[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 48°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 24°F
Monday, Feb. 27, 2017

Post Election Analysis

Posted Thursday, November 8, 2012, at 4:03 PM

Over three years ago on this blog (actually it was my other blog on here) I wrote about my belief that the modern Republican Party looked to be fading away into one of the parties of the past. I have changed my mind on that to an extent.

While the Republican Party is still a viable and strong political party at the state level the national party is, simply put, in shambles.

One only needs to look at the last four elections to see the trend. In the 2000 and 2004 elections Latino support for George W. Bush was relatively high, mostly because of his stance on immigration which was similar to the stance of Democrats. Since that time the Republican Party has taken a much tougher stance on immigration (both candidates of the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012 favored the tougher stances). In both elections that was met with Latinos voting for Obama.

Latinos are not the only group that Republicans have to worry about going on from here. Over the last four years they have managed to alienate the African-American voting block, the Asian voting block, the women voting block, the LGBT voting block, and young voting block. It should be telling that the only voting block that Romney won (when looking at age and race) were white Americans aged 49 and up. He lost every other single category. Romney won (with about 7%) men but the majority of that voting block was the older white males.

There is a very serious disconnect between the national Republican voter and the American population. I wondered, on Facebook, before Hurricane Sandy made landfall whether or not this would be the October surprise. National Republicans tend to think that Sandy threw Romney off his momentum. But those who look at averages and trend lines (yes I am one of them) knew that Romney's momentum had actually stopped shortly after the Vice-Presidential debate.

The national Republican Party has a serious issue. Instead of looking inward at themselves as to why they lost what should have been a cake walk Presidential election they are blaming anyone and anything outside the party for their loss. That is extremely short sighted on their part.

If they can not figure out a way to play to the minority groups in this country they are looking at very possibly losing not only the 2016 election but several elections into the future.

I am not suggesting that they should completely abandon all of their social causes and beliefs but they need to figure out a way to convince voters that their views are the correct ones without looking like wingnuts.

Case in point. During this year's run up to the election, five different Republicans voiced their opinions concerning rape and abortion. The common thread for all of them was that even in cases of rape women should not be allowed to have abortions. All five candidates lost their races. Two of them, Akin in Missouri and Mourdock in Indiana, were in races long considered to be easy pick ups for the Republicans. Both candidates lost by large numbers.

The Tea Party contingent of the Republican Party lost all but one of it's candidates this election, with Michelle Bachmann barely holding up in a strong Republican leaning district.

The one thing that should be noted about election day. Every time one of the Obama campaign staffers was interviewed they were confident. They knew they had the numbers from a very early point. The Romney team, however, were hopeful. The Obama campaign could possibly one of the best teams ever assembled. They took a president that hovered around fifty percent approval, weak but improving employment numbers and guided him to a victory.

The bottom line here is Obama should not have won this election or at the very least should have won by very few electoral votes. Instead he won by a landslide (Remember that Karl Rove predicted a landslide for Romney with 325 Electoral Votes and if Florida ever gets finished counting the votes and the state goes for Obama, he will top that number with 332 Obama won with 332).

As I stated several times in many blogs I never thought publicly that this was going to be a close election (privately, however, I had let myself believe the media theme that it was not only going to be close but there was a high likelihood that Obama would win the Electoral College while Romney would win the overall). The averages and trend lines just did not support that media claim. In the end, one of the most lambasted and raked over people, Nate Silver, got it 100% correct. He missed one race this year. He picked the Republicans to win the House seat in North Dakota (92.5% probability) and the Democratic candidate ended up winning.

Now, of course, it is time to move onto the next presidential election in 2016. The two front leaders runners for the Democrats are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. I have a strong feeling that one of them will run but not both. The Republican field will be extremely wide open once again in 2016. Two things are for certain Romney will not be there and neither will John McCain. So that leaves a few early candidates: Jeb Bush (who by all accounts has no interest in running for political office), Marco Rubio (Bush's protege), Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie (assuming he wins re-election in 2014), Bobby Jindal, and Rand Paul. At this point I am not convinced that Paul Ryan will seek the nomination.

As an aside I would very much like to pat myself on the back for correctly saying that Obama would get 332 Electoral Votes (of course I am assuming that Obama will win Florida).

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]


If I were to speculate I would suggest that you are right about the Reps being strong at the state and local levels, and on the surface, they do seem to be "in shambles" nationally.

However, I am guessing that the GOP will be very strong in 2016. I say this primarily because I really like their field of possible candidates. But also, I say this because Obama's first election wasn't an affirmation of the Dems, but rather, a referendum of Bush specifically. After 8 years of the worst modern-era president, the Dems could have run just about anybody who was viable and they would have beaten McCain, so that was a gimme.

But something curious happened when it was Obama that eventually won, the extreme right (SW will tell you why) became a hostile, vocal, and momentarily powerful voting bloc. And the GOP, sensing the great energy being produced by the 2010 midterms, mistakenly went 'all-in'.

Now, I think that the mainstream GOP is likely to extricate itself from its lunatic fringe. They will get serious about meaningful and fair immigration reform, they will get serious about protecting women's reproductive rights, and the shrill, angry, unreasonable voices will hopefully fade from the spotlight of the national Republican stage.

You are right, this should have been an easy win for the GOP. But by the time Romney came running to the middle, the extreme tones (and at times insanity) the GOP embraced against immigration, women's rights, etc., cost them the election. I cannot imagine that they will make this mistake again.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 5:15 PM

Lady Gaga has a "special" connection to Nebraska from what I hear. And she might do well among the male 18-45 vote.

She would certainly be a billion times better than Bachman.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 7:17 PM

Is the stupid namecalling really necessary? What is the point of calling someone a name when they aren't aware of it?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 7:35 PM

Gma is unraveling as fast as the extreme right's relevance. The endings of eras (even the really brief ones) are always so difficult.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 12:46 AM

It's hard to appreciate the content when my inner-English teacher is screaming as I try to read..."Sandy *through* Romney off his momentum"..."extremely short *sided*"..."all but one of *it's* candidates"..."*their* was a high *likelyhood*"...

That's just tough to get through.

-- Posted by McLeanMom on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:14 AM

Bull Campaign in S&P is over for now. $USD is setting up for a nice correction but wait. Oil is setting up for nice rally to upside need to wait for setup. Waiting to re-enter Gold trade but spectator for now.

Inflation trade appears to be shaping up for next cycle.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:24 AM

Was at a charity function last Friday for Houston Children's Charity. Raised a record amount of Money. My wife is on the Board and we were the underwriting chairs.

Tonight is the Gala for Star of Hope - the largest homeless mission in Houston. The Gala is called Trees of Hope which is the fund raising arm for Star of Hope (my wife is President of Trees of Hope). There is now a large fear that the charitable community will not support this event as much as they have in the past as higher taxes appear likely.

Please pray for Houston and the benefactors of the Star of Hope and the homeless and hungry in Houston. The Government doesn't provide for the poorest of the poor. People with giving hearts do that. Taxes to the Government go to a black hole and the individual tax payer has no say where or what that money is spent on. A direct donation to a charity helps specific people with specific and urgent needs. Please pray for the Star of Hope Mission. People are depending that we do well.

Wallis Marsh

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:32 AM


I'm not sure what you mean. "Stupid" might be namecalling, but I'm not sure it fits the picture I was envisioning. In my post, however, "stupid" was not namecalling at all, it was an adjective modifying "namecalling" (at least I think so, maybe some kindly English teacher will clarify it for me, it's been a long time since I was in such a class).

Maybe you missed my second sentence of that post. In that case calling someone directly "Mr. Pot II" doesn't conflict with my question. So have a ball. But, you should be aware that if you are calling someone a hypocrite you should probably be sure they are acting as one.

While I believe childish namecalling can be fun, calling someone a name who doesn't realize you are calling them a name is just a stupid waste of effort in my opinion.

Maybe you have a legitimate reason for what I consider "stupid" namecalling, would you care to share it? That after all was the question in my post.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:11 AM

Here is a thought. If you try to hold the economy and country hostage to defeat obama u might be a republican. If you want to keep the government out of our lives but u believe that rape that causes pregnancy is god's will and u want to control a woman's right to make her own decision about the pregnancy u might have flunked morality. If u want to stop illegal immigration, but will not accept a path to citizenship for some 12 million working adults and their children born here - u may not win the presidency for 20 more years. If u just say no to all ideas without compromising u cannot govern.

-- Posted by 2logical on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:51 PM

What amazes me majo is that after fully ten years after the 9/11 attacks we still don't have all the answers in how the Bush Administration completely missed an imminent terrorist attack within the borders of the United States that killed over 4,000 people and you sit there and want to concern troll over an event that has been fully explained and the only people truly concerned over it are the idiots over on Fox News.

Have fun with that.

Bush lied, thousands died!

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 7:14 AM


You are 100% correct that the mainstream Republicans have a golden opportunity to retake their party. Unfortunately, I think they are still controlled by the Tea Party faction of the party. Take a look and listen to Fox News and Conservative radio. They put full blame on two things for this loss: Hurricane Sandy and Romney not being conservative enough. There is still a huge disconnect at the national level and until the disconnect is resolved it will not trickle down anywhere.

I can honestly see (if mainstream, ie moderate Republicans want to be relevant again) the rise of the Libertarian Party rise to more of just a 3rd Party. The mid-terms are still two years out but I don't see any big changes in Republican Party by that point. If national Republicans cannot pull their party from the grasps of the Tea Party contingent we will see many more of these elections in the future.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 7:55 AM

Herman Cain has already fired the first shot in the potential break up of the Republican Party. He is now suggesting that the most conservative of the Republican Party break with the party and form a new third party.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM

It is a fair question to wonder about the relevancy of the Republican party on a national level in the years to come.

California was once a vigorous bi-partisan state, this past election saw the Democrats gain a super-majority in both houses of the state legislature while currently the Republicans do not have a single statewide office. At the state level, the Republicans have been refusing to compromise resulting in the present state financial situation, the voters recognized that and voted for a temporaty tax increase in addition to the super majority for the Dems.

Don't believe either side has all the answers, however, when we work together and compromise as Americans have done the majority of the time since 1776 (though not always a "pretty picture" when we go through the compromise process), nothing nor anyone can stop this great nation.

(Wild, unsubstantiated, ficitonal stories do nothing for the progress of our great nation.)

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 2:55 PM

Following is a short video that explains what exactly created our countries debt issue. You may be surprised at the results. Take a minute of your time to watch the video, it's worth it.


-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 3:51 PM


I don't think anyone who pays attention to the real world would be surprised by this video. Although, I don't think Obama should have extended the Bush tax cuts. He also has not cut defense like many thought he would (though that seems to be more likely now). He obviously did not cause the debt that we face as a nation, but we have to conclude from the video that he has made it worse, rather than better, right?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 4:03 PM

Ben - with higher taxes coming via higher Fed tax rates and the Health Care Tax what would you do to increase employment in the Country?


-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 5:16 PM

Wallis, you are of course making the huge assumption that the already long debunked theory of trickle down economics creating jobs with you statement of higher taxes. The assumption you are making that if we raise taxes companies will stop hiring. Here's the problem. These corporation have enjoyed the lowest tax rates in well over 100 years and yet they still refuse to hire, so low tax rates can not be credited for increased employment.

You also leave a lot to be left with the Health Care Tax. What you omit is that any business (specifically small businesses) receive tax credits for providing health care to their workers. Those companies, like Papa Johns. who swear up and down that they will have to cut hours or fire employees in order to pay for health insurance have completely duped you. If this company can afford to give away two million pizzas to it's customers it can very well afford to provide insurance for their workers.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 6:01 PM

Okay McLean I have made the changes with my spelling and grammar. I hope it passes the test and I fully apologize for putting content out there that was as bad grammatically as this.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 7:25 PM


First, I am not sure that Obamacare or returning to the pre-Bush era tax rate for the wealthy are going to have much of a negative impact on jobs. For example, the CBO estimates that if Obamacare costs any jobs (a big "if") it will be less than a half a percent net. The reason there may be a small net loss, according to the CBO, is because older folks working two or more jobs in their retirement years (estimated in the 100,000's of thousands) to pay for health care would no longer voluntarily work extra hours because Obamacare would reduce their cost of living. They, instead, would enjoy their retirement as they should.

But to answer your question, I think we need companies to have strong incentives to not ship jobs overseas. I think that we need to invest heavily in education in order to compete with China and India--particularly for jobs within our own borders! And I think (along with most rational folks in the energy business) that alternative sources of energy (including renewable) are a burgeoning industrial frontier, and the US can, as it has in the past, lead from the front in the research and development of technology and the production of materials and equipment to supply the entire world with the means for cheaper energy alternatives.

The government has made investments in education (think: math and science after Sputnik) and industry (think: the car, steel, and the internet) in the past, and it made us the strongest nation on Earth. No reason to think this won't be the case again.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 7:33 PM

"Those companies, like Papa Johns. who swear up and down that they will have to cut hours or fire employees in order to pay for health insurance have completely duped you."

Michael is right, the CEO of Westgate Resorts, who threatened to fire his employees if Obama was reelected, just gave everyone in his company a 5% raise citing record profits as the reason.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 7:38 PM


"I hope it passes the test and I fully apologize for putting content out there that was as bad grammatically as this."

Is the apology for the originally errors in your blog or for the errors in the sentence quoted above? I'm not sure what type of man one must be to apologize for something while at simultaneously engaging in the bad behavior.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 3:30 PM

It should also be noted that the owner of Papa Johns has stated that if Obama was elected he would be forced to raise prices in his stores, he said this despite the fact that he had already increased prices in his stores across the board.

Many of the companies that have been cited as firing employees after Obama's re-election had already long determined that they had to make cuts because of other specific reasons.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 5:32 PM


-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 8:13 PM

Just curious Mike, but if Hillary or Biden are the front runners in '16, which republican do you see having the best chance? I personally don't think Biden will run. I think the GOP will really push up Rubio. That would be an interesting race IMO.

-- Posted by BisonAlum00 on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 12:35 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Collective Amnesia
(15 ~ 1:32 PM, Jan 24)

Of Safe Spaces
(5 ~ 2:00 PM, Jan 15)

You Have a Problem
(7 ~ 5:25 PM, Jan 9)

Draining The Swamp Indeed!
(8 ~ 5:22 PM, Jan 9)

The Resistance Movement
(9 ~ 6:05 AM, Dec 28)