Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Karl Rove piece in the WSJ. "Myth of the Stay at home Conservative"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Karl Rove piece in the WSJ. "Myth of the Stay at home Conservative"

    Interesting piece. Conservatives did not stay at home in 2012 and Mr Romney took a higher percentage then normal. What cost him was the stay at home moderate.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rov...ans-1427930037

    There’s a hypothesis circulating among Republicans that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because a large number of previously reliable conservatives who turned out in past elections stayed home. Here’s the problem: It’s not accurate.
    Republicans concerned about voters who failed to show up should look elsewhere. There were approximately 4.9 million fewer self-identified moderates, 1.7 million fewer white Catholics, and 1.2 million fewer women who voted in 2012 than in 2008.

    While Mr. Obama carried both moderates and women in 2012, it is likely that those in each group who dropped out of the electorate were unwilling to support Mr. Obama a second time but simply couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Mr. Romney.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Oh, now Karl Rove is a sage. Ok...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Martok View Post
      Oh, now Karl Rove is a sage. Ok...
      Can you dispute his numbers? Have data that shows the opposite? Pleases do so then.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Interesting piece. Conservatives did not stay at home in 2012 and Mr Romney took a higher percentage then normal. What cost him was the stay at home moderate.
        Republicans concerned about voters who failed to show up should look elsewhere. There were approximately 4.9 million fewer self-identified moderates, 1.7 million fewer white Catholics, and 1.2 million fewer women who voted in 2012 than in 2008.

        While Mr. Obama carried both moderates and women in 2012, it is likely that those in each group who dropped out of the electorate were unwilling to support Mr. Obama a second time but simply couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Mr. Romney.
        http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rov...ans-1427930037
        I have to say that I don't view this as news. For some time now the primaries of both parties have faced a narrowing participation, dominated by traditional party hacks, activists, ideologues, and political groupies: four demographics who do not endear themselves too well to the general electorate. Therefore the winners of the primaries reflect the voters in the primaries: doctrinaire, defiant, often militant -- again, not exactly winning characteristics when trying to pitch to the masses. So we can't exactly be surprised when we learn that moderates are staying home: the two primary winners were never meant to appeal to moderates in the first place. Unless we look to really overhaul how we do primaries, I can't see this trend righting itself any time soon. If anything, it's bound to get worse before it gets better.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
          I have to say that I don't view this as news. For some time now the primaries of both parties have faced a narrowing participation, dominated by traditional party hacks, activists, ideologues, and political groupies: four demographics who do not endear themselves too well to the general electorate. Therefore the winners of the primaries reflect the voters in the primaries: doctrinaire, defiant, often militant -- again, not exactly winning characteristics when trying to pitch to the masses. So we can't exactly be surprised when we learn that moderates are staying home: the two primary winners were never meant to appeal to moderates in the first place. Unless we look to really overhaul how we do primaries, I can't see this trend righting itself any time soon. If anything, it's bound to get worse before it gets better.
          The winning side in 2008 and 2012 DID take the moderates, that is Mr Roves point. Sure the turn out amongst moderates went down in 2012 but they still broke in one parties way. The winning party.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            The winning side in 2008 and 2012 DID take the moderates, that is Mr Roves point. Sure the turn out amongst moderates went down in 2012 but they still broke in one parties way. The winning party.
            The Democrats took the greater share of the moderates, but more tellingly the moderate participation rate declined in 2012 from 2008, according to your link. Yeah, Obama carried them both times, but I'm thinking that that was due to some specific circumstances, not some innate advantage enjoyed uniquely by Democrats. Here in NYC the Democrats are growing insufferably doctrinaire. I can easily see that kind of thing turning off large numbers of moderates before too long, just as growing Republican inflexibility has in its turn frustrated an fair share of moderates, as well.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Martok View Post
              Oh, now Karl Rove is a sage. Ok...
              He is! Whomever he spends money on during elections....lose.

              What is it up to now? $400 million spent on losing candidates?
              #occupyarmchairgeneral.
              Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
              Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                The Democrats took the greater share of the moderates, but more tellingly the moderate participation rate declined in 2012 from 2008, according to your link. Yeah, Obama carried them both times, but I'm thinking that that was due to some specific circumstances, not some innate advantage enjoyed uniquely by Democrats. Here in NYC the Democrats are growing insufferably doctrinaire. I can easily see that kind of thing turning off large numbers of moderates before too long, just as growing Republican inflexibility has in its turn frustrated an fair share of moderates, as well.
                Yes, and Mr Rove and I both agree with that. One of the main specific circumstance was the large GOP field and the long campaign season that had the GOP candidates all running very hard and far to the right. They could never pull off the post primary season pivot to the center, a necessary part of both parties general election strategy.

                Once again you keep making Mr Roves point.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Crash View Post
                  He is! Whomever he spends money on during elections....lose.

                  What is it up to now? $400 million spent on losing candidates?
                  His campaign organization but Mr Bush into office twice in a row. Simple as that.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    Yes, and Mr Rove and I both agree with that. One of the main specific circumstance was the large GOP field and the long campaign season that had the GOP candidates all running very hard and far to the right. They could never pull off the post primary season pivot to the center, a necessary part of both parties general election strategy.

                    Once again you keep making Mr Roves point.
                    That move to the center is a lot easier for an incumbent than for a challenger, as the incumbent usually doesn't have to face primary opposition. When the challenger is a Democrat, however, then he'll have to contend with the growing racket from his left, and that will, in turn, render him unpalatable to the great moderate middle. So again, the issue isn't Republican vs Democrat, it's about how our primary systems skew our choice of candidates for general elections.

                    Case in point: as things stand now at this extremely early and premature juncture, Hillary Clinton is considered the odds-on favorite among potential Democrat contenders. Yes, she enjoys tremendous name-recognition and the favor of a good many Democrat money men, but she's got a ton of baggage, and she's deeply distrusted by her party's progressive wing, who in the past have accused her of being a conservative in liberal's clothing. I'd think it a forgone conclusion that she'd ultimately beat off a challenge from her left, but the question would be, how far left would she have to go to do that? If the answer is "too much," then a lot of moderates might just walk away from her. Of course, a lot of that depends on whom the Republican nominee will be, and how he achieved the nomination, but that's just a taste of some of the calculation that goes into these campaigns: how far can a candidate go to appeal to the doctrinaire wings before he alienates the middle necessary for the ultimate win?
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      That move to the center is a lot easier for an incumbent than for a challenger, as the incumbent usually doesn't have to face primary opposition. When the challenger is a Democrat, however, then he'll have to contend with the growing racket from his left, and that will, in turn, render him unpalatable to the great moderate middle. So again, the issue isn't Republican vs Democrat, it's about how our primary systems skew our choice of candidates for general elections.

                      Case in point: as things stand now at this extremely early and premature juncture, Hillary Clinton is considered the odds-on favorite among potential Democrat contenders. Yes, she enjoys tremendous name-recognition and the favor of a good many Democrat money men, but she's got a ton of baggage, and she's deeply distrusted by her party's progressive wing, who in the past have accused her of being a conservative in liberal's clothing. I'd think it a forgone conclusion that she'd ultimately beat off a challenge from her left, but the question would be, how far left would she have to go to do that? If the answer is "too much," then a lot of moderates might just walk away from her. Of course, a lot of that depends on whom the Republican nominee will be, and how he achieved the nomination, but that's just a taste of some of the calculation that goes into these campaigns: how far can a candidate go to appeal to the doctrinaire wings before he alienates the middle necessary for the ultimate win?
                      No one, not me nor Mr Rove claim it is a GOP problem only. He is focusing on the GOP because THEY have a segment in their party that is very vocal about throwing off the 'mushy middle' and not worrying about them any more. They also have, once again, a large number of people potentially running, many of who, once again, are closer to the far right of the party spectrum. Which is what drove the problem in 2012.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        No one, not me nor Mr Rove claim it is a GOP problem only. He is focusing on the GOP because THEY have a segment in their party that is very vocal about throwing off the 'mushy middle' and not worrying about them any more. They also have, once again, a large number of people potentially running, many of who, once again, are closer to the far right of the party spectrum. Which is what drove the problem in 2012.
                        I'll grant that the GOP has a generational problem, but if past is prologue then that will only last a few years, before either the Republicans straighten themselves out, or the Democrats implode. I think the bigger issue is what the current "race for the poles" is doing to the electorate at large, and how that bodes for our Republic's future health. Not that Americans were ever especially political, but interest in political affairs has got to be at an all-time low -- and the bottom isn't yet in sight. What kind of Republic can we have if people don't read newspapers, they don't consume news, they don't form opinions based on a considered collection and analysis of information -- and they don't vote? What does Karl Rove think about that, especially as he's played a genuine role in advancing that trend?
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          Can you dispute his numbers? Have data that shows the opposite? Pleases do so then.
                          Karl Rove tried to prove that conservative turnout was up in 2012. He missed a key point.

                          The Case of the Missing White Voters
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            His campaign organization but Mr Bush into office twice in a row. Simple as that.
                            First was actually a court.
                            #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                            Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                            Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Crash View Post
                              First was actually a court.
                              How did it get there first? The man drove winning campaigns. You might not like his politics but he knows his business when it comes to numbers and elections.

                              However I did enjoy his melt down on Fox News Election night when Foxes own prediction staff called Ohio for President Obama in 2012.... Megan Kelly made a fool of him on live Fox News. Very different.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X