Election 2012: The Aftermath

Well I was obviously way off in my election prediction.  In the aftermath a lot of conservatives, including myself are feeling some doubt as to our idea of who are country is anymore.  It is a fair question to have when we review the two campaigns.  Romney's sought to stay above the fray, championed bipartisanship and gave out plans on how a Romney Presidency would improve the country.  Obama's campaign was negative from the start, alleging Romney was a felon, had allowed a woman to die of cancer, hadn't paid taxes in ten years, and in the final moments of the campaign Obama urged his voters to vote for "revenge."  Such horrible themes and yet he won re-election easily.

What does that say about our country?  For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities.  Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years.  For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.

How do we do this?  We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections.  Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate.  The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms.  We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.

Moving on to long term goals.  We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities.  People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues.  These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections.  Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party.  We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues.  These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.

Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around.  Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt.  A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico.  She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment.  A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations.  A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.

Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club.  Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.

-Zach

This Tuesday, a Clear Choice in a Close Election

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm backing Mitt Romney for President.  It should come as a surprise how close the election actually is.  President Obama has only been in office for four years and has somehow managed to double our debt in that time, while at the same time presiding over an economy that saw 43 consecutive months of 8% unemployment or higher.  The amount the government spends on welfare and food stamps have both doubled, and when Obama speaks of the next four years he generally says, do more of the same and just tax the wealthy "a little more."

That always gets me, the "a little more" comment.  I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement.  California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy.  Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it.  Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.

Back to my point on Obama though.  The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs?  Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees?  Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?

My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan.  Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President.  He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.

That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes.  Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney.  Going over the swing states, I see the following.

Nevada: 6 electoral votes.  My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama.  I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley.  Obama 243, Romney 206

Florida:  29 electoral votes:  All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243,  Romney 235

Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close.  Obama really wants this one.  The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor."  Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler.  It's close, but I think Romney gets it.  Obama 243, Romney 248

New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes.  Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney.  Obama 243, Romney 252.

Colorado:  9 electoral votes.  Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney.  Obama 243, Romney 261.

Ohio:  18 electoral votes.  All polls are indecisive.  This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama.  Obama 261, Romney 261.

Iowa: 6 electoral votes.  Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney.  Obama 261, Romney 267.

Wisconsin.  All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney.  Obama 261, Romney 277.

With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.

Note:  I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here.  Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category.  I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.

Anybody else?

-Zach