According to the conventional wisdom, McCain lost to Obama in 2008 because the Republican base stayed home.
What I want to know is how come Mitt Romney in 2012 got fewer votes than McCain did in 2008?
59,934,814
58,938,376
The conventional wisdom this time is that the base was energized and did not stay home.
So what happened?
Can it be that McCain couldn’t win without the base, while Romney couldn’t win with the base?
Somebody better figure this out, or else the GOP will never win.
Comments
15 responses to “Can’t win with ’em, can’t win without ’em?”
If you invoke Occam’s razor, perhaps McCain ’08 voters became Obama ’12 voters…
The votes have not all been counted yet.
Obama also lost voters. It is true that Romney lost voters relative to McCain, but it is also true that Obama lost voters relative to Obama, and in larger numbers. Wouldn’t the conclusion be that the number of people who believe that they’re all equally bad increased?
I think Dave just got it…
I suspect a lot of both sides stayed home because it was socialist vs socialist-lite. Sorry, cannot forget Romney Care, only voted for him–with nose held–because of they syphilitic camel thing. Would have slowed the crash, but that’s all. Romney got the nomination because it was “his turn”…until the RNC stops that, and starts getting the best possible in there, we’re going to lose.
G.W. Bush won by sheer luck. And maybe name. McCain, Dole… it was their turn. Sigh.
The base was energized? The most rousing thing the base seemed to be saying was, “At least he isn’t Obama.”
He passed the prototype for Obamacare.
He hates guns and gun owners more then Kerry.
The real problem with the GOP is that they are out-of-sync with America and can’t admit it.
At least the Pundits and a lot of the leadership are out of sync. Like the idiot they nominated to the Senate in Indiana who basically said he thought it was God’s will that some women got raped. That may not be what he meant to say, but he said it.
With all the anti-gay-marriage, anti-gays-in-the-military stuff that came out in the past few years, and the anti-abortion frenzy, (where GOP statehouse after statehouse passed restrictions) it is clear that the GOP is a minority party and determined to stay that way.
The GOP ran a very weak field of candidates this year, and Romney was just the best looking horse in the glue factory. Conservatives had hoped to make Obamacare the big issue in this election, but in the whole GOP, there is not a single person less capable of arguing against Obamacare than the father of Romneycare.
Why is it surprising that the man that lost early, often, and sometimes badly to McCain didn’t do as well against Obama as McCain?
Romney failed to get 50% of votes in almost all primaries until late in the process. He just got more than any of the crowd until the crowd whittled down to Romney.
The GOP keeps trying to out-bland itself, in the failed idea that if they get a candidate with no obvious liabilities that will be just as good as a candidate with strength and purpose. The Ruling Class GOP will only tolerate someone that won’t rock their comfortable boat, despite impending electoral defeat, and then they re-group and discover what the GOP needs is a candidate that REALLY won’t rock the boat. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The Ruling Class GOP was vehemently opposed to Reagan until Reagan won over their efforts. Restaurants, radio stations, consumer items don’t succeed by being so bland nobody has an objection. They succeed by being so good at their game they attract customers, more customers than those opposed to them. The Ruling Class GOP are so risk averse, and so used to giving-in, they either try to win without a fight or they fight just enough to say they tried.
The Ruling Class GOP will quickly re-elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House and then promptly refuse to effectively resist Obama, as they failed during the last 4 years.
You can’t win a fight unless you have talented fighters. Politics is a non-violent civil war between contradictory camps. The Ruling Class GOP thinks it’s nothing but a decision between strawberry or chocolate ice cream and “fight” accordingly. In their view even if they lose they still get ice cream.
voter gullibility
voter cheating
Okay, it’s time to bring this out in the open:
How many of those “missing Republican voters” went missing between casting the ballot and the count?
Was this a real election or a sham?
Yeah I know, does anyone know what ACORN was up to this election?
I especially love, LOVE how the people of personal responsibility’s reactions are always to blame everyone else, from the “base” to the boogeyman for their own failure to win an election. Can’t make this stuff up.
I don’t think the blame can really be laid at the feet of Romney… he was not nominated because he was “next in line,” he was nominated because he was quite literally the best of the candidates who were running (which isn’t saying much). [Note: I am not including Gary Johnson in this because he did not participate in all the debates and was unfortunately never a serious candidate for the R nomination.] If you recall, the Republican electorate went through a brief love affair with every other possible candidate before finally settling unhappily on Romney as the best of the lot. He actually turned out to be quite a bit better than I had anticipated, but it still wasn’t enough.
If you ask me, the Democrats have been working long and hard to make the “racist” label synonymous with the Republican party, and I think they have at long last actually succeeded. The Republican brand is definitely damaged goods, at least for the time being. However, I don’t plan on giving up my efforts to counteract and overcome the Dems’ push towards socialism. I’m going to stop being a coward and talk about my beliefs and principles publicly, and prepare a reasonable and persuasive response to those who would call me a racist or a self-hating homo. The time for cautiousness is past.
John,
Gary Johnson was excluded. And they did something similar to Ron Paul delegates at the convention.
The Republicans – leadership AND rank and file – don’t want libertarians in the party. They only want people who share their social concerns – abortion and dope. Fiscal conservatism is third in line.
“The Republicans – leadership AND rank and file – don’t want libertarians in the party.”
That is not something I see around here, and certainly not among Tea Party Rs. Some socons don’t like libertarians, and vice versa, but the general agreement is on fiscal conservatism and constitutionally limited small government.
The Republican Party includes a great many small l libertarians. Don’t forget Ron Paul, who has remained a Republican throughout.
And look at how Ron Paul delegates got treated at the convention. Or how Gary Johnson was excluded from the debates (except for one).
The Tea Party – at least the part that sends me e-mails – has been co-opted by socons.
And how many times have we seen in the comments something to the effect that “only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives” ?
The Tea Party as a national movement is IMO played out.
The Republicans have a Death Wish. I’m content to let them die if that is what they want.