So Romney lost the state he was Governor, his birth state and birth county

**jt1** · November-06-12, 11:14 PM

Seems like people that are aware of him best just don't like him

**gazhekwe** · November-07-12, 12:04 AM

He also lost California, where he has a house, and the home state of his VP candidate. He did win the Confederacy.

**firstandten** · November-07-12, 12:13 AM

He also didn't get the endorsement of the Salt Lake City Tribune the largest Mormon controlled newspaper in the world

**rb336** · November-07-12, 12:53 AM

That is actually the "Deseret News", but the SLC Trib is bigger

**Detroit Stylin** · November-07-12, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

He also lost California, where he has a house, and the home state of his VP candidate. He did win the Confederacy.

LOL @ The Confederacy....

**ghettopalmetto** · November-07-12, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

He also lost California, where he has a house, and the home state of his VP candidate. He did win the Confederacy.

Whether your intent was to be humorous or not, you make a valid point. The modern Republican party is becoming older, whiter, more evangelical, and more Southern. It's going to be tougher and tougher for them to field viable presidential candidates in the future. Virginia and North Carolina are already bona-fide swing states. Hell--some pundits are saying that Texas could be in play in 2020 due to the growth of the Latino population. The GOP is going to have to retreat back to the center, or risk remaining a small, regional party in perpetuity.

Lots of hand-wringing this morning, and it'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out--whether the GOP comes back to the center, or doubles-down on right-wing craziness. In my opinion, I think the people who were surprised by the results have been divorced from reality.

**oladub** · November-07-12, 10:36 AM

gp, You are correct about the GOP having a demographic problem. Romney, though, received 4M fewer votes than McCain. There was almost no enthusiasm for Romney until about a month ago which suggests another problem. In 2010, a vital tea party movement revitalized the Republican Party after the McCain defeat. The tea party movement seems to have since died though. In 2012, we didn't hear many candidates claiming to be tea party candidates. Romney never mentioned the tea party or sought tea party support.

The Democratic Party successfully spent a lot of money targeting West and Love, two black congressional candidates, to keep blacks with potential star status out of the Republican Party.

At the Republican National Convention, the RNC changed party rules so the Republican Party became more top down and less grass roots. Ron Paul/libertarian, evangelicals, tea party, and other non status quo Republicans were out so they sat home in greater numbers.

The demographic problem remains but having 4M Republican voters sit home when Obama won by 3M votes didn't help their cause. Since Romney's spending, international policy, trade policies, and health care plan so closely resembled Obama's, Romney found it hard to differentiate himself and get a lot of republicans out of their couches.

**Goose** · November-07-12, 09:38 PM

the old guard of the Republican party is dead... guys like Boehner, Dole, McCain are the establishment and are what is wrong with the party....

new blood like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz are the new blood... they are candidates the establisment despises... in Florida the RNC supported Christ agains Rubio and in Texas the RNC supported the Lt. Governor against Cruz...

these are tea-party candidates that won despite having gone up against the RNC, and these are the type of candidates the republicans will need to find if they don't want to become irrelevant....

**Bad Brains** · November-07-12, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Whether your intent was to be humorous or not, you make a valid point. The modern Republican party is becoming older, whiter, more evangelical, and more Southern. It's going to be tougher and tougher for them to field viable presidential candidates in the future. Virginia and North Carolina are already bona-fide swing states. Hell--some pundits are saying that Texas could be in play in 2020 due to the growth of the Latino population. The GOP is going to have to retreat back to the center, or risk remaining a small, regional party in perpetuity.

Lots of hand-wringing this morning, and it'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out--whether the GOP comes back to the center, or doubles-down on right-wing craziness. In my opinion, I think the people who were surprised by the results have been divorced from reality.

As someone who dislikes both parties, you are correct. The Republicans are too divided. The one thing the Democrats have going for it is they are a bit more unified.

**Papasito** · November-08-12, 08:59 AM

Latino groups to Obama: You owe Latinos

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/l...-election.html

**Danny** · November-08-12, 01:48 PM

Obama sez.... "Voting is the best revenge!" He's right. We kept Romney away.

**Goose** · November-08-12, 03:16 PM

when people say that the republicans need to "embrace the latino community" or they need to "engage the issues of the black community" is this code words for "offer them free shit".... because this seems like what works with democrats.....

i don't know how to talk differently to a latino or an african american when talking about the constitution, bill of rights, and freedom.... seems racist to think you need to pander to these groups by offering them rewards for their vote.... but then again I guess you can't be racist if your a democrat.....

**noise** · November-08-12, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

when people say that the republicans need to "embrace the latino community" or they need to "engage the issues of the black community" is this code words for "offer them free shit".... because this seems like what works with democrats.....

i don't know how to talk differently to a latino or an african american when talking about the constitution, bill of rights, and freedom.... seems racist to think you need to pander to these groups by offering them rewards for their vote.... but then again I guess you can't be racist if your a democrat.....

This pretty much sums up the Republicans on this issue. Completely clueless. The Latino community is pretty straightforward. That's why they support Obama even though he's deported people at a higher rate than any past President [[this, still, not being good enough for Republicans, for some reason!).

Maybe the whole "rewards for their vote" or "offer them free shit" argument is just code for "we have absolutely nothing to offer politically".

**oladub** · November-08-12, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by noise

This pretty much sums up the Republicans on this issue. Completely clueless. The Latino community is pretty straightforward. That's why they support Obama even though he's deported people at a higher rate than any past President [[this, still, not being good enough for Republicans, for some reason!).

Maybe the whole "rewards for their vote" or "offer them free shit" argument is just code for "we have absolutely nothing to offer politically".

Bush wasn't doing his job for which he did at least receive something like 44% of the Hispanic vote. Before the election, Obama stopped deporting illegal aliens unless they had committed crimes and then even backed the goalposts up on that a little. He violated immigration legislation in doing so. Democrats are not going to let Republicans get to the left of them on this issue. If Republicans got behind the Dream Act and new immigration legislation friendly to illegal aliens, Democrats would simply start advocating for affirmative action, Spanish language perks, or other issues in their advocacy of racial politics.

Nixon settled the illegal immigration problem "once and for all". He gave in to Democrats and legalized all 5M illegal aliens then in the country. Democrats promised, in return, to end illegal immigration. Because Democrats did not uphold their end of the deal and subsidizing something encourages more of it, we now have 12M illegal aliens in the Country. Eisenhower rounded up and deported relatively large numbers of illegal aliens to open up jobs for Americans. Nixon wimped out.

My suggestion to Republicans is to support small business, traditional family values, and upward mobility and always do it in a way that makes it clear they have the Hispanic population in mind. Leave it to Democrats to support illegal activities. Republicans should take the high road. Some temporary visas could be offered in places where unemployment was less than 5%. A compromise might be to severely punish the cheating employers of illegal aliens with huge fines, jail time, and reparations to taxpayers to pay for the medical, educational, and other expenses incurred by taxpayers so employers could hire this caste of lower paid workers. Massive deportations are not necessary. Enforcing existing immigration law is.

**poobert** · November-09-12, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by noise

This pretty much sums up the Republicans on this issue. Completely clueless. The Latino community is pretty straightforward. That's why they support Obama even though he's deported people at a higher rate than any past President [[this, still, not being good enough for Republicans, for some reason!).

Maybe the whole "rewards for their vote" or "offer them free shit" argument is just code for "we have absolutely nothing to offer politically".

The implication that people of color "want free shit" is exactly why they want nothing to do with Republicans.

The idea of "get Latinos in the party and we can win again!" in the party is an easy, simplistic cop-out for the Republican party. The truth is they're losing with the young, the highly educated, women, the Rust Belt, gays, Catholics, Jews, blacks...basically everybody who isn't rabidly conservative, stinking rich, or evangelical fundamentalists. Their tent is too small and too exclusionary. How in God's name do they think Hispanics will want to be invited to that party? Besides the overall odiousness of the base [[think of a bunch of screaming Janice Danielses on meth), the message is worse. Americans of all shades reject the idea of dismantling government services and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.

What makes them also think that their base will in any way be welcoming to Hispanics? This is a party that ran a crypto-racist message for the past four years because we have a guy who was half black in the white house. The Republican Party has become the political refuge for racists so don't count on Bubba and Blanca becoming bedfellows anytime soon.

JVB · November-09-12, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by poobert

The Republican Party has become the political refuge for racists so don't count on Bubba and Blanca becoming bedfellows anytime soon.

I'm not a Republican, so don't take this as a defense of their tired platform. But aren't liberals the racist ones by implying that blacks, hispanics, women etc are not capable of succeeding on their own without help from the government? The conservative position [[notice I didn't say Republican because Bush, Romney, McCain etc are not conservatives) is that everyone should have a level playing field, and then you either make it or you don't. Mind you, this does not seem to be the party platform, but it is at the core of conservative ideology.

But I have always wondered why more minorities aren't deeply offended by the implication that they need government help to succeed in life.

**noise** · November-09-12, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

I'm not a Republican, so don't take this as a defense of their tired platform. But aren't liberals the racist ones by implying that blacks, hispanics, women etc are not capable of succeeding on their own without help from the government? The conservative position [[notice I didn't say Republican because Bush, Romney, McCain etc are not conservatives) is that everyone should have a level playing field, and then you either make it or you don't. Mind you, this does not seem to be the party platform, but it is at the core of conservative ideology.

But I have always wondered why more minorities aren't deeply offended by the implication that they need government help to succeed in life.

I don't think the implication has ever been that people are incapable of succeeding without government assistance. I think the stance is that government assistance be available when people absolutely need it so that they are given the support to succeed.

There isn't a level playing field. Maybe that's the major flaw with the Conservative viewpoint.

**poobert** · November-09-12, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

I'm not a Republican, so don't take this as a defense of their tired platform. But aren't liberals the racist ones by implying that blacks, hispanics, women etc are not capable of succeeding on their own without help from the government? The conservative position [[notice I didn't say Republican because Bush, Romney, McCain etc are not conservatives) is that everyone should have a level playing field, and then you either make it or you don't. Mind you, this does not seem to be the party platform, but it is at the core of conservative ideology.

But I have always wondered why more minorities aren't deeply offended by the implication that they need government help to succeed in life.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you are an exception to this rule, since you seem nice enough, but:

After recent Republican trouncings, people who otherwise vote entirely Republican start insisting that they are not Republican but "conservative" and that so-and-so who lost wasn't a true conservative, and that what we need is a more CONSERVATIVE.

This is much tossed around, but Senator Graham has it right: “If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts,” Graham said. “We’re not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.”

"you either make it or you don't" is frankly part of the problem. It sounds callous and draconian. No, you should not get a free ride. However you shouldn't be left to die in the gutter if you fall on hard times. Americans - and "minorities" - are increasingly offended by this cutting of the social safety net while keeping cushy Bush tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy.

America isn't just experiencing a demographic shift, it is experiencing an ideological one. Americans are far more ok with the ideas of gay marriage and universal healthcare than they were ten years ago. The Republicans ignore this, too, at their peril.

**gazhekwe** · November-09-12, 03:45 PM

There is not a level playing field in this country. Jobs, seed money, education are all a hard climb for many segments of our society, while others are used to having these things readily accessible. If government assistance is needed to help level things out so everyone has more or less an equal chance, well, that is one thing for sure that is needed. The US Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority, which is why we do not fully operate under majority rule.

**Lowell** · November-09-12, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

gp, You are correct about the GOP having a demographic problem. Romney, though, received 4M fewer votes than McCain. ...
The demographic problem remains but having 4M Republican voters sit home when Obama won by 3M votes didn't help their cause.

I heard this 4M sit-at-home story too, on Fox as I recall with Hannity when I tuned in to watch him dine on crow.

Well it ain't so, only 1.7M less than McCain and if we are going to run that argument then Obama was hit even more with over 8M sit-at-homes. It really shows to me that both candidates were lackluster and a big chunk of the electorate yawned.

2012
OBAMA 61,209,905
ROMNEY 58,194,768

2008
OBAMA 69,456,897
MCCAIN 59,934,814

With the success of poll-takers and fact-checkers, this election is being dubbed as a victory for arithmetic more than anything else.

**rb336** · November-09-12, 04:48 PM

I hated math, but not in this case.

**Goose** · November-09-12, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by poobert

Americans of all shades reject the idea of dismantling government services and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.

as heard in Greece 10 years ago......

**rb336** · November-09-12, 05:44 PM

Actually, no

**Goose** · November-09-12, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Actually, no

cool, you hear that from racheal maddow?

**oladub** · November-09-12, 08:15 PM

Lowell, I'm starting to dig around for info on the male white vote. Part of it would have to include the population increase of the US in the last four years and what part of it was white.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of stats I stumbled over. Obama's biggest drop-off of white voters was the 18-29 age group who voted 54-44 Obama on 2008 and 51-44 Romney in 2012. Also, among black voters, black females voted only 3% Republican in 2008 and 1012. However, black males who voted 5% McCain in 2008 voted 12% Romney in 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ones-and-more/