The Sore Losers Club (Romney/ Ryan)

[Flagg]

Salon.com

Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 04:38 AM PST
The sore losers club

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are already starting to channel the last guy who lost to Obama
By Steve Kornacki

Sometimes, losing national candidates actually manage to enhance their reputations in defeat. The most famous example of this is probably Bob Dole, who growled his way through the 1996 campaign but then turned in a winning performance on David Letterman’s “Late Show” a few days after the election, giving rise to something of a post-political career as a humorist. Al Gore knows something about this too; his concession of the 2000 election earned him respect that had eluded him throughout that campaign.

Based on their conduct since last week’s election, though, it’s safe to say that the two most recent national losers won’t be joining this company anytime soon.

Mitt Romney has been publicly quiet since his brief remarks on Election Night, but he told his top donors on a conference call yesterday that Barack Obama had won by giving “very generous” freebies to key constituencies, including blacks, Hispanics and young people.

“The president’s campaign,” Romney said, “focused on giving targeted groups a big gift, so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

Romney surely didn’t mean for his remarks to become public, but he probably shouldn’t be surprised that they leaked. After all, the same thing happened when he told donors earlier this year that 47 percent of the electorate would vote for Obama “no matter what” – because they “believe that they are victims” and that “they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

A tape of those comments emerged in September, and Romney eventually repudiated them and spent the rest of the campaign insisting that he would be a president for “the 100 percent.” That he’s still disparaging Obama’s coalition behind closed doors all but confirms that his campaign trail pleadings were insincere. It also reinforces the worst image of Romney, as a sneering plutocrat who has contempt for the common man.


But mainly, it’s just bad form. Romney was roundly defeated last week, and the man who defeated him has now publicly saluted him twice. This is the time for Romney to show grace, humility, and maybe some humor too. Instead, he’s coming across like a sore loser, one who’d rather make excuses than give his opponent any real credit.

The same can be said for Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan. During a series of interviews on Tuesday, Ryan offered this backhanded compliment to the president: “Well, he got turnout. The president should get credit for achieving record-breaking turnout numbers from urban areas for the most part, and that did win the election for him.”

This too smacks of sore loser-dom. Ryan’s ticket lost in swing states without major cities, like Iowa and New Hampshire, and won another key battleground – Virginia – by racking up massive margins in affluent suburbs. And if Ryan was using “urban” as a substitute for “black,” he’s off the mark there too. Sure, Obama received overwhelming support from an unusually energized African-American electorate, but he won plenty of states with small to non-existent black populations. The Obama victory last week was far broader than Ryan’s comment suggests, and rooted not just in demographics but also a very basic advantage on most of the issues that mattered most to voters. As with Romney, this is bad form – the sort of thing that might sound good to conservative diehards but that comes across as tone deaf to just about everyone else.

Romney and Ryan have an excuse, of course: It was only last week that they lost, so the wounds are still raw. The question is whether they’ll end up like John McCain, who is still clearly not over his loss to Obama four years ago.

As I’ve written before, McCain’s various self-reinventions as a politician are best understood as acts of sore loser-dom. A decade ago, for instance, he took up a sudden interest in closing the gun show loophole, enacting a patients’ bill of rights, and stopping tax cuts for the wealthy. Not at all coincidentally, this came just after he’d lost a bruising campaign against George W. Bush. Bush and his team had been rough – very, very rough – on McCain, and McCain had deemed them unworthy victors. His sudden cooperation with Democrats in 2001 was his version of payback, giving the new Bush White House fits.

When he lost to Obama in 2008, McCain shifted in the other direction, becoming a more reliable Republican vote in the Senate and playing a leading role in the right’s attacks on the new president. At a 2010 White House summit on healthcare, McCain communicated something approaching contempt for Obama, and he threw himself into Romney’s campaign against the president this year. Nor is he giving up in the wake of the election. Along with Lindsey Graham, McCain is now the GOP’s point-man for going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over the Benghazi incident. This week, McCain vowed to filibuster her nomination if Obama chooses her to run the State Department, a threat that prompted an unusually heated response from Obama at his Wednesday press conference.

“When they go after the U.N. ambassador,” Obama said of McCain and Graham, “apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”

Obviously, McCain got under the president’s skin, which surely makes him happy. But this is probably short-sighted. For years, McCain was one of the most popular politicians in the country. His reputation took a hit in ’08, but he had an opportunity to restore it in defeat. Instead, he’s behaved like an embittered partisan warrior. And so far, it’s an example that Romney and Ryan are following.

No comment, cannot stop laughing at the truth of this article.

[Nathaniel]

Let's hope the bullshit they're spouting sticks. Anything that alienates minorities can only be a good thing for the Democrats in 2016.

[Sidewinder]

Let's hope the bullshit they're spouting sticks. Anything that alienates minorities can only be a good thing for the Democrats in 2016.

Personally, I'd rather the Republican Party stop trying to be the party of Old White Men, and start embracing the young, minorities, and women. I want a government that works at 100%, NOT a government that works at 25% because half of it hates the other half with such venom, it actively sabotages the very nation it governs.

[Flagg]

I'd rather see the GOP wither and die and have the left of the Democrats splinter off to form a Socialist party with Democrats still to the center-right.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Let's hope the bullshit they're spouting sticks. Anything that alienates minorities can only be a good thing for the Democrats in 2016.

Personally, I'd rather the Republican Party stop trying to be the party of Old White Men, and start embracing the young, minorities, and women. I want a government that works at 100%, NOT a government that works at 25% because half of it hates the other half with such venom, it actively sabotages the very nation it governs.

I think a better outcome would be the collapse of the Republican Party and a schism in the Democratic Party between the Center-Right and the actual Leftist elements, with the moderate Republicans under the umbrella of the Right-wing Democratic faction as.

Edit: Derp, I r dumb and missed flaggs reply.

[CaptJodan]

I think a better outcome would be the collapse of the Republican Party and a schism in the Democratic Party between the Center-Right and the actual Leftist elements, with the moderate Republicans under the umbrella of the Right-wing Democratic faction as.

Edit: Derp, I r dumb and missed flaggs reply.

I think a lot of us would prefer that, but it isn't going to happen. The actual leftists in the democratic party don't have much power or vocal resonance (what would even qualify? The Occupy movement?). They're not a viable party in American politics at this juncture. Socialism is now as vilified as Communism was in the 50s and 60s. A hard left party wouldn't survive in this political climate.

Meanwhile, you still have a little less than 50% of the voting public who voted for the Etch a Sketch of the GOP. The GOP is in no way weak enough to collapse, but they are weak enough to consider change. The article posted by Sidewinder (and other articles I've seen) show that some in the party are serious about truly looking at how they've fucked up by ignoring the demographic shift. Even Bill Reily's comments on FOX the night of the election showed a tacit admission (even if he was being insulting) that this isn't the "old America" everyone grew up with. The GOP definitely has time and enough power to change before the whole thing collapses around their ears.

The 48.3% of the electorate that voted for Romney isn't going anywhere. Fear of minorities taking white jobs isn't going anywhere. Small town folksy people aren't going anywhere. People constantly wanting lower taxes (even to extreme and unrealistic levels) aren't going anywhere. And I don't really see the rise of a powerful far left party to challenge the wounded Tea Party coming up anytime soon.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Americans can be much more open to left-wing ideas when they're phrased right; single-payer healthcare was polled at points at 70% support when it didn't trigger any negative talking points in its wording. The current political climate is vastly different than it was even a decade ago. Perceptions change, and just as the Tea Party would've been a fringe in 2000, it's possible to have a swing back to the left within a decade. These things often snowball; as the ideas gain more traction, they become more easily seen as acceptable, thus gaining even more traction.

[Darth Wong]

Your politics will never be sane as long as there is this huge block of evangelicals, southern rednecks, and midwestern hicks who demand that someone cater to them. Right now, the Republicans cater to them. If they were to stop through some miraculous act of re-invention, someone else would pick up that torch. It's just too tempting a demographic because they all tend to vote as one, and they're so easily manipulated as long as you appear to share their prejudices.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

They are declining in numbers, if slowly. But they make quite a political prize. It's no wonder that so many politicians want to cut education and other programs that could diminish or break up that group. They're being tended like a political crop.

[Azazal]

I'm sure this is Jindal beginning his campaign for 2016, but it is fun to see the GOP eat their own.

Jindal slams Romney for 'gifts' comment about minorities, young voters

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana fiercely shot back at Mitt Romney’s claim Wednesday that President Barack Obama outmatched the 2012 Republican presidential nominee by offering "gifts" to African-Americans, Hispanics and young voters.

“I absolutely reject that notion,” Jindal, who was a surrogate for Romney’s campaign, said at the Republican Governors Association conference in Las Vegas. “I think that's absolutely wrong.” .... (snipped out reposting of Romeny's comments)

But Jindal, when asked about Romney’s remarks, said in order for the GOP to be “competitive,” it has to “go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

Jindal’s criticism seemed to take latent swipes at Romney’s “47%” comments that were secretly recorded earlier this year. At a May fund-raiser, Romney argued that nearly half of Americans were “victims” who were “dependent” on the government, referring to the number of people who aren't required to pay federal income taxes. Those voters, he argued, sided with Obama.

Following up on Jindal's remarks, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker–who was sitting on a panel with Jindal when the Louisiana governor fired off–said the GOP isn't "just for people who are currently not dependent on the government."

"It's for all Americans," he continued, adding that the Republican Party is the party "that helps people find a pathway to live the American Dream."

A spokesperson for Romney did not return a request for comment about the call.

[Darth Wong]

What's most interesting about the sore-loser behaviour of McCain, Ryan, and Romney is what it reveals about their personalities. A lot of politicians will do or say anything to get elected, even if those things are at odds with their true personalities. After they lose, they are free to be themselves again, which is often refreshing.

But some people are just nasty individuals by nature, and when they are no longer campaigning and they still keep acting like that, you can see that their nasty remarks on the campaign trail weren't just focus-group targeting: they were indicative of their true nature.

Both McCain and Romney have numerous incidents in their distant past which can only be described as "bullying" of others, and while some might say that it was a long time ago, I am quite frankly unconvinced that an 18 year old bully will ever become a genuinely nice guy. Their post-election behaviour seems completely consistent with the way a bully would behave. Even in defeat, he doesn't know how to act like anything other than a bully, churning with resentment against those who would defy or reject him.

[Alferd Packer]

Your politics will never be sane as long as there is this huge block of evangelicals, southern rednecks, and midwestern hicks who demand that someone cater to them. Right now, the Republicans cater to them. If they were to stop through some miraculous act of re-invention, someone else would pick up that torch. It's just too tempting a demographic because they all tend to vote as one, and they're so easily manipulated as long as you appear to share their prejudices.

I believe this is called the Southern Strategy, and Republicans have ran on it successfully since Nixon invented it(or his campaign manager invented it, at any rate). The problem is, as Alerik pointed out, is that demographic shifts are killing the Southern Strategy. Affluent liberals have poured into Virginia(specifically, the D.C. suburbs) in such great numbers that it's went blue twice in a row now. Enough liberals migrated into North Carolina to turn it into a swing state. That's 28 more electoral votes that Republicans must now fight for (that they haven't had to fight for for the last 40 years).

One of the critical takeaways from this election should be this: the number of electoral votes in states which have gone Democrat in the last six elections is 242. That is, Democrats have been able to count on 242 electoral votes as a base since 1988. If you throw in New Mexico (which is now a blue state), that "safe" number of electoral votes is 247. Conversely, the "safe" Republican states account for something like 176 electoral votes. Since it only takes 270 to win, the Democrats should continue to have many more avenues of victory than the Republicans have, if the Republicans don't change their strategy.

While I don't discount the power of the evangelical voting bloc, they're no longer enough to win an election. The Republicans must appeal to other groups, even at the risk of alienating some evangelicals, if they ever hope to flip enough swing states to carry an election. The Southern Strategy doesn't work anymore.

[Flagg]

Your politics will never be sane as long as there is this huge block of evangelicals, southern rednecks, and midwestern hicks who demand that someone cater to them. Right now, the Republicans cater to them. If they were to stop through some miraculous act of re-invention, someone else would pick up that torch. It's just too tempting a demographic because they all tend to vote as one, and they're so easily manipulated as long as you appear to share their prejudices.

I believe this is called the Southern Strategy, and Republicans have ran on it successfully since Nixon invented it(or his campaign manager invented it, at any rate). The problem is, as Alerik pointed out, is that demographic shifts are killing the Southern Strategy. Affluent liberals have poured into Virginia(specifically, the D.C. suburbs) in such great numbers that it's went blue twice in a row now. Enough liberals migrated into North Carolina to turn it into a swing state. That's 28 more electoral votes that Republicans must now fight for (that they haven't had to fight for for the last 40 years).

One of the critical takeaways from this election should be this: the number of electoral votes in states which have gone Democrat in the last six elections is 242. That is, Democrats have been able to count on 242 electoral votes as a base since 1988. If you throw in New Mexico (which is now a blue state), that "safe" number of electoral votes is 247. Conversely, the "safe" Republican states account for something like 176 electoral votes. Since it only takes 270 to win, the Democrats should continue to have many more avenues of victory than the Republicans have, if the Republicans don't change their strategy.

While I don't discount the power of the evangelical voting bloc, they're no longer enough to win an election. The Republicans must appeal to other groups, even at the risk of alienating some evangelicals, if they ever hope to flip enough swing states to carry an election. The Southern Strategy doesn't work anymore.

Well the problem is that even if they branch out, they still need evangelicals. If they had stayed home in 2004 when Bush won reelection with 40% of the hispanic vote, Kerry would have won. So they boxed themselves in longterm for short term gains. That's not to say they can't make a comeback, I just fail to see how.

[Justforfun000]

Instead of posting a new thread..interesting self-examination in the news. Not sure how relevant it really is since they aren't truly discussing what is WRONG with their party or positions just what they did wrong to lose. Not impressed with that automatic begging of the question that they had good platform policies in the first place.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... obama.html

Republican calls for 'brutally honest' review after Romney loss
'We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that,' Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says

The Associated Press
Posted: Nov 15, 2012 5:13 PM ET

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivers his concession speech during his election night rally in Boston. Senior Republicans are meeting in Las Vegas to discuss the loss and party strategy. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivers his concession speech during his election night rally in Boston. Senior Republicans are meeting in Las Vegas to discuss the loss and party strategy. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)


Obama's 'gifts' won certain voters, Romney tells donors
U.S. election vote shows gender, racial gaps
Top 10 storylines of the U.S. election
PHOTOS | Election winners and losers

Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party failed to unseat U.S. President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.

In conversations at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, a half dozen party leaders predicted the Republicans will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, these leaders asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters' savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the white, male voters who are its base.

"We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. "We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that."

Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016's race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the Republican's sharpest political operatives.

Romney blames loss on #ObamaGifts, spawns yet another meme

"We need to have a brutal, brutally honest assessment of everything we did," Barbour said. "We need to take everything apart ... and determine what we did that worked and what we did that didn't work."

Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.

"We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections," McDonnell said. "We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged."
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, left, Indiana Gov.-Elect Mike Pence, centre, and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell participate in a panel discussion in Las Vegas. Top Republicans came together to discuss the recent presidential loss and talk about what's next for the party.Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, left, Indiana Gov.-Elect Mike Pence, centre, and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell participate in a panel discussion in Las Vegas. Top Republicans came together to discuss the recent presidential loss and talk about what's next for the party. (Ronda Churchill/Associated Press)

With polls in hand and shifting demographic trends in mind, these Republicans are looking at how best to position the party to make inroads with growing numbers of Hispanic, black and young voters who overwhelmingly voted Democratic last week. The Republicans were still smarting over constant criticism of Romney from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — and what they saw as Romney's often ineffective response.

"They spent all their time making Mitt Romney unacceptable and making him out to be someone who was untrustworthy and unacceptable to enough of the American people — and it worked," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said in an interview.

In the hallways at the conference, the governors and their top advisers uniformly blamed Romney's loss on an uneven communications strategy. They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters.

"We didn't have effective means by which to counter the attacks the Obama-Biden campaign took against Mitt Romney and his team," Walker said. "I just don't think you can let that go unanswered."
Republicans point to attacks, lack of specifics

Time and again, the governors pointed to Obama attacks that settled into voters' minds.

"His whole campaign was a fear-and-smear attack to make Romney unacceptable and to blame George Bush for anything that happened while Obama was president," Barbour said. "This was all personal: that Romney is a vulture capitalist who doesn't care about people like you, ships jobs overseas, is a quintessential plutocrat and is married to a known equestrian."

Barbour added: "An attack unanswered is an attack admitted to."

'You have to have a vision, you have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people.'—Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

Had the criticism been shown to be false or unfair, the results might have been better, said Bill Bennett, an education secretary in the Reagan administration and an informal adviser to governors.

"We were in a big fight. We came with a knife; they came with a gun," Bennett said. "If Mitt Romney had responded and had we responded on his behalf — and had his campaign pushed back more forcefully — I think it would have been a different result."

Jindal, however, attributed Romney's loss to a lack of "a specific vision that connected with the American people."

"His campaign was largely about his biography and his experience," Jindal said. "But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision, you have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don't think the campaign did that and as a result, this became a contest between personalities and — you know what? — Chicago won that."
Romney says Obama gave 'targeted groups a big gift'

Romney cast his loss in a different light, at least in a phone call Wednesday with top donors. He asserted that Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" the president had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.

After losing her party’s presidential ticket Michele Bachmann held on to her seat

1 of 9

"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said, citing immigration proposals aimed at Hispanics and free contraception coverage that appealed to young women. "He made a big effort on small things."

White House press secretary Jay Carney disputed Romney's assessment, telling reporters travelling with Obama to New York City on Thursday that policies allowing more young people to go to college or stay on their parents' health plans are good for the country and the economy.

"I think that view of the American people or the electorate and the election is at odds with the truth of what happened last week," Carney said.

Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about "big issues for the whole country." He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was "getting beat up" by the Obama campaign. He said the debates allowed him to come back.

The Republican nominee didn't acknowledge any major missteps and said his team had run a superb campaign.

[UnderAGreySky]

Will Saletan of Slate echoes Mike Wong:

...

When you read these quotes and listen to the audio, three patterns sink in. First, everything Romney says on the conference call is the opposite of what he said in the debates. In the debates, Romney pledged to “make it easier for kids to afford college” and bragged that as governor, he had given students “four years tuition free to the college of your choice.” On the call, he depicts college loan assistance as a bribe. In the debates, Romney labeled Obamacare a big-government mandate that would force everyone to buy a product, would cost 20 million people their health insurance, and would raise every family’s premiums by $2,500 a year. On the call, he describes Obamacare as “free health care” worth $10,000 per family. In the debates, Romney claimed that “under my plan … young people are able to stay on their family plan.” On the call, he brushes off this idea as a “gift” used by Obama to buy votes. In the debates, Romney said “every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” On the call, he caricatures Obama’s policy—that insurance plans must cover birth control for the premium payer—as “free contraceptives” for young women.

Second, the Romney on the call matches the Romney in the 47 percent video. In the same resigned tone, he speaks of scores of millions of Americans hooked on free health care and other benefits. But this time, he itemizes the constituencies and reports that they’ve paid back their benefactor with their votes, just as he predicted.

Third, the call belies everything Romney said in his attempts to clean up the 47 percent video. At the Sept. 19 Univision forum, Romney said the country was too divided, and he proclaimed his commitment to the poor. On the call, he depicts blacks, Latinos, and young women as interest groups bought off by handouts and amnesty. At the Univision forum, Romney framed food stamps as something unemployed people “had to go onto.” On the call, he casts public assistance as “extraordinary financial gifts” eagerly seized in exchange for votes. In the Oct. 4 Hannity interview, Romney excused his 47 percent riff as a one-time verbal flub “in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions.” On the call, at length, he repeats it.

Don’t bother trying to explain yourself, Mitt. The 47 percent of us who gave you a pass the first time won’t make that mistake again. We can tell you’re being candid. Just not with us.

[Dalton]

I seriously do wonder if there's a schism coming between the sane Conservatives and batshit crazy motherfuckers who say outlandish shit to attract God-dollars. Many Republicans are (reluctantly) calling on a bipartisan solution to the fiscal cliff that involves actual revenue increases (and maybe even tax hikes), but the staunch Norquist-sucking holdouts (dwindling maybe) stand by their pledge (which is now in writing). It'd be a glorious thing to see the total collapse of the Congressional GOP.

[General Mung Beans]

Your politics will never be sane as long as there is this huge block of evangelicals, southern rednecks, and midwestern hicks who demand that someone cater to them. Right now, the Republicans cater to them. If they were to stop through some miraculous act of re-invention, someone else would pick up that torch. It's just too tempting a demographic because they all tend to vote as one, and they're so easily manipulated as long as you appear to share their prejudices.

Actually there is a solution for leftists in this fact as these blocs at times in the past leaned to the left such as the Populists in the Great Plains and the parts of the South while the Socialists a century ago were strongest in the West in places like Montana or Nevada. To-day a reverse Southern strategy can be attempted by emphasizing economic nationalism (as most of the left tends to be anti-globalization), single-payer health care, and a non-interventionist foreign policy wrapped up in terms of self-interest while de-emphasizing (but still pushing for) social issues. Remember that the 99% includes fundies, rednecks, and hicks.

[LaCroix]

I think that economic pressure will dismantle the southern block step by step. The older ones will hold on to their beliefs, but the younger generation will come to embrace the things the Democrats are doing for them. There will be a time when they start to vote Democrat in secret, and the next generation will do so openly.