We Got Beat
When you lose something -- a wallet, an election, money, a lover -- you ask yourself this question: did I lose it, or was it stolen?
Last night, we lost. No one stole it from us. We lost it.
Some thoughts:
1. It goes without saying -- I hope -- that Barack Obama, as painful as it is to admit, is the President of the United States for the next four years. I wish him well. He's my president, too.
2. Let's face facts: Nate Silver, the polls, the "establishment media" -- they were all right. It wasn't about weighting or poll skewing. They were right. We engaged in wishful thinking. We were in a bubble. Last night, that bubble was popped. The major polls called it close, and it was close. Barack Obama won about one half of one percent more of the popular vote than Mitt Romney. But that was enough. Mitt Romney may have won the popular vote, but the Electoral College map tells a different story: it was about population-center votes, not about enthusiasm or which side was more energized. They outsmarted us. We outsmarted ourselves
3. Last night was a complete and systemic failure of the Republican party -- both at the national and the state level. The DC-based Republican establishment couldn't deliver a victory -- couldn't deliver Florida. The state-level Republican operation failed, too. For example: in Missouri, a state that should be solidly Republican, the state operation nominated an ill-prepared, out-of-touch clumsy gaffe-machine for the Senate -- Todd Akin. Romney carried the state. But Claire McCaskill won a major victory. We forced our side to split the ticket. We muddied our message. The Republican party failed.
4. More facts to face: the media is liberal. The news organizations are liberal. They protected their candidate. And it worked. But that's part of the hand that we conservatives have been dealt. That ain't gonna change. We need to figure out a way to win despite the fact that we're swimming upstream in the culture. Whining about it isn't going to get us to a solution.
5. Latinos and women voted big for the other side. Either we figure out a way to connect with those groups, or persuade them to our side, or we're going to be a very small part of the national political scene and getting smaller all the time.
6. Our side drinks too much Kool Aid. We watch Fox News and think we're winning the rest of the country. But Fox News is at most a 3 million viewer proposition. Last night, each side garnered about 48 million votes. Each side.
7. We can't rely on the establishment Republicans. We can't rely on Fox News. We can't rely on talk radio. We can only rely on ourselves. We need -- all of us, especially here on Ricochet -- to connect with each other, keep each other informed and energized, and persuade our neighbors and friends. We need to evangelize the rest of the country that doesn't agree with us. We need to win the country back.
8. We need to win the country back. Not take it back. Win it back through argument and engagement and debate. Win it back by articulating our key principles, persuading more Latinos and women to our side, and evangelizing the rest of the country.
9. Forgive me for this plug, but I really mean it: the conversations and engagement on Ricochet, and the passionate and articulate members here, are the future -- maybe the only future -- for our side.
10. If you're not a member of Ricochet, today is a very good day to join. The slow march back begins now. And it begins here.
- Comment (178)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (15)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: We Got Beat
@Strategoist-- for one thing, I love your Avatar. Millar and Hitch are heroes of mine. More and more the "A" probably does stand for France. We followed their lead in Libya after all ;)
Also... We need to express that we already have common ground with everyone. We are never going to out DREAM act the left and la raza. Even if we do-- we'll still be called racists. And it doesn't even deal with the main issue-- unlimited immigration into a country isn't necessarily a good thing-- regardless of your race.
We got hit by the left hard and we didn't have too much of a defense against it. We complained about crazy Lena Dunham commercials and "Daughters for Obama" but we had nothing comparable.
I'm not saying your points are good. But the way forward isn't clear. I'm not sure that people want what we are selling-- period.
Jun '11
Re: We Got Beat
@Goldgeller You are the first to notice the avatar and its source! That first Ultimates series remains superlative comics. (Don't get cute with the "A" bro :P)
Regarding the Latino outreach thing: we don't need to win a majority; W got 40% Latinos. Latino demographics are growing and we need to fight for a subsistence share of that group, or stick a fork in us.
What is the defense against idiocy like Lena Dunham? A shot of her 8 months later in a cold water flat, knocked-up and complaining that the baby-daddy lost her number six months ago? A shot of her waiting in line to get an abortion, teary-eyed listening to the warm assurances of Daddy on the other end of the cell phone?
I'm hovering between ranting hate and glassy-eyed shock. That was some tasty Kool Aid...
Edited on November 7, 2012 at 7:38pmRe: We Got Beat
Kiki: Very new to Ricochet, found this article early am and realized that this is a very relevant website that speaks to me and my values.
Loved the 10 points, I feel like Fox news handed out kool aid and I drank it up! To be fair, that is my fault,not Fox news. That is why I hope Ricochet can help me and others to make ameaningfuldifference in the upcoming years.
Giving up is not an option. · 2 hours ago
Welcome, Kiki! And I'm glad you came here, especially now, when we all need to figure this out together.
Aug '11
Re: We Got Beat
@strategoist.
Glad we've got a comic reader here! You make some good points. I'm not saying we don't need demographics... But I'm wondering how we will get it. After my earlier post I read Heather MacDonald's argument on the Corner saying essentially "hey, hispanics may just like big government." That doesn't mean we don't stop trying, of course. Same goes for the black vote (we totally gave up on that!) and so on. But we need to realize it may not have been the size of the tent that did us in.
As far as Lena Dunham... I don't know if we needed to critique the ad with another ad... but we need big, crazy ads of our own. Marco Rubio-- I voted for him and like him-- he had this YouTube ad (paraphrasing) "I love my grandmother and her social security, but you youngin' will have different social security." Is this our message to younger voters? Get excited about minor reforms years down the line!
Jun '11
Re: We Got Beat
@Goldgeller Yeah I'm a nerd, and an old one. I agree we need something relevant to say to millennials. They think we're Nazis. The left has defined us as Le Pin type racists for years. They have indoctrinated kids in a mythology of the right that prevents any reasonable argument from getting through. How do we rebrand Nazi?
The way I see it: the country will have to suffer more before they give us a look. Their lives will have to worsen before they reconsider their philosophies. What then? Will they simply blame faceless capitalists for their misery, or can they awaken to the truth?
Mar '11
Re: We Got Beat
Haley/Rubio 2016!
Jun '12
Re: We Got Beat
I sent the following to my daughter, to tell her why I am despairing today:
Too many people receive too much "free" stuff. That is money, goods and services paid for with money forcibly taken from the producing class. How long would you work at Sears if half of your paycheck went to somebody sitting on their @$$ instead of working? We are 15 to 20 years, at best case, from the US going broke. The parasite class will rise up when their food and money quit being delivered and the US will descend into anarchy. Look at Greece. We had a chance to stop it, but too many people have no thought for anything except killing the goose to find the golden eggs. I'm glad you're optimistic. Pass that on to your kids and grandkids so the country might recover one day. But we will never again be what we were. And I'm not angry. I'm sad and hollow that I've failed to give you kids a better world than I had."
And I just can't see a way out of that future.
>>>>
Jun '10
Re: We Got Beat
dittoheadadt
I think Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. The idea you cite as "reasonable" to Libs is NOT reasonable to them, and you can prove it simply by asking them, "Ok, so what are fair rates and fair tax brackets, and how did you arrive at your numbers?"
Not true. A few weeks ago I asked an Obama voter this very question, and he responded almost without blinking: 40%. The top marginal tax rate should be 40%. And this is the key point: it should apply to capital gains as well as wages.
Romney paid an effective rate of about 15% on his income. This voter felt very strongly he should be paying 40%.
They will then turn around and say the fact that the Republican primary candidates all said in the debate that they would not accept $1 in tax increases in exchange for $10 in spending cuts proves that we are the ones with a mental disorder for turning down a compromise that is so clearly "reasonable" to them.
Apr '11
Re: We Got Beat
Joseph Stanko, Thank you. These are the type of sober realities we need to face. There's no point in dwelling on the moochers and the deranged, we have to focus on the most rational people on the other side.
The sane liberals I know see a bigger government to promote "fairness and equality" as perfectly reasonable under our social contract. To them, government is a reflection of our collective compassion as a society.
They believe our market economy is strong enough to sustain higher taxes and more regulation and that even if there is slower growth the perceived social benefits are worth it.
This is the worldview through which they approach politics. It is then constantly confirmed by a media, etc. that largely shares this view.
Someone who believes that more government is moral and compassionate and limited government is anachronistic and cruel will naturally see conservatives as ignorant and backwards. They will then confirm this view by cherry picking extreme examples of wackiness among conservatives (as we often do with liberals).
Once you understand the above, it should be clear what many of our arguments are wholly ineffective with these people.
Edited on November 8, 2012 at 3:04amApr '11
Re: We Got Beat
I say give Obama what we wants and let him take the blame. He wants to raise taxes on "the rich?" Waste money on more "stimulus?" Fine. We should go on record that we disagree, acknowledge that elections have consequences and give the people what they voted for. If his policies somehow work, well, I guess it's time for all of us to reevaluate our core principles. If the policies do fail miserably and the nation is still willing believe a 15 year old tax cut is to blame, well, what more can we do?
Oct '10
Re: We Got Beat
Joseph Stanko
This is simply not true. I live in California, in the liberal Bay Area. Nearly everyone I know voted for Obama: family, friends, and co-workers. And they are all hard-working, taxpaying citizens. In fact, some were effectively voting to raise their own taxes.
We need to get past this notion that "makers" vote conservative and only "takers" vote liberal. There are an awful lot of high-income professionals in the deep-blue urban centers of America who voted for Obama. · 20 hours ago
One can be a "taker" and still be a hard-working, even high-income "taker." How many support Obamacare? All of them! That makes them "takers." How many refuse to entertain the idea of changes to Social Security (means-testing, raising the retirement age, etc.) to restore it to solvency? All of them! That makes them "takers." How many resist the flat tax? Most of them! That makes them "takers."
Oct '10
Re: We Got Beat
Joseph Stanko
dittoheadadt
I think Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. The idea you cite as "reasonable" to Libs is NOT reasonable to them, and you can prove it simply by asking them, "Ok, so what are fair rates and fair tax brackets, and how did you arrive at your numbers?"
Not true. A few weeks ago I asked an Obama voter this very question, and he responded almost without blinking: 40%. The top marginal tax rate should be 40%. And this is the key point: it should apply to capital gains as well as wages.
Why not 43.44%? Or 57%? Why 40%? That's as arbitrary, and as indefensible, as the minimum wage. The key part of my example was the "...and how did you arrive at your numbers?" They can't answer that. They just believe it. Because they suffer the mental disorder of, generally, not being able to think rationally about political and economic matters.
Ask your friend "why 40%?" See what he says. You'll see. Incoherence. Irrationality. Totally arbitrary.
Oct '10
Re: We Got Beat
Joseph Stanko
dittoheadadt
I think Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. The idea you cite as "reasonable" to Libs is NOT reasonable to them, and you can prove it simply by asking them, "Ok, so what are fair rates and fair tax brackets, and how did you arrive at your numbers?"
Not true...They will then turn around and say the fact that the Republican primary candidates all said in the debate that they would not accept $1 in tax increases in exchange for $10 in spending cuts proves that we are the ones with a mental disorder for turning down a compromise that is so clearly "reasonable" to them.
There's an easy, obvious answer to this one as well. We already know that Congress knows how to raise taxes. What we don't know is that they know how to cut spending. Too often we've had real tax hikes and mythical spending cuts. That's why the 10:1 offer is rejected. It's Lucy vs. Charlie Brown.
I'll agree to raise taxes after they've cut spending for 4 straight years. But not before. That's the answer to THAT "reasonable" canard.
Jun '10
Re: We Got Beat
dittoheadadt
Why not 43.44%? Or 57%? Why 40%? That's as arbitrary, and as indefensible, as the minimum wage. The key part of my example was the "...and how did you arrive at your numbers?" They can't answer that. They just believe it. Because they suffer the mental disorder of, generally, not being able to think rationally about political and economic matters.
Ask your friend "why 40%?" See what he says. You'll see. Incoherence. Irrationality. Totally arbitrary. · 3 hours ago
What do you think the top marginal rate should be? And how do you arrive at that number?
Jun '10
Re: We Got Beat
dittoheadadt
One can be a "taker" and still be a hard-working, even high-income "taker." How many support Obamacare? All of them! That makes them "takers." How many refuse to entertain the idea of changes to Social Security (means-testing, raising the retirement age, etc.) to restore it to solvency? All of them! That makes them "takers." How many resist the flat tax? Most of them! That makes them "takers." · 3 hours ago
Look, I don't disagree with you. I'm on your side.
The point I'm making here is that we talk as if these people were voting out of self-interest, voting because they want free stuff.
The people I'm talking about aren't doing that. Instead, they are voting, essentially, to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, out of a misguided sense that this is the right thing to do.
They're doing fine. They are voting to help other people, not themselves.
May '12
Re: We Got Beat
Nate Silver and the polls were right only in that they made the right assumptions. I don't think anyone was questioning the models or the polls, other than on their assumptions. They got lucky (or smart), and made the right ones. But lets not forget that there were other polls and other models out there that made the wrong assumptions, and predicted wrong.
These are uncertainties no one can know, and thus one is just as likely to get it wrong as to get it right.
At the end of the day they made the right assumptions because they understood their base, and ours, better than we understood ourselves.
Not showing up to vote, is a failed strategy.
Apr '11
Re: We Got Beat
One word - ROMNEY.
Jul '11
Re: We Got Beat
Wrong, they like Obama, they believe what he stands for, they did not Romney and what he stands for. It is just that simple.