Election Day 2012 LIVE THREAD

[Rokke]

You raise good points @pollyannaish, but I disagree that we had a terrific candidate. This isn't a poke fest at Romney. He was certainly better than Bush 41, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, or John McCain (the other election losers in the last 2 decades). But like all those other losers, Romney could not convince the American public (or even a significant percentage of his own party) that they could trust him. At least not enough to fire the person whose job he'd take over. As you point out, Reagan and Bush were certainly not raw meat chewing, fire breathing conservatives. But you knew where they stood, and you believed they believed in what they were saying. They had the compelling draw of consistent conviction. A clear message, leading to an understandable plan, all underscored by a likeable personality.

I think that is why Reagan and Bush (and even Clinton) succeeded where Romney failed. And as I reread your last paragraph, I think you and I agree. It isn't our message that is losing elections. It's our messenger. That isn't a personal attack on Romney or McCain et al. But I do think the first ingredient in delivering an inspiring message is finding someone who can deliver that message with consistent and real optimism.

[nickydog]

Looking back at the primary, who would have been the best choice?

[Pepper]

@Rokke @pollyannaish

 

Good points, both of yall.

 

I read that a negative (false) message about a person takes 5 times as much effort in the way of positive (true) messages to undo.

Conversely, a five positive message about a person can be undone quickly by just a single negative slur.

 

You two agree on Polly's last paragraph:

Finally, this self recrimination has to stop. We can not blame each other. We had a terrific candidate. We had a good GOTV effort. What we didn't have, and this includes our bench, is an articulate spokesman who could connect philosophy with personal outcome in a fresh way that connects with what is, rather than what used to be.

Until these things are addressed, we will continue to be out maneuvered. It's time to get to work.

 

Yes. It is always the communication, how the speaker delivers it and how the listener interprets the message. Undecideds can be sold a better way to live within the framework of the Constitution and according to founding principles. And we need to change how we communicate, I agree. But don't forget the role of liberal MSM outlets, print and TV and Internet counteracting any positive message that the collective GOP delivered. Not until the MSM either turns neutral or is overcome by positive outlets do we have hope. And omission of negative news is just as shameful (MSM and Benghazi, an example, to keep Zero out of the blame).

[Pepper]

@Rokke @pollyannaish

Along the same line, Fox news needs to drop the fair and balanced crap. Drop the pretense of being inclusive for the sake of inclusivity.

[Pepper]

Looking back at the primary, who would have been the best choice?

 

Romney or Perry or Ryan, even Huckabee or Gingrich - any one of them would be capable of governing and leading. If we had a neutral MSM and we had stopped the bloodletting of the primaries from Feb to June, any of them would have been fine.

[pollyannaish]

@Rokke @Pepper

 

I should have better defined terrific. By that I mean the following: honest, virtuous, accomplished, skills and experience uniquely matched to the current challenges, and yes, even likable in the end. However, I would not ever describe him as charismatic or visionary.

 

But I don't think that's the problem. It's not just a person it is our whole party's message and the perception of it. Guys like Akin and Murdock just feed the beast.

 

That's why I'm so drawn to the Whittle approach. Even the Tea Party is still looking to government to solve the problems. We need to figure out how to solve them ourselves legally and do that despite,the government.

[Pepper]

@pollyannaish, I understand, Romney possesses those characteristics.

 

"our whole party's message and the perception of it."

 

Got it, but add and the loss of influence of the MSM by starving it.

[pollyannaish]

@Pepper AMEN

 

I am so pleased to be outside the MSM. I missed cable election night but that is really the only time and looking back I think we were still better off without it. By buying only what we want through Netflix and podcasts (I subscribe to Special Report and others) and focusing more on new media I think we starve the beast. Newspapers are the best example of that. The networks are next. And then, I hope, the 24 hour news channels.

[Rokke]

Looking back at the primary, who would have been the best choice?

I don't think that matters anymore. But I do think we need to take a long look at how the party chooses its eventual candidate. Or not. Like Bill Whittle and Pollyannaish, I'm more inclined to start looking at political parties like I look at buggy whip makers.

[Rokke]

@Rokke @Pepper

 

I should have better defined terrific. By that I mean the following: honest, virtuous, accomplished, skills and experience uniquely matched to the current challenges, and yes, even likable in the end. However, I would not ever describe him as charismatic or visionary.

 

But I don't think that's the problem. It's not just a person it is our whole party's message and the perception of it. Guys like Akin and Murdock just feed the beast.

 

That's why I'm so drawn to the Whittle approach. Even the Tea Party is still looking to government to solve the problems. We need to figure out how to solve them ourselves legally and do that despite,the government.

Yeah, I think Mitt is a terrific person. No disagreement there. And full agreement on your last point. Our government has grown too large to succeed. Why spend a lot of time trying to carve out a role in it.

[Valin]

The Romney Campaign deserved to lose.