Editor’s notes: in case you missed it, this editor missed his prediction as to the
2012 election, and on a scale similar to
Dick Morris. We both thought the
election would be a solid victory for Romney.
In the article below, while Morris does not discuss his own failure, he actually gives reason from my failed
prediction.
I was absolutely correct about the
Obama vote. While blacks and Hispanics
voted in greater numbers, his over-all
vote count was nearly 8 million less than in 2008. That stat represents an incredible failure on the part of the Obama campaign. Normally, such would indicate a landslide victory for the conservative side of the
isle.
The fact of the matter is this: “we” lost the election because Mitt Romney
could not and did not excite the base.
Palin/McCain won more of the Moron vote and 1.5 million more of the
conservative vote than did Romney. Obama lost 8 million votes. All "we" needed was 1.5 million more votes than recorded in the 2008 campaign.
While
Boehner and his RINO buds are busy trying to blame the loss on congressional
conservatives, only four members of the
non-existent (according to the Speaker) conservative/tea party caucus were defeated in the 2012
elections, two of them because of
redistricting for which Boehner shares
part of the blame.
I believe that Morris’s
comments, below, matches up well with my comments and help to confirm my opinion about 2012 election results --- J
Smithson.
Whites Stayed Home And Re-Elected
Obama
By Dick Morris on December 7, 2012
Now
that all the data is in, the fundamental reason for Romney’s defeat is
apparent, if largely unreported. It is not just that blacks, Latinos, and
single women showed up in record numbers at the polls. It’s that whites didn’t.
The
final numbers suggest that 91.6 million votes were cast by whites — seven
million less than the 98.6 million that were cast in 2008! Meanwhile, 16.6
million blacks voted — 300,000 more than in 2008; 11 million Latinos voted —
1.7 million more votes than were cast by Hispanics in 2008.
We
lost because whites stayed home! Particularly among the elderly, the voter
turnout was disappointing with seniors casting only 16% of the vote, much less
than had been anticipated. (Seniors were the only age group that Obama lost by
a significant margin — 15 points).
Why
didn’t whites vote and why didn’t we all spot it sooner?
Impact
of Sandy.
There
was no good national polling after Sandy struck. Gallup, for example, suspended
its polling. At the last minute, it put together a national sample — with lots
of disclaimers about the dangers of inaccuracies due to the difficulty of
sampling storm-hit areas — and it showed a slight Romney lead.
Romney
was, in fact, leading before Sandy and that his chances blew away in the storm
with its famous bipartisan photo of Governor Chris Christie with Obama. And
there was no way to measure the impact of Sandy since there could not
logistically be any polling. Why was I wrong? I’m a pollster, not a
meteorologist!
But
the real question is why the support for Romney among whites was so shallow
that the winds of Sandy blew it away. The answer lies in the fundamental
strategic mistake the Romney campaign and the super PACs made in June and July
— of not answering Obama’s Bain Capital attacks.
These
withering attacks undermined Romney’s standing among white voters and led
directly to their diminished turnout. The Romney campaign and the Super PACs
were so wedded to their attack ads that they failed to realize that Bain posed
a mortal threat to the credibility of their candidate. Many other consultants
joined me in pleading in vain for a reply to the Bain attacks, but none was
forthcoming.
There
is a very good story to be told about Bain and it was masterfully captured in
an ad produced by Romney media guru Stuart Stevens but was aired for only
limited times and there was no follow up. Had that very ad been run more,
Romney would, in my opinion, have been elected president!
The
Republican consultants are so enamored of negative ads that they do not
appreciate the impact of rebuttal media and its capacity to wipe away negatives
and trigger a backlash against the candidate who airs them. But the doctrine of
always attack — reminiscent of the French and British generals in World War I —
does not permit rebuttals, only new negatives.
And
we paid the price.
While Morris in some "hot water" with Fox News, he did his best and was as much surprised by his own failings as anyone at Fox News. Who knew that conservatives did not dislike Obama enough to support a quasi-conservative candidate. Guess it is time for the RINO population to learn the lesson, no ?? At any rate, you should visit Dick Morris.com on occasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment