Why I Was Wrong
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 7, 2012

I’ve got egg on my face.  I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.

The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels.  Didn’t happen.  These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay.  And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks.  In 04, it was 11%.  This year, 10% was Latino.  In ’04 it was 8%.  This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%.  Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.

I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008.  I was wrong.  They did.

But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe’s fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership.

It made all the difference.

A key element of Romney’s appeal, particularly after the first debate, was his ability to govern with Democrats in Massachusetts.  Obama’s one-party strident approach, so much the opposite of what he pledged in his first national speech in 2004, had turned voters off.  But by working seamlessly with an acerbic Republican Governor like Christie, Obama was able to blunt Romney’s advantage in this crucial area.

Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney’s post-debate momentum.  She was, indeed, the October Surprise.  She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.

Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place.  McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly.  Obama’s dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.

That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America.  This is not your father’s United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.

By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner.  Count them:  Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1.  Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3.  Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7.  Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6.  There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote.   (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13)  Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win.  He almost did.  But not quite.

If Romney couldn’t manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.

But that doesn’t mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still  have the ability – and more important, the responsibility – to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.

We must stop Obama’s socialist agenda. That’s our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.

This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that’s unlikely.

So we have our work cut out for us.

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

The Circle Game

By Lowman S. Henry

After the longest and most expensive election cycle in American history we are

. . . right back where we started. President Barack Obama has been re-elected by a narrow margin – even more narrow than his 2008 victory over John McCain, Democrats will continue to control the U.S. Senate – although holding less than the magic 60 votes needed to move legislation; and the GOP has maintained, even increased its hold on the House of Representatives.

Voters have opted to gridlock the federal government. Given President Obama’s razor thin 2.5 million vote win in the popular count, and the GOP’s failure to capture control of the Senate, Congress will continue to be polarized and paralyzed. Thus in the coming weeks as the nation faces a series of critical fiscal tests including raising the debt ceiling, dealing with the expiration of Bush era tax rates and the need to enact a 2012-2013 budget, the national government will be deeply divided.

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat, pressure will be on Republicans to cave and compromise. They should not. This election was not a repudiation of conservative economics. If anything it was a continuation of the deep, even division among the American electorate that was ushered in at the beginning of this century when the 2000 Presidential race ended up essentially tied.   The re-election of President George W. Bush hinged on a few thousand votes in Ohio; the movement of less than a half million votes in a few key states powered Barack Obama’s victory in 2008; and, less than 100,000 votes in three or four key states decided Tuesday’s election.

Thus voters have been remarkably consistent over the past four presidential elections. The big swings have come in the composition of Congress, with Democrats affecting wave elections in 2006 and 2008, and the GOP staging a historic resurgence in 2010. This year, voters appeared to have sated their appetite for legislative change and embraced the status quo.

The 2012 election was not an electoral repudiation of either party, rather it served as validation of each.   In short, there is no consensus among the electorate on a way forward. Under those circumstances we should not expect our elected officials in Washington to arrive at one. Republicans were put in office by their voters to rein in government spending and reduce the federal deficit. Democrats embraced a tax and spend approach and have been rewarded by their constituents. It is unlikely either side is going to back down because to do so would be to alienate the very voters who sent them to Washington in the first place.

In the days and weeks ahead the failure of the GOP to capture the White House amidst dire and deteriorating economic circumstances will be the subject of much discussion, debate and finger pointing. But, Republicans should resist the urge to be swayed by denizens of the Left who will claim the party’s historic conservative economic principles caused that failure. It did not. Mitt Romney was never a disciple of the Right and his rejection at the polls was not a rejection of conservative principles.

In fact, perhaps the time has finally come for the national GOP to realize that nominating moderates for President simply does not work. Despite the fact he performed admirably throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney was never an effective spokesman for the conservative wing of the party. Aside from a pivot to the Right in the early primaries he did not try to be. He was nominated in an effort to appeal to independents and to moderate voters. In the process, the GOP did not develop the bold sharp contrast needed to convince the broad electorate to fire a failed president.

This is the fourth time in recent decades this strategy has failed. George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and now Mitt Romney in 2012 all fit the moderate mold. All lost. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush flew the conservative flag, and won. With Barack Obama the Democrats were not afraid to embrace their party’s left-wing ideology. They won because they stood for something, just like Reagan and George W. Bush did in achieving their victories. The GOP sacrificed its core message and lost.

And so, here we are back where we began. Hopefully – finally – some lessons will be learned. As we move forward, Republicans in Congress must embrace the GOP’s core ideology, start drawing those bright lines of distinction and put together a strategy for effectively communicating it to the American people.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

Tomorrow is General Election Day.  The fate of our country lies in the hands of the voter.  One vote can make a difference.  Don’t forget to remind your friends and family the importance of tomorrow’s election.  If someone needs a ride to the polls, ensure they have a way there.  Get out and vote!