Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,760 posts)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:00 PM Nov 2012

Why Mitt Romney Lost: A Simple, Overriding Theory (no political party in US can win suppressing vote


If last night proved anything, it's that no serious political party in America can win an election by suppressing votes.



Mitt Romney lost because he was too conservative. Mitt Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. He lost because of union vote in Ohio. He lost because of the youth vote in Colorado. He lost because he backtracked on abortion and reproductive rights. He lost because he is a rich man who ran during rough economic times pledging to give tax breaks to other rich men. He lost because he didn't turn over his tax receipts. He lost because he is a Mormon. He lost because of Barack Obama. He lost because of Hurricane Sandy.

May I suggest instead a simple, elegant overriding theory on why we won't have a Romney Administration in 2013? No serious political party in America -- no legitimate party in any viable democracy -- can win an election by suppressing votes. So long as the Republican Party endorses (and enacts) voting laws designed to make it harder for registered voters to vote, so long as Republican officials like Ohio's Jon Husted contort themselves to interpret those laws in a restrictive fashion, the Republicans will continue to play a loser's game.

That's my theory, anyway, and I'm sticking to it. Having covered for the past two years the voting rights front in this epic election cycle, I have come to believe that the Republicans will begin to win presidential elections again only when they start competing for votes with the substance of their ideas. Instead of legislating on the theory that some people are too poor or too old or too lazy to vote, and for all their talk about freedom and the Tea Party, they should try to find ways to encourage the franchise in America, to nurture and protect it.

But I don't want to talk about the losers. There will be plenty of time for that. I want to talk instead about the winners of the election of 2012. They aren't just the returning members of Congress and the president and his cabinet. They aren't just the donors and functionaries who helped fund and operate the massively expensive reelection campaign. They are, to cite just one example, the tens of thousands of citizens all over the country who fought back against the greatest threat to civil rights since the 1960s.

FULL story at link.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Mitt Romney Lost: A Simple, Overriding Theory (no political party in US can win suppressing vote (Original Post) Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP
They did in 2000 and 2004 tblue Nov 2012 #1
^^ this PowerToThePeople Nov 2012 #2
Right. (nt) enough Nov 2012 #3
well the problem is both suppressing the vote AND turn out the base. they spent oodles of cash unblock Nov 2012 #4

unblock

(52,352 posts)
4. well the problem is both suppressing the vote AND turn out the base. they spent oodles of cash
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:24 PM
Nov 2012

to turn out the base and then they have to try to suppress the non-base vote as if they weren't also bombarded with the same ads.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Mitt Romney Lost: A S...