a vote against slavery.; 9/18/12, 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Gop is finished. All it does is divide the white vote. Get rid of it.; 9/18/12, 10:54 PM
Silver said...: The unemployment numbers for each month, even when most dire (like last month when the rate actually went down because so many people gave up looking for jobs that they weren't counted as unemployed, have always been spun by the major 3 in Obama's favor

No, that's not really true. Labor force participation has been falling (ie by people opting out of looking for work) but this effect is most pronounced among 16-25-year-olds. Among other age-groups the fall in labor force participation has been less than the fall in the unemployment rate, indicating that employment gains are real, not statistical artifacts.; 9/18/12, 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Conservatives need to build non-political bases of power. But outside talk radio and Nashville, what is there? Pop music, tv shows, art scene, movie industry, theater, academia, fashion, etc are dominated by creative liberals.

Libs got letterman, maher, colbert, stewart, the view, ellen degenerate, etc on the air. What do cons got? Televangelism?; 9/18/12, 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The GOP's funders get richer from mass immigration. GOP voters get poorer.

Economically the only difference it makes to them if the democrats win is they'll have to spend more on tax accountants. By definition they won't lose money because the tax is just a percentage of the profit they make from lowering wages.

They've been herding GOP voters for a while using patriotism and social issues to distract them from the economic betrayal but that's wearing off inevitably as the consequences of the economic betrayal become more and more obvious.

The *only* real political difference between the GOP funders and the democrats is over foreign policy. So ultimately the only people among the GOP funders with any big need or desire to learn anything from Romney losing will be the neocons.

What will they think?
1) Social issues aren't enough any more
2) Blind patriotism has been worn down

One conclusion might me okay we need to actually represent GOP voter's interests somewhat.

Then after they finish laughing they'll decide we need bigger and better provocations e.g.

1) Assassination and martial law
or
2) Nuke a small mid-western town

What GOP voters should realise is the people who fund the GOP, run the GOP, and the people who fund the GOP are as much their enemies as the people who fund the democrats.; 9/19/12, 2:23 AM
Anonymous said...: liberal democracy

The countries that always come top of best country lists as egalitarian, liberal democracies with a strong welfare system.

The critical factor in making it work is a minimum level of ethnic homogeneity. The US doesn't have this even if you only included the white population. It might have got there if the 1924 immigration act had survived another 100 years or so past 1965. Melting pots take a long time. Too late now sadly.

.
war on women

I read something like 40% of professional women have no children. The anti-natal culture is the real war on women.

.
anti-science

The blank slate secular religion is PC creationism.; 9/19/12, 2:29 AM
Cail Corishev said...: "But the ranks of those who get means-tested benefits are insufficient to win this election. It is only when they are joined by unmarried women - some of whom get benefits but many of whom do not - that Romney’s opposition swells its numbers and becomes a threat..."

Fine, but you could replace "unmarried women" with "government employees" or "upper class minorities" or "people who recycle religiously." The point is that when a benefits check from the government is a significant portion of the livelihoods of 47% of the population, that gives the candidate who makes the biggest spending promises a pretty big head start. He only needs to get a few other people to go along with the program. Whether he does that by appealing to their emotions, as in the case of Nice White Ladies as Whiskey talks about, or by offering them better salaries than they could get in the private sector, as in the case of affirmative action hires, is beside the point.

If you're the opponent, your only hope is to corral all those other not-directly-dependent voting groups, despite the fact that they lean left by definition too. That's a pretty tall order. How does a (theoretical) candidate who stresses fiscal responsibility, law & order, and traditional morality reach out to the groups I mentioned, without trying to out-pander his opponent? What can he offer them that the candidate of bigger-and-better benefits isn't already offering them? What moral stand can he take that they'll be willing to take with him, when it means being labeled as mean and possibly racist by the media?

Really, the only reason any Republican still has any chance at all is that most of the people who can't be bothered to work also can't be bothered to vote.; 9/19/12, 3:57 AM
dynamist said...: Whatever happens in this election, Republicans need to change the nominating process. Not for fairness, but only to choose a better, more electable candidate.

Eliminate caucuses. The hurdle to participation is too high. Primary elections are the way to get people to vote.

Make the primaries into "open primaries." There's no evidence that strategic voting (e.g., Ds in R primaries) is a massive problem. This will get Independents involved.

The two positions above are "musts."

Now you're going to get push-back from currently powerful parties. Particularly problematic will be Iowa power-broker social conservatives like Bob Vander Platts. If you're the GOP, are you willing to lose the most powerful office in the world because of some dude who can pack the most hicks into a Pizza Ranch in Marshalltown? No? Good!

If Iowa, NH, SC, (and maybe Nevada) push-back on the no caucuses thing, threaten them with

(1) the possibility to moving to regional primaries instead of state-based

(2) the possibility of refusing to seat certain delegates in the national convention, period.; 9/19/12, 4:12 AM
Anonymous said...: "Libs got letterman, maher, colbert, stewart, the view, ellen degenerate, etc on the air. What do cons got?".
-
I say go for sports. In massachusetts they brilliantly surrounded scott brown with beloved Boston sports stars. It fits with my theory to make the repubs the party of men and women who like men. Frame the dems as the party of wussy men, gays, and ugly women who can't land a man. Make self sufficiency and independence manly. Mock as effeminate wusses men who can't take care of themselves and their families. There must be a black sports star they can get. This will appeal to the machismo of black and latino males.; 9/19/12, 5:19 AM
NOTA said...: Anon:

The pro- and anti-science stuff is largely about party branding, of course. From the survey I linked to before, almost as large a fraction of Democrats as Republicans are young-Earth creationists, which is roughly in the same category as being a flat-Earther. But I think the GOP has more of its voters whose identification with the GOP is based partly on acceptance of young-Earth creationism and hostility to the theory of evolution.

Now, neither party cares about science for its own sake, of course. AGW justifies more Democratic than Republican sorts of policies, so more Democrats that Repubicans will mouth belief in AGW. (Though the Democrats have no real interest in serious action to address AGW, because that would be extremely unpopular--double energy prices via taxes or regulation,, and see how your re-election prospects look.) Much alternative energy is snake oil (in the sense that it's often almost impossible to see it becoming an economical alternative to CO2-emitting fuels), and Democrats seem somewhat more friendly to that stuff than Republicans. But not all that much more, and Republicans are often just as happy as Democrats to support counterproductive stuff like corn-ethanol requirements for gasoline. Republicans are perhaps slightly less horrified than Democrats by the implications of big genetic differences between races that lead to differences in IQ and behavior, but not much less horrified. And so on.; 9/19/12, 6:39 AM
Kylie said...: "Maybe that running unprincipled rich guys with the empathy of a reptile is a bad idea?"

It is, unless they're sufficiently melanin-enhanced.

And if they are, they can be not only elected but, despite a lousy economy and questionable foreign policy, reelected.; 9/19/12, 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Most people are not directly political. They don't read New Republic or the National Review. Much of the political news, attitude, and values they soak up comes INDIRECTLY(or culturally, elite or popular). Most NPR programs are not blatantly liberal, but there is a liberal bias because of the subject material, individuals spotlighted, tenor and tone, and etc.

People soak up 'values' from late night talk show, stand up comedies, pop music stars, athletes, comic books, Hollywood movies, and etc. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION may not be blatantly political, but it features the Magic Negro which aids the MLK myth. Ellen Degenerate show isn't usually political, but her very presence on TV has whitewashed the gay community and made it appealing to Americans. So, many viewers think, "If I oppose 'gay marriage', I will hurt the feelings of oh-so-nice Ellen, and I don't wanna be so mean. I wanna be so nice."
In a way, this neo-niceness is a twisted version of waspism. When all those stinky, unruly, and loud/boisterous immigrants came to the cities, wasps moved to suburbs and small towns to maintain their quiet, odorless, and whitebread 'nice' communities. Thus, niceness was a conservative virtue, but in time, liberals appropriated it as a politically correctness tool--in a kind of Rules of Radicals sort of way--, and so neo-niceness means we must be 'nice' about gays and liberal values than conservative values. Libs took a conservative attitude and used it to promote liberalism. Alinsky was a creative prophet. Michael Novak warned of the dangers of wasp niceness in RISE OF THE UNMELTABLE ETHNICS. One of the great things about Mike Royko was he was of the loud and crazy immigrant variety of ethnic. He didn't write 'nice'.
When 'niceness' was owned by conservative wasps, Jews and ethnics used 'rudeness' as a virtue to challenge, mock, and subvert niceness. Jews used to love guys like Abbie Hoffman and crazy gays and wild ethnics. But as Jews gained power and respectability, they took over niceness and remolded it to fit political correctness.

Liberals have many more indirect means to communicating their political views: fashion magazines, celebrity gossip news, and etc.
More women get their political values from watching SEX AND THE CITY than from reading Nation Magazine.

Buchanan called for a culture war, but what he failed to understand is that conservatives cannot win without creativity. But white conservatives are about as creative as Mexicans. 700 Club. Even telemundo is more fun to watch.; 9/19/12, 10:27 AM
Anonyia said...: "Conservatives need to build non-political bases of power. But outside talk radio and Nashville, what is there? Pop music, tv shows, art scene, movie industry, theater, academia, fashion, etc are dominated by creative liberals.

Libs got letterman, maher, colbert, stewart, the view, ellen degenerate, etc on the air. What do cons got? Televangelism?"

Agreed. I mean surely there are some creative conservatives out there. There certainly were a few centuries ago, maybe even a few decades ago. Yet the only conservative movies that come out are those lame church-themed bores like "Fireproof."

Surely conservatives can do better. Maybe for conservatism to gain some real cultural clout it needs to ground itself in history as opposed to evangelism.; 9/19/12, 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Should: Actually support the 53%.

Will: keep supporting the 1% and be better at marketing.; 9/19/12, 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: "learned nothing and forgotten everything" or something like that.; 9/19/12, 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If Mitt Romney loses this election, this year, with this ecomomy, the GOP needs a savior - someone who can help redefine to conservatives what it means to be a conservative. An intelligent, articulate conservative, if any are left, will have a lot of power to shape what becomes of the GOP.

If four more years of Obama II are as bad as I suspect they will be, ambitious conservatives will have lots of chances to intepret the meaning of that to the suffering electorate.

Should draw:

1) Be a more explicitly white party (i.e., completely against affirmative action and high levels of immigration). The Democrats are the racists. Many of my minority friends on Facebook are pretty damn blunt about hating the GOP for being the "white party," though they can't explain what makes it the white party. It's time for the GOP to own it.

2) Finally start following through on some of that (secular) social conservatism/smaller government stuff.

3) Be less Wall Street and more Main Street. Tax cuts for the rich won't cut it anymore. Go back to emphasizing balanced budgets. Accept tax increases (on Sheldon Adelson) for real spending cuts, and hurt both the Dems primary consituencies - the very rich and the very poor.

4) Cut out the support for military adventurism.

5) To grow a spine. That literary blowjob from the Chick-Fil-A CEO to the Chicago alderman who threatened to illegally abuse his power to stop CFA from building a store was fucking surreal. We need a spine. Example: enforcing our immigration laws is not racist. Deal with it, shitheads.

6) As the unemployment rate and budget deficits climb during Obama II, which they will, point out at every opportunity that mass immigration and 11 million immigrants aren't helping with either problem.

Will draw:

1) More tax cuts for the rich are awesome, if you can learn to say it in Spanish.

2) Pretty much full-throated support for amnesty and open borders, so we can boost our share of the Hispanic vote from 33% to 37%.

Chances of a new third party should Romney lose: 38%.; 9/19/12, 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: If Romney loses, the Republicans should remember that it is not the canvas but the frame that wins.

Will they remember? Eventually some group within their party will ascend through reframing, as the Chicago crowd have done within the other party.; 9/20/12, 2:10 PM
Andrew said...: What a hilarious lack of introspection in the previous 163 comments!

Senator Rand Paul pinpointed the reason the Republicans are currently doomed to lose. Although they are the "white" party, they fail to be competitive in the New England states (32 electoral votes), Pennsylvania and Michigan (36 electoral votes), Wisconsiin and Minnesota (20 electoral votes), and Washington and Oregon (19 electoral votes), even though these states are all over 75% white. They haven't won these states since 1988, and nothing they are doing presently is going to change that fact. In general, 5% of northern blacks, 15% of non-white hispanics (many of whom are Dominican and Puert Rican), and 35% of Asians in these states vote Republican, which is enough to amount to about 3% in the vote. That they are losing these states, and many by significant margns, means that just 50% of whites in these states are regularly voting Republican. These are hardly all government workers and welfare recipients voting this way.

The Republican Party needs to face the fact that the Southern Strategy is dead, because continuing to pursue it despite having lost the north no longer can produce a majority. The Southern Strategy worked great from 1968 to 1988, producing a conservative landslide in 5 of 6 elections (counting Wallace and Nixon together in 1968). Sometime around 1991, the strategy stopped working, and a critical mass of around 10%-20% of northern whites departed from the modern Republican party, never to return. Since that time, Republicans have lost 4 of 5 elections (winning in 2000 only by technicality), and are about to lose a 5th, all the while watching states like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina bleed away, soon to be joined by Montana and Arizona and maybe also Indiana and Texas.

A coalition of southern whites, the Great Plains states, and Mormonland (Utah and Idaho) is a worthless ticket to permanent minority status.

The Republicans don't need to appeal to the same 10%-20% of northern whites they lost in 1992. They just need to find a message and candidates that appeals to any given additional slice of the northern white population in that size. It shouldn't be hard - winning at least 5/8 of whites should be the standard result of running Just Another White Guy as a Republican, and should produce a large victory. Republicans don't need to look to win blacks and Mexicans either.

If you look at election results in detail at the precinct level, its clear what white populations don't vote Republican by 5 to 3 margins - apartment dwellers, young singles especially women, the Irish, Jews, union workers, divorced women, and people in university towns.

Traditional Republican policies currently cast aside which would appeal to these constituencies - radically reduced non-white immigration, high wages for workers, protectionism/industrialization at home, environmental conservation, fair dealing in racial issues towards minorities while supporting private segregation in housing (and thus schools), peace and isolationism.

Current Republican policies which do not help - low wage policies, opposition to legal abortion which helps keep down minority birth rates, worrying about gays destroying the universe when 40% of southern whites are divorced and many remarried and innumerable republican politicans keep turning out to be secret gays, opposition to infrastructure spending, warmongering, opposition to basic environmental protections, tax cuts for the rich, free trade with slave labor countries like China, obvious race baiting.; 9/20/12, 4:40 PM
ATBOTL said...: "The GOPs anti-science bent is a huge problem because it scares off future political talent. It is one thing to be pro-life, and pro-family, but to deny evolution and put it on the same level at creationism is crazy and oft putting to a lot of smart people. People we need for the party to succeed in the future."

I think the GOP establishment and older people in general don't appreciate how much pandering to creationist retards has damaged the GOP brand among young, intelligent whites from affluent backgrounds. These are people who are generally conservative, and most importantly, the future white elites.; 9/21/12, 1:17 AM
Anonymous said...: If in an alternate universe Obama was caught on tape saying the GOP started with 47% of the vote because of red state racism what would the media coverage be like?; 9/21/12, 4:52 AM
rob said...: They should learn that the diversities that they want for some reason or another are pretty much a fifth column. The Jews who infiltrated the party as 'neo-conservatives' didn't sign up as loyal foot soldiers who finally saw the light. They were Jews who thought, 'why run one party when we could have both?'

Also: vet entry-level politicians better: the closeted homosexuals in the party, maybe they're self-hating closet cases. Maybe they're here for the subversion.

Another lesson they might draw is to be the white+ party. The American-Americans plus any various others who happen to be on our side. But good God, make 'em pay some dues before actually listening to them.

A final lesson: white men aren't the only white people. Give a shot at peeling white women from the dusky arms of the Democrats. That would require sacrificing a lot of ideology on BC and abortion though. White women don't hate white men. Whiskey is one of them neo-conservatives out to subvert actual whites.

They might consider looking at problems and how to fix them. Ryan was a nobody Congressman representing cows until he wrote a homework-quality budget.

Everyone knows there's a demographic disaster looming, even though most people think the only problem is white people getting older, and are too scared to even think of how it's going to turn out. Convince white people they have a future, and white women will come around.

Of course, any decent, winning coalition would trash what they seem to want: El Mexico del Norte con guerras en el Oriente Medio.; 9/21/12, 5:50 PM
rob said...: Oh yeah: do something about the Scotts-Irish and Italian-style looting and corruption. John Corzine's gotta go to prison if he returns the money he stole, and executed if he doesn't. It's amazing the US is still a financial hub after the mortgage meltdown, and it won't be long before foreign money looks for a country with sane, enforced laws to protect investors.; 9/21/12, 5:58 PM