Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category
The first workshop I attended at this summer’s RightOnline Conference was about reaching out to minority communities. It was titled “Preaching Beyond the Choir: Growing the Ranks of the Free Market Movement,” which I wrote about in this article. The first featured speaker was Anita MonCrief. Here’s what Ms. MonCrief said that jumped out at me:
She said that the biggest mistake conservatives make is not fighting in every minority district. Part of that, she said, is understandable, acknowledging the fact that “people won’t trust us at first.” Ms. Moncrief said that it’s important to continue the efforts so that people find out that they’re since, not just out for their votes.
Another major point in Ms. Moncrief’s presentation was saying that “If we want to take America back, it has to be block-by-block. She said there’s no substitute for being there, staying committed and building relationships.”
Ms. Moncrief said that listening is essential. That means starting conversations rather than talking to people. Ms. Moncrief said that she enjoyed “talking to the people in their neighborhoods.” She said it doesn’t take a big budget to do that. It just takes effort.
That afternoon, I had the privilege of sitting down with Ms. MonCrief for a lengthy conversation about outreach programs. She’s a bright, articulate, quick-on-her-feet, no-nonsense lady. Most importantly, she knows what she’s talking about when she says that listening is essential to successful outreach efforts. She’s also right in saying “there’s no substitute for being there, staying committed and building relationships.”
The reason for highlighting those things now is because Kim Strassel’s article talks directly about what’s wrong with the GOP election model:
Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney’s better turnout.
In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory there was 103,000.
This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won’t equal Mr. Obama’s magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.
There’s no question that capitalism will lift minority families out of poverty. Similarly, there’s no question that that message won’t resonate if conservatives don’t devote tons of hours reaching out to every demographic group. PS- Progressive trust fund babies and elitists aren’t demographic groups.
Mitch Berg, one of the conservatives who gets it, has written eloquently about how the GOP can fight on the topics of charter schools and vouchers to win minority votes. Dan Severson has spent tons of hours doing outreach to various minority communities.
The point is that it’s time for conservatives to put together a well-funded outreach program. If we don’t do that on a national scale, presidential elections will become a night of misery for Republicans.
Conservatives aren’t victims so they shouldn’t spend time whining about what should or shouldn’t have happened. Conservatives are, by nature, solution-oriented opportunists. That’s why we’re entrepreneurial by nature.
Conservatives would win overwhelmingly if we fought as hard for every vote in every demographic group as we fight against tax increases.
Hispanics are pro-life, hard-working people. They’re a natural fit with conservatives. Churchgoing, middle class black families are a better fit with conservatives than with the Obama coalition. Why didn’t we do better with them? Here’s why:
Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney’s failures and the party’s immigration platform—that’s fair enough. But equally important has been the party’s mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn’t campaign in those communities, doesn’t register voters there, doesn’t knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president’s.
Two cliches fit this situation perfectly. They are: People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care and You can’t beat something with nothing.
Right now, minority communities don’t know conservatives want them to live a life of prosperity because we aren’t there day after day telling them that. We aren’t there day after day earning their trust or building relationships.
That’s essential in building an appealing something that will defeat the Democrats’ unappealing pandering.
There’s an important message to the activists. The DC establishment hasn’t built this outreach program so it’s up to us. Let’s start building ASAP.
Tags: GOTV, Mitt Romney, GOP Establishment, Activists, AFP, RightOnline, Anita MonCrief, Charter Schools, School Choice, Prosperity, Entrepreneurship, Battleground States, GOP, Conservatism, Elections
Liberals do not grasp the distinction between Ronald Reagan and (either) George Bush. This blind spot creates a massive confusion and hazard to their ambitions. Obama defeated neither the Reagan Narrative nor Team Reagan. Team Bush appropriated, and then marginalized, both. Obama beat Team Bush, not Team Reagan. The implications are huge.
This post isn’t about trashing Karl Rove or the Bush family. Frankly, that’s a waste of time when there’s important things to be done. Instead, it’s about identifying underlying principles undergirded President Reagan’s policies. Mr. Benko is spot on with this analysis:
Real conservatives saw Reaganomics as a way of creating broad-based opportunity, not as catering to the rich. It worked out exactly that way in America and throughout the world. The blossoming of free market principles, especially low tax rates and good money, brought billions of souls out of poverty, from subsistence to affluence.
Several things worked together to make America infinitely more prosperous during Reagan’s time than during President Obama’s time in office. First, the dollar was much stronger than during President Obama’s time in office. That’s partially because President Reagan’s domestic energy policy was infinitely more robust than President Obama’s. The less money we needlessly ship money overseas for oil, the stronger the dollar is. Our trade deficit shrunk, too.
The new conservative Republican leaders are strikingly formidable. The leaders of the new generation, like Reagan, and Kemp, before them (and Kennedy still earlier), all recognize the power of the “rising tide lifts all boats”.
It isn’t a stretch to think that conservatives like John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio will re-ignite the Reagan Revolution. Each of these men have spotless conservative credentials, which is why they fire up the base in ways Mitt Romney and John McCain couldn’t.
When President Bush won in 2004, he got 62,000,000 votes. McCain got fewer votes than President Bush. Mitt got fewer votes than Sen. McCain. Had Paul Ryan been at the top of the ticket, however, it isn’t a stretch to think he would’ve topped President Bush’s vote total.
That’s because he’s the spitting image of Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was fueled by a glut of great ideas. A Ryan Revolution would be powered by the same thing. Most importantly, he’d talk conservatism like his native language. This isn’t an attempt to trash Mitt. It’s simply stating the obvious. He just didn’t prosecute the case against President Obama the way Ryan would have.
President Bush’s spending turned conservatives off because he had a Republican House and Senate much of the time. President Reagan’s spending was done, in part, because he had to rebuild the military after President Carter gutted it, partly because Tip O’Neill controlled the House.
Everything President Reagan fought for was targeted towards creating prosperity. He didn’t back away from a fight, either. When PATCO went on strike, he fired them because they broke federal law. When Tip O’Neill accused him of not caring about the average working Joe, Reagan responded mightily. His temper flaring, he marched back to the podium, then said, essentially, that he’d made his money because he’d worked hard, then adding that it wasn’t given to him.
It’s a fight Mitt Romney backed away from too often in his attempt to win over women voters or independents. It’s a fight the next generation of conservatives will fight with vigor.
Tags: Reagan Revolution, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Prosperity, Pro-Growth Policies, Strong Dollar, Oil, Job Growth, GDP, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Conservatism, President Bush, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, GOP Establishment
Bill O’Reilly touts Bernie Goldberg as an expert on the media, which says something in and of itself. Call it the Mindless Bloviator praises the Expert Pontificator. This weekend, Goldberg’s column offers ‘proof’ of a GOP civil war. At least, that’s the Gospel according to the Expert Pontificator. Here’s the Expert Pontificator’s proof:
So I’m driving in my car listening to Rush two days after the election and a caller comes who describes himself as a traditional family values conservative. He is a combination of angry and deeply depressed over how the election turned out, but mostly angry. And he’s calling, he says, to inform Mr. Limbaugh that he did not vote for Mitt Romney and will never vote for a moderate Republican. Then for good measure he adds that if he ever hears a Republican say he wants to “reach across the aisle” he will never vote for him either.
One day earlier, conservative radio talk show star Laura Ingraham tweeted this:
“Face it Repubs, you wish we had a candidate who–teleprompter or not–could speak as forcefully for conservatism as Obama speaks for liberalism” and “JUST A THOUGHT…Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative.”
And out in Middle America, Steve Deace, a conservative radio talk show host and well-known conservative in Iowa told his listeners: “There will never be another establishment candidate like that [Romney]. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin. It’s on like Donkey Kong.”
That Goldberg thinks that 3 callers on talk radio constitutes a GOP civil war speaks to Mr. Goldberg’s habit of overdramatizing things. If that’s the criteria defining an intraparty civil war, then the GOP has fought civil wars while winning landslide victories and while suffering humiliating defeats.
Of we could just call this what it is: a tussle that happens to all political parties after a defeat.
I’ve talked with lots of conservatives since the election. None has suggested that they’re upset with Mitt Romney’s policies. A fair number of these conservatives think he ran too cautious of a campaign, especially with regard to Benghazi and the EPA.
That isn’t the same as saying they’re ready to go headhunting. Yes, there will undoubtedly be some angry conservatives venting on talk radio. A fair number of them will have constructive ideas moving the GOP forward, too.
That, however, doesn’t constitute a full-blown intraparty civil war in the GOP.
Newt Gingrich is one of the best political strategists of our time. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies, whether you think he’s too temperamental or whether you think he’s utterly brilliant, there’s no denying the fact that he’s got a fantastic knack of understanding main street. This video is a tour de force presentation by Newt:
Here’s the first thing Newt said that caught my attention:
It’s great. It’s the American drama. After all the talk, after all the ads, after all the pontificating, the American people get to tell us.
I’ll just say this. It’s about time. Let’s get this started. I’ve had enough of looking at deceitful polls. I’m tired of listening to President Obama’s stump speech. It isn’t time for the pontificators to leave the stage. It’s just time for them to add insight into why the American people made the decision they made.
This is the next thing Newt said that caught my attention:
I’ll give you one example. They’re talking about Democratic early voting in Ohio but they’re counting the counties along the Ohio River, which is coal country, which are Second Amendment gun rights country, which are God-fearing counttry, which are the very things that Obama had contempt for in San Fransisco. Those Democrats are going to vote against Obama.
It’s wrong to think of these coal-mining Democrats as Romney Democrats, at least at this point. It’s possible they’d be accurately described as Romney Democrats. It’s entirely possible they’ll just join the GOP.
At this point, though, it’s best calling them anti-Obama Democrats. At this point, they’re best described as people agitated that a Democrat wouldn’t fight for the blue collar Democrats that once was the backbone of the Democratic Party.
This statement spoke volumes to me:
NEWT: I was struck by something Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times, hardly a right wing reporter, said that the states he’d been in this week, his phrase was “The organic enthusiasm was for Romney.” There was a mechanical machine for Obama but there was an organic enthusiasm for Romney. My experience in politics is that organic enthusiasm,. the whole wave effect, always defeats the mechanical machine.
Notice that Newt didn’t criticize the machine. He simply said that a mob of genuinely enthusiastic voters will defeat the machine every time. I couldn’t dispute that if I wanted to.
Later, they talked about Todd Akin. Here’s what Newt said there:
Well, first of all, Callista and I have both been out campaigning with him. I’ve really liked Todd Akin. He was given a very bum rap by the national establishment. She is a very Obama-like voter in a state that voted by 71% against Obamacare and then she voted for Obamacare six weeks later. And Romney’s going to carry the state by 8-12 point so I think Akin wins by 3 points.
Frankly, I hadn’t thought about the folks along Ohio River Democrats voting early for Mitt but it makes sense. If that’s what’s happened, then that drops Ohio comfortably into Mitt’s lap. Similarly, if Mitt’s winning Missouri by double-digits and if Missourans don’t like Claire McCaskill like I think is the case, then I think Todd Akin wins.
It’s important to not accept a poll’s horserace numbers as Gospel fact. This poll is fatally flawed but it’s quite fixable. Here’s the horserace number:
Romney/Ryan, leaners: 49%
Obama/Biden, leaners: 49%
If people just read the horserace number, they’d think this race was a tie. They’d be wrong. This CNN poll has a D/R/I index of 41/30/29. In 2008, a year that was a tidal wave election, Democrats represented 39% of the electorate while Republicans represented 32% of the electorate. That means this poll vastly oversampled Democrats. Gallup recently did a poll of who would vote in this year’s election. Here’s what it said:
Independents 38%, Democrats 32%, Republicans 30%.
According to the CNN poll’s internals, Gov. Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans’ vote, 59% of the independents’ vote and 5% of the Democrats’ votes. Now let’s plug those numbers into my votes per hundred method. If Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans’ votes and Republicans represent 30% of all likely voters, that means he’ll get 29.7 votes per hundred from Republicans. If Mitt gets 59% of independents’ votes and they represent 38 voters per 100, that means Mitt would get 22.42 votes per hundred from independents. If Mitt gets 5% of the Democrats’ votes and they represent 32 voters per 100, that means he’ll get an additional 1.6 votes for a grand total of 53.72 votes per 100 for Mitt.
I don’t believe, however, that Mitt’s getting 99% of the Republicans’ votes. I don’t buy that President Obama is getting 95% of the Democrats’ vote. I think Mitt’s getting 85-90% of the Republicans’ votes. Likewise, I think President Obama is getting 85-90% of the Democrats’ votes. That changes the numbers to Mitt getting 25.5 votes per 100 of Republicans’ votes and 4.8 votes per 100 from Democrats. The independents’ number would stay the same. That means Mitt would get 52.72 votes per 100.
Far from being tied, this poll actually shows Mitt with a dominant 52.7%-47.3% lead. I’m betting that’s a ‘tie’ Mitt Romney would embrace tomorrow night.
Bill Clinton is as intellectually dishonest today as he was when he said he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” Clinton’s op-ed is typical Bill Clinton’s spin:
Mitt Romney says that the economy is not fixed and if he is elected it will produce 12 million jobs in the next four years. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but that’s exactly how many new jobs independent business forecaster Moody’s Analytics says will be created if we don’t mess up what the president already has done.
Moody’s Analytics is the company that said the stimulus bill would have us at 5.4% unemployment right now. Why would anyone trust their predictions? We’ve heard this administration lie to us repeatedly with their predictions. They said that the ACA would be deficit neutral and that it would cost less than $1,000,000,000,000 in the first decade. It’s caused major deficits and its cost is close to $2,000,000,000,000.
Bill Clinton is a great prevaricator. There’s a reason why he used to be called Slick Willie.
Does anyone seriously think that Obamanomics will create an average of 250,000 jobs per month for 4 years? Clinton wants us to believe that President Obama’s policies of job-killing regulations, high energy prices, exploding deficits, monstrous tax increases on small businesses, high levels of economic uncertainty and expensive compliance costs will lead us to prosperity.
This is insulting, too:
Romney also says that because the debt is a terrible problem, he will cut taxes for everybody by $5 trillion, increase defense spending $2 trillion more than the military has asked for, and tell you how he will pay for it after the election.
Democrats have been lying about Mitt Romney’s tax reform proposal for months. That’s because they can’t resist playing the class warfare card. Clinton playing the class warfare card is as predictable as moths being attracted to flames. It’s also because they can’t talk about President Obama’s accomplishments. If they spent time talking about the virtues of Obama’s policies, this race would’ve been called a week ago.
The only thing that’s prevented that has been President Obama’s avoidance of a serious conversation of President Obama’s economic policies. The list of contrivances created to avoid talking about the economic mess President Obama has presided over is lengthy for a reason.
The president’s economic plan is better: Making investments in innovation, infrastructure, manufacturing, new sources of energy, education and training, and reducing the deficit by more than $4 trillion, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases on the most fortunate Americans.
There isn’t a thinking person who thinks President Obama is even slightly interested in deficit reduction. He’s always been about recklessly increasing spending. He’s never been about making government efficient and limiting the scope of government.
There’s a reason why President Clinton was known as Slick Willie. This op-ed is a perfect example of his indifference to the truth.
Eric Foster is the chief pollster for Foster McCollum White & Baydoun. The first thing that caught my attention was that Mitt Romney leads President Obama by a thin margin of 47%-46%. As stunning as that was, this question got my undivided attention:
Ballot Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” proposed constitutional amendment would establish a new constitutional right for public and private sector employees to organize and bargain collectively with employers, Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively and override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment by adding section 28 to Article I and amending Article XI section 5 to the state Constitution. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” amendment?
Vote yes on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 41.2%
Vote no on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 51.3%
If Ballot Proposal 12-2 is defeated, that will be a stinging defeat for Big Labor. Coming right after Scott Walker defeated them in Wisconsin, they’ll be wounded for quite some time.
I thought this was interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-3, the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs constitutional amendment that would require utilities to obtain at least 25 percent of electricity from clean renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass and hydropower) by 2025; limit how much utilities can charge consumers for the cost of complying with this requirement; and require the legislature to create laws to encourage the development of Michigan clean energy jobs. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-3 the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment?
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 35.91%
Vote no for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 57.49%
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 6.6%
If Ballot Proposal 12-3 is defeated by this type of margin, it will be a harsh defeat for environmentalists. It would be a major victory for homeowners.
Finally, this ballot question is interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-4 is a constitutional amendment Proposal to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers.
This proposal would allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC) and require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care and authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-4 the “home care council & collective bargaining” amendment?
Vote yes for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 41.08%
Vote no for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 53.21%
Undecided for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 5.72%
Sorry for sounding like a broken record but rejecting this amendment would be a stinging defeat for the SEIU and AFSCME.
The fact that Michigan voters are poised to defeat 3 constitutional amendments that liberals really wanted explains, at least to me, why Mitt Romney is competitive in Michigan. If those amendments are defeated and Mitt Romney wins Michigan’s 16 electoral votes, conservatives will have plenty to squawk about Wednesday morning.
Based on this report, I’d say there’s better than a 50-50 shot that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is defeated Tuesday night:
This past Saturday, Wasserman Schultz personally lambasted a longtime Democrat supporter from Miami-Dade County who was caught talking to Harrington. This same individual further annoyed Wasserman Schultz by refusing to display a “Wasserman Schultz for Congress” sign and then told Debbie that he had already voted for Harrington instead of her.
This longtime Democrat leader, who shall remain anonymous for purposes of this report, indicated that he was disgusted and said that had never been so insulted in his life.
On Sunday, the Shark Tank visited one of the strongest Democrat precincts in Congressional District 23- the City of Hollywood’s main public library- and in speaking to Democrats waiting in line as wells as those who just voted, many of them said that they voted for Harrington over Wasserman Schultz.
What a night Tuesday might be. It starts, of course, with Mitt defeating President Obama, ending this neverending economic nightmare. Defeating Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would be a nice bonus for Republicans nationwide who are tired of Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s lippy behavior.
This information is potentially enlightening:
Coincidentally, Harrington herself was working voters in the line, she indicated that she was receiving extraordinary support from Democrats and Independents who were waiting in line to vote. There’s no doubt that there are many disaffected Democrats throughout the district are irritated with DWS’s partisan rhetoric and her neglect of congressional responsibilities as the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
DWS’s district has lots of Jewish voters. It isn’t a stretch to think that a healthy portion of the Democrats that are voting for Ms. Harrington are Jewish. Considering the possibility DWS spent considerable time defending President Obama’s harsh treatment of Israel, it’s entirely possible that Jewish voters are taking their frustrations out on DWS.
The recent Harrington v. Wasserman Schultz polling has the incumbent congresswoman with a 4.5% lead over there challenger, and some local politicos believe that not only is the race competitive, but also that an upset is possible.
This year’s polls haven’t been that trustworthy. That’s especially true if they’re basing their polls on 2008 turnout models. If people really have tired of DWS’s boorish behavior, then I’d bet the polling is essentially irrelevant.
This evening, I watched Paul Gigot interview GOP pollster Whit Ayres. His polling company, Resurgent Republic, shows Mitt Romney winning independents by a 51%-39% margin. Ayres then said “If anyone says they know who’s going to win, they’re either lying or they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
I’d love to hear Mr. Ayres tell Michael Barone that Michael Barone doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Duane Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt radio show wrote this post about the latest Marist Poll that captures what I was thinking after the Ayres interview:
So in order to believe the Marist poll, that Obama is up over the margin of error, you have to believe that the intensity level for Obama by party ID is higher now than it was in 2008. You have to believe that the swing from 2008 to 2010, where party ID went from D+8 to R+1, resulting in the election of a Republican governor, a Republican Senator, and control of the state house, all that has not only vanished, but recoiled even further in Obama’s direction.
You have to believe that the crowd of 80,000 Obama drew in 2008 in Cleveland the closing days of the campaign demonstrates less energy and passion for their candidate than the 4,000 did this morning. You have to believe that the 30,000 people last night at the Romney/Ryan rally shows less enthusiasm for their candidate than the 4,200 did in 2008 for John McCain.
You have to believe that Michael Barone, a man who you can introduce yourself to and tell him where you’re from, and he’ll tell you who won your Congressional district in 1966 from memory, is wrong when he reads that Cuyahoga County, long a Democratic stronghold in the Buckeye State, is way off in party registration. He’s also wrong when reports for early voting tend to favor Mitt Romney, and favor him big.
You also have to believe that Ohio Catholics and values voters don’t care about the HHS regulations. You also have to believe that Ohio, an energy state, doesn’t care about energy production.
Thanks, Duane, for that great explanation. God knows there aren’t enough conservatives who consistently display that high level of communication ability.
Day after day, polls have consistently shown 2 things: Mitt Romney leading with independents and a terrific pro-GOP enthusiasm gap. Now I’m supposed to believe that Mitt’s lead is either nonexistent or is exceptionally and historically thin and that the enthusiasm gap isn’t affecting polling results.
With all due respect to Mr. Ayres, that’s a bunch of malarkey. The crowds show it. Michael Barone recognizes it. Tuesday night will prove it.
Something’s gotta give. It’s impossible for Mitt Romney to be locked in a Florida 2000-like battle when he’s getting 90% of Republican voters, President Obama is getting 90% of Democratic voters and Mitt’s trouncing President Obama with independents by 12 points.
There’s only one way for President Obama to win with that type of situation, That’s if he’s getting better turnout of Democrats than he got in 2008. All of those indicators show that that isn’t happening.
Tags: Mitt Romney, Polling, Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Enthusiasm Gap, Registrations, Whit Ayres, Michael Barone, Battleground States, Turnout, Early Voting, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Election 2012