Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 19, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 33

A few thoughts on the Republican losses in the 2012 elections.

:iconhgwizard:
HGWizard Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Before I get started, I want you all to know I am writing this from the perspective of someone just right of center. But I had a few lingering thoughts I'd just share.

Ever since the end of the 2012 election, After Obama won the Presidency and the Democrats won 2 senate seats and 8 seats in the house of reps, there had been quite a bit of debate on why the republican party had actually lost.

The image a lot of individuals see if the clip of Karl Rove in a state of shock and denial arguing and denying the outcome of the call for Obama's victory in the state of Ohio, which many conservative groups were in shock of the outcome, I was not. For a couple of reasons.

1) One of the biggest reason I can think of for Obama's reelection is what I'd like to call the John Kerry Theory.The nomination of Mitt Romney reminds me a lot of Mr. Kerry in one big way.

Flash back to 2004, George W Bush was in office, he was absolutely despised among democrats and left wing voters. John Kerry ended up beating out Edwards,Dean and Clark for the nomination within the democratic primaries.

John Kerry got the nomination, but he never really gained any real support to back him. No one believed in John Kerry or thought he was the greatest candidate to be president, they just wanted George W. Bush out.

Those who voted for George W. Bush believed (at the time at least) in his message of national security and the war in Iraq and gained a serious support for his reelection, and it showed in the election results.

Barack Obama won in 2012 for the exact same reason George W Bush won in 04, a good majority of the people who voted for Barack Obama did because they supported the man himself, they stood for his ideals on economic policies.

Mitt Romney didn't lose after hurricane sandy like many believe, he lost before he even won the primaries. During the primaries, he was often portrayed among a lot of republicans as the moderate no one would vote for. The likes of Santorum, Cain, Newt and Bachmann kept going back and forth in the lead, until they made gaffs or other bad PR moves to eliminate themselves out.

The one candidate that did have a dedicated following of his own, which was Ron Paul, got unfairly ignored among a lot of the conservative press, which certainly didn't help them in the future race against Obama, because even if Paul hadn't won the nomination fairly, the snub from the press pretty much abandoned Paul supporters from even considering a vote for a republican candidate.

After all the others got eliminated, Romney pushed through to get the nomination not really because anyone liked him, but because he was often more reserved and quiet and didn't gaff his way out like Bachmann or Cain did.

With the nomination in hand, the only real advantage he had was simply the fact he was NOT Obama. The only people who voted for Romney were people that hated Obama, just like how the only people who voted for John Kerry were the people that hated Bush. And it scored the incumbent a reelection.

2) The influx of the tea party movement became an asset to them when it was the 2010 elections, after the republican party was considered all but dead after the 2008 election.

Though it's view on the deficit and taxation became a popular rally call in 2010, when the overall turnout wasn't as significant (82.5 million in 2010 as opposed to 123 million in 2012), when the issues of gay marriage and abortions came up, it's core evangelical christian base really turned it's ugly head.

Todd Akin and Mourdock became the republican posterboys for women's rights and most conservatives were associated with that image whether they liked it or not.

I'd really like to believe that the gridlock many of the tea party candidates put in congress in regards to budget talks would of had more of a negative effect on the republican party, but it really didn't turn out to be an issue.

3) Bill O'Rielly's comment about the "White establishment" really stuck hard. I don't believe that the idea of government doing everything has become the most popular mentality as opposed to the "traditionalist" mentality of old, but really the "White Christian" establishment.

The democrats do speak out to the African Americans, the Latinos in america, the gays and lesbian groups in the United States. The Republican party has often viewed these groups of people as the problem, and that kind of mentality has put them at a disadvantage, and it will continue to cripple them if they don't change their viewpoints on the issues of race and life style.

Those would be my views on how they lost the election, only time can tell if they decide they can really learn anything from it or not.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconherbaldrink:
HerbalDrink Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
What I'm curious about is how come most of the news about loophole abuses and political drama is incited by the GOP?
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Poor Mitt only wound up with 47% of the vote. umm... lulz?
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
49% you mean.
Reply
:iconhgwizard:
HGWizard Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Mittens lost with 47.6% of the vote, so Mr. Rockstar1009 would be correct!
Reply
:iconrockstar1009:
rockstar1009 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Actually, it looks like the final tally is Barry @ 50.x% and Willard @ 47.x% with third parties getting the remaining 2ish%.
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Ah, it got modified. Didn't hear about that.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Again.

1. "1) One of the biggest reason I can think of for Obama's reelection is what I'd like to call the John Kerry Theory.The nomination of Mitt Romney reminds me a lot of Mr. Kerry in one big way.

John Kerry got the nomination, but he never really gained any real support to back him. No one believed in John Kerry or thought he was the greatest candidate to be president, they just wanted George W. Bush out."

very true, no one was super siked about Mitt Romney.

"
With the nomination in hand, the only real advantage he had was simply the fact he was NOT Obama."
Anybody but X movements fail more times than not.

"The democrats do speak out to the African Americans, the Latinos in america, the gays and lesbian groups in the United States. The Republican party has often viewed these groups of people as the problem, and that kind of mentality has put them at a disadvantage, and it will continue to cripple them if they don't change their viewpoints on the issues of race and life style."

yes and no. Things like this do change in a heartbeat. Remember, Reagan won the latino vote in the 80s over the Cuban issue.

I also think your talking about "social conservatives", as the term has changed of what they actually stand for. On social issues a good chunk of the GOP is left of mainstream democrats of the 1990s. Politicians change their views like they change their socks. You'd be a real fool to think that any politician is in office is going to stick to views that won't either

1) win him more corporate sponsorships
2) win him more votes

And this "republican losses", is definitely not as pronounced as you think it is. the democrats picked up two senators, one of which is an independent centrist who will caucus with the dems, but will avoid partisanism, and line towing. slight democrat gains were also had in the house, but the republicans still control the house
Reply
:iconhgwizard:
HGWizard Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
#1) I am well aware how a lot of republicans are more adapt on social issues, it's especially true up here where I live in WA state.

But the fact that many of the "social conservatives" that ran for congress and conservative talking heads that stand with them have certainly gained far more notoriety and publicity than the chunk of socially mainstream ones, and the GOP got viewed as such overall, whether they liked it or not.

#2)I know positions and outreach change in a heartbeat. I do remember when the GOP didn't give two craps about deficit reduction, and it was actually more of a democrat talking point. It wasn't until November 4th 2008 on the dot the GOP took a hard stance on fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction!

#3) Small Republican losses are still losses none the less!
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"
#2)I know positions and outreach change in a heartbeat. I do remember when the GOP didn't give two craps about deficit reduction, and it was actually more of a democrat talking point. It wasn't until November 4th 2008 on the dot the GOP took a hard stance on fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction!"
thats awesome, you know sometimes out here, I feel like everyone things we've always been allied with eurasia against east asia.

"#3) Small Republican losses are still losses none the less!"
I think my point is "stop getting cocky over small losses that could easily be reversed in two years"

[link]

that came up on /. yesterday.

my real question for the Dems is what is your stance, and what are you going to do about it. THis is about SOPA/PIPA. a good chunck of leftist bloggers, and other leftist grass roots activists and orgs took a hard stance against this nation's INSANE intellectual property laws and how we are starting to play world police with them.

The democrat party balked, and it looks like the republican party might take it up.

Now its still really really early, and if the dems don't want to loose everything they've worked really hard.(and they have), it'd be in their best intrest to get out and front and take this issue back before it sinks them. The republicans have really yet to hark on it, so its not a republican issue yet, but if they make it one, its not going to be good for the democrats.

Defending Intellectual property as it stands now is a loosing proposition that will split the democrats George McGovern Style.

Some free advice, is that the republicans, even libertarians don't like the concept of the public internet, or net neutrality, preserving the rights of networks to censor content as they see fit.

If the dems or anyone else, not the republicans want the high ground on internet matters, they have in my predictions about 6 months to take it.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Ron Paul must have VERY smelly socks.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Ron Paul has been a political outlier for decades.
Reply
:iconabcat:
AbCat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012   Writer
The Tea Party in particular has actually crippled the GOP, demanding a succession of partisan and unelectable nominees. Worse, it turned Romney's [disingenuous] attempts to appear moderate into a hardline conservative platform, that he was trying to distance himself from. When the Presidential candidate has to distance himself habitually from his own party members he's not getting anywhere near the White House.
Reply
:iconbohobella:
bohobella Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I don't see how this is so shocking to anyone. As a Canadian barely caring for American politics, I saw this coming a mile away. Aside from fucking himself royally, Mitt hardly stood a chance. Most presidents serve two terms. The real nail-biter will be in four more years.
Reply
:iconsherberttcat:
SherbertTCat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yup! He started with a fighting chance and dunked it right in a gas station toilet, by doing really stupid shit, like kbadmouthing the poor. I guess he forgot that the poor, and those who know and care about poor people, do in fact vote.
He also stepped in line with a fringe group dedicated to "proving" Obama is an illegal alien, even allowing human face race/conspiracy king, Jerome Corsi to ride shotgun on the last leg of his campaign. You average voter is repulsed by conspiracy theorists, and you are judged by the company you keep.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Not to mention he insulted pretty much every country he visited. May not be a major thing but it would have helped his already bad image. Hell even Fox news said he was a complete idiot when he came over to Britain during the olympics and started knocking them. I guess he wanted to stroke his ego by convincing himself his games were better...
Reply
:iconsherberttcat:
SherbertTCat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wow! He was too bat-shit crazy conservative for Fox Noise to stomach?! Ho-ly shit!
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Ultimately the Republican party is going to wipe itself out if they don't start appealing to minorities more. The white male population is making up a smaller portion of the US electorate and the Republicans have refused consistantly to accept that. Also the Republicans are losing lots of people with their social conservatism. Much as they'd like to pretend only economic things matter, people care about the social things as well and it showed in 2012 when those 2 senators who made the stupid comments about women lost their otherwise secure places.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"Republican party is going to wipe itself out if they don't start appealing to minorities more."

It will happen in a heartbeat, just as did it did last time.

the "Party of Lincoln" had a stranglehold on the black vote for a century. It wasn't until the "southern strategy", of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, after the democrats passed civil rights legislation.

[link]

Already, politicians seem to have a short term memory of the specifics of the social conservatism that was the 1990s.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that if it doesn't they will fade into obscurity.
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
>there had been quite a bit of debate on why the republican party had actually lost.

Have you LOOKED at Mitt Romney anytime recently? His one "ideal" (contrary to what liberal extremists paint him as a typical conservative) Is that he hates poor people.
Reply
:iconhgwizard:
HGWizard Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Everyone knows about Romney's 47% comment. I personally don't find it to be any worse than Obama's comments in 2008 stating that Rural blue collar conservatives "....get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them.."

[link]


There a actually a few articles that compare the two gaffs.

[link]

[link]

[link]
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist
Citation please?
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
This is a good one:

[link]

The sum total of all reality. The fact that he thinks that not even the bottom 10 or 15%, but the entire bottom 50% of earners in the country are lazy shits who have no responsibility makes it a little obvious where his head is.
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist
A link to Google isn't what I had in mind. :shrug:

Are you referring to his "47%" comment? He isn't that far off. There are ~45% of R and D who vote strictly party lines. Makes sense to campaign towards the ones who actually thinks about the candidate instead of wasting energy on folk who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
Reply
:iconhtimsnayr:
HtimsNayr Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
His message carries far more bite than the rather tame "Most of the country is partisan, and I won't try to appeal to strongly partisan Democrats":

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And that the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what

And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49, 4- he starts off with a huge number. Theses are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax." - Mitt Romney.

What he was trying to imply here is obvious.

The problem I have with this, not being a Democrat, is that he left a large number of his own supporters out to dry. The elderly, between-jobs-republicans and the religious poor make up a significant part of the percentage of people who pay no federal income taxes, and they were all painted as "The Enemy."
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
"The problem I have with this, not being a Democrat, is that he left a large number of his own supporters out to dry. The elderly, between-jobs-republicans and the religious poor make up a significant part of the percentage of people who pay no federal income taxes, and they were all painted as 'The Enemy.'"

Don't bother, I made a thread pointing that out and everyone told me I was just making shit up and blowing hot air.
Reply
:iconhtimsnayr:
HtimsNayr Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Their tendency to reject reality might have been another reason for their loss.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah, probably just a teensy bit...
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Okay... I know how politics work. He was implying that anyone who is strictly democrat is automatically a leech to society. That's a far cry from pointing out that there are certain people who won't be voting for him in general.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
it had nothing to do with his actual political views, which like most politicians are along the lines of "retain corporate sponsors and get/stay elected".

He was pandering to his sponsors when he thought no one was looking.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
He didn't limit his comment to just that though, he went on to attack their character and everything about them. Essentially if you voted Obama it could only be because you lacked responsibility and were some lazy scrounger. He was too small minded to accept that people who were perfectly well off, intelligent, rich etc could possible vote for someone other than him.
Reply
:iconnokari:
nokari Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Interface Designer
I imagined Romney reading this, and then in the background Yoda appears saying, "That is why you fail." :lol:
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
It's times like this I'm glad I can do Yoda's voice :D
Reply
Add a Comment: