Romney Adviser: We Won the People Who Matter

Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for the Romney campaign, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post saying, in essence, that Romney won a majority of the Real Americanstm — you know, the white, middle-class voters, the ones who really matter.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift…

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.

He uses this to argue that the Romney campaign did a fine job and that Romney was, in fact, a terrific candidate. He even uses that tried-and-true coaching tactic of “no one thought we could win.”

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class.

In what universe? Nearly everyone thought Romney was going to win the Republican nomination. That’s why all the talk about every other candidate in the race was about whether they could sustain a serious challenge to Romney’s huge advantages in money and organization. Along the way he uses a lot of vague, unsupportable claims of the sort that losers always tell themselves. Sure, Romney may have lost, but he “trounced Barack Obama in debate,” “defended the free-enterprise system,” and “brought the fight to the Democrats.” Oh, he also “captured the imagination of millions of Americans,” “spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America,” and “handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor.” Which all adds up to a nearly delusional declaration of victory:

When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

Uh, no. They didn’t. Nor should the Democrats be claiming that Obama’s win means the public agrees with his “ideals” (whatever they may be). But Obama did win the election, for crying out loud. He at least has some reason to believe such a thing; Stevens is just whistling past the graveyard.

59 comments on this post.
  1. Stevarious, Public Health Problem:

    Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

    Of course he did. That’s whose interests he was representing.

    Unfortunately for nearly everyone, the more you favor those interests, the more exclusive the club becomes, until it’s not big enough to win elections no matter how much money you spend.

  2. thalwen:

    So his point is that is that Romney would have won if only the Constitution hadn’t been amended to allow non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-landowning people to vote. How very 18th century of him.

  3. Alverant:

    I’d be curious about the economic breakdown of which way people voted as well as how they’re defining the “middle class”. Given how they think people who make about 250K aren’t rich, you have to wonder where they put the lower limit of the middle class.

  4. eric:

    Those who fail to learn from history, etc.

    The idealist in me says this is really bad. We need two (or more) political parties that actually learn from their mistakes and fashion policies based on the desires of the electorate, rather than using gerrymandering and vote manipulation to turn out an electorate that matches the desires of the party. But the cynic in me says: I really dislike the religious fundamentalist, social conservative part of the GOP, and if they want to stick their heads in the sand as to why they lost, more power to them.

  5. rory:

    I think the claim I find most amusing is that Romney “captured the imagination of millions of Americans.” Anyone whose imagination is captured by that twit must not have two brain cells to rub together.

  6. =8)-DX:

    OK, there’s this thing called logic. And we all know any political campaign should run on that?

    So if Romney won a majority of the middle class because he represents their values, it logically follows that the GOP should be trying real hard for the next four years to make sure that middle class is as big as possible – fund programs providing jobs for the unemployed and benefits for the poor while at the same time making the rich pay their fair share of taxes (also strengthening the top of the middle class) and get more money circulating in the system?

    That must be what Stevens’ means.

  7. DaveL:

    I dug up a table from money-zine.com showing a list of occupations whose average annual wage places them in the sub 50K category that Stevens thinks Romney should be proud of alienating. Here are a few:

    Childcare workers
    Agricultural workers
    Miners and Mining equipment operators
    Construction workers and highway maintenance workers
    Firefighters and EMTs
    LPNs, Surgical Technicians, Nurses aides
    Various other healthcare support occupations
    Clergy
    Industrial maintenance workers, Industrial mechanics
    Dental assistants
    Veterinary technicians
    Mental health counselors, rehab counselors, substance abuse counselors
    Corrections officers and jailers
    Wastewater treatment operators
    Butchers, meat cutters and meat packers
    Machinists, Tool & Die makers, CNC programmers
    Drafters and graphic designers
    HAZMAT removal workers
    Tax preparers
    Radio and Television announcers
    Sailors and marine oilers
    Light truck or delivery services drivers, bus drivers
    Cooks and food service workers
    Front line retail workers and their direct supervisors
    Fishers
    Loggers
    Preschool teachers
    Office clerks and data entry clerks
    Barbers and hairstylists
    Security Guards
    Landscaping and groundskeeping workers
    Embalmers and funeral attendants
    Laundry and dry cleaning workers

  8. Ichthyic:

    can’t believe nobody has said this yet…

    47%

    that is all.

  9. Neil Rickert:

    I can only say that I am glad that we are not stuck with a President who has the despicable idea that only some Americans matter. Whatever happened to that “all men are created equal” bit?

  10. Ichthyic:

    I think the claim I find most amusing is that Romney “captured the imagination of millions of Americans.” Anyone whose imagination is captured by that twit must not have two brain cells to rub together.

    both of these sentences are actually completely accurate.

  11. thalwen:

    @rory – He certainly captured my imagination, in the – holy crap it will be mighty scary if he get’s elected sort of way.

  12. Ichthyic:

    Whatever happened to that “all men are created equal” bit?

    Well, technically the equality bit is much more in evidence now than it was when that phrase was written into the Declaration of Independence. However, both then and now it was mostly lip service in favor of a catchy phrase and talking point.

  13. F [disappearing]:

    The other candidates were just that bad.

  14. Who Knows?:

    Why does Rmoney Inc. insist on finding new ways to express the infamous, “I’ll never get the 47% of Americans” idea?

  15. flex:

    Crap, this is a little off-topic but I just had a conversation with a co-worker who claims that there are no classes in America. That there is no such thing as an upper, middle, or lower class. That everyone can adjust their income levels as much as they are willing to work.

    This is a test technician, making less than $50K/year, who ostensibly believes that the reason our CEO gets a salary of $12M/year + stock options worth about another $50M, is because our CEO works harder than he does.

    When I told him he was denying reality, his comment was that by defining reality the way I do means that the solutions I come up with will be limited to the model I use. Of course, if his solution is to deny that there is a problem, of course the course of actions we suggest are going to differ.

    Yes. He voted for Romney. Not out of any racist aspect, but because he firmly believes all the crap the Heritage Institute puts out. When I show him how the Heritage Institute cherry-picks it’s economic data, he ignores it. I’m not even trying to convince him of anything, just that his favorite sources are not providing complete data.

    Errg.

  16. Moggie:

    Neil Rickert:

    I can only say that I am glad that we are not stuck with a President who has the despicable idea that only some Americans matter. Whatever happened to that “all men are created equal” bit?

    That’s hardly a Mormon principle, is it?

  17. lldayo:

    I find it funny that the next presidential election is almost 4 years away and the Republican party is already busy alienating a majority of voters. I think the Dems could save some campaigning money the next time around at this rate!

  18. composer99:

    I’d say Romney indeed “captured the imagination of millions of Americans”.

    Then they went and voted for someone else (mostly Obama).

  19. raven:

    Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

    Remember these are christofascists. They always lie!!!

    IIRC, they lost the urban vote and the urban professional vote, which are mostly white. Also the younger white voters.

    Romney carried the old white christofascist vote for sure. This isn’t that great news. As many people pointed out, old people are well on their way to being…dead people.

    It won’t happen that fast, but those people will be gone due to biology.

  20. dugglebogey:

    It’s amazing to me how they can define someone who came in second in a two-man race as anything but the loser.

  21. Dennis N:

    HELLO?! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME?! I CAN’T HEAR THING IN HERE WITH ALL THAT DOGWHISTLING.

  22. eric:

    @15:

    This is a test technician, making less than $50K/year, who ostensibly believes that the reason our CEO gets a salary of $12M/year + stock options worth about another $50M, is because our CEO works harder than he does.

    So, his CEO works 1.2E7/5E4*40 = 9,400 hours per week?
    Maybe he thinks his CEO’s brain burns 240x as many calories per hour as his does. Oh, the weight loss opportunities if that were so. Be CEO for a day – lose 5 pounds!

    There are may be some good arguments for big salaries and benefits (e.g. risk, responsibility over more resources, demand for your skill set), but “work harder” is not really one of them. Most Americans from the fry guy on up to the CEO work really damn hard.

  23. eric:

    @15

    Yes. He voted for Romney. Not out of any racist aspect, but because he firmly believes all the crap the Heritage Institute puts out

    Send him this (pdf download required). Its the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Obamacare.

  24. scienceavenger:

    Per CNN’s exit polls, here are some groups Romney lost:

    Women
    Every age group under 40
    Every race other than whites
    College graduates
    Those who did NOT identify as white and born again

    Oh, and it was a draw among those who work full time. So Romney’s core constituency was the old, white, born again, uneducated male. Knock me over with a feather.

  25. Chiroptera:

    flex, #15: This is a test technician, making less than $50K/year, who ostensibly believes that the reason our CEO gets a salary of $12M/year + stock options worth about another $50M, is because our CEO works harder than he does.

    Your coworker actually believes that if he would work harder, then he, too, would earn $12M/year? Then why doesn’t he?

    Seriously. These clowns spout nonsense that even they could spot if they’d just shut up for a minute and think about what they just said.

  26. Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB):

    @15

    who ostensibly believes that the reason our CEO gets a salary of $12M/year + stock options worth about another $50M, is because our CEO works harder than he does.

    Gah.

    No.

    Writing a check for $1M, and getting $1.5M handed back is not “hard work”. The upper class works more like an aristocracy these days than anyone who actually deserves the money.

  27. DaveL:

    When I told him he was denying reality, his comment was that by defining reality the way I do means that the solutions I come up with will be limited to the model I use.

    That sounds eerily like something I’ve heard before…

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” -Ron Suskind

  28. tommykey:

    Yes. He voted for Romney. Not out of any racist aspect, but because he firmly believes all the crap the Heritage Institute puts out. When I show him how the Heritage Institute cherry-picks it’s economic data, he ignores it. I’m not even trying to convince him of anything, just that his favorite sources are not providing complete data.

    You could have also told him that the Heritage Foundation is funded by a bunch of wealthy right-wing guys. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that anything Heritage cranks out in terms of reports on tax policy etc. is going to favor the interests of the wealthy people who fund them.

  29. caseloweraz:

    Stuart Stevens wrote: “Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.”

    Let me complete that for you: “Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right and so we don’t need to wory about those problems.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll probably be saying it a lot: Nothing that happened in the recent election is going to make the Republican Party change its ways to any significant degree.

  30. caseloweraz:

    Eric wrote: “Maybe he thinks his CEO’s brain burns 240x as many calories per hour as his does.”

    The image that comes to mind is that of “The Head” from the old TV show Quark.

    See also the Quark fansite.

  31. holytape:

    the median income in the usa is 44,000.

  32. Christoph Burschka:

    “captured the imagination” indeed. I imagined Romney as president and had trouble sleeping.

  33. alwayscurious:

    The idealist in me says this is really bad. We need two (or more) political parties that actually learn from their mistakes and fashion policies based on the desires of the electorate, rather than using gerrymandering and vote manipulation to turn out an electorate that matches the desires of the party.

    I agree. I dislike the Republicans but we need to have more than one political party generating good ideas and moving the country forward. The Republicans need to stop licking their wounds and get with the program: taxes are a good thing, our election system needs real reform, and we need to invest more in our future (science, education, infrastructure etc.) and less in our present (coal, new home construction, backward social policies, etc.). Obstructionism has got to end!

    Apparently, evangelical voter participation is up; Romney broke records for winning their support……So the smart money says: evangelicals are insufficient to winning the election. Broadening the base–not just a tax policy

  34. John Hinkle:

    When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

    Well no, ultimately your Ivan Drago lost. There might be some stuff in your ears: he lost. The piece of iron won.

  35. lorn:

    You know what else “captured the imagination of millions of Americans” … zombies. In fact we may regard Romney as the first zombie-American to run for office. It is entirely arguable that the reason Romney didn’t win was that his handlers never let his inner zombie shine through. They gave him over to physical therapists to get him to cover up his shambling gait. They got him worked on by speech therapists to get him to pronunciation better and use the word brains less. They had a dedicated staff of makeup artist always at hand to cover up the pallor and glue detached flesh back in place.

    I think this will be clearly seen as a mistake. Americans were really ready for a zombie-American president and Romney in his normal, shambling, stumbling, mumbling, with unexpected shouts for “brains”, gray-green pallor with random bit falling off was the Romney that could have won. Deep down Americans love zombies.

  36. Chiroptera:

    lorn, #35: …and use the word brains less.

    And, boy, did he ever!

  37. frog:

    And, you know, winning “most” of a particular demographic doesn’t mean much. You would think people shouting that a 51% margin isn’t a mandate would understand that.

    Romney may have won 57% of whites, but in that number were large swathes of racist idiots who may not back the GOP if the Dems run a white guy in 2016.

  38. Randomfactor:

    “I’ll never get the 47% of Americans”

    The final irony is that Romney did just that. His opponent got the rest.

  39. Ichthyic:

    Deep down Americans love zombies.

    *guilty*

    *goes back to watching the latest episode of “The Walking Dead”*

    I keep wondering just how far they will push the gore level in each new episode, and whether they will finally reach the point where even I can’t stomach it any more.

  40. Ichthyic:

    When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas.

    Fundamental… Republican… ideas…

    today’s Republican party is an alliance between the plutocrats and the preachers, plus some opportunists along for the ride — full stop. The whole party is about low taxes at the top (and low benefits for the rest), plus conservative social values and putting religion in the schools; it has no other reason for being.

    -P Krugman

  41. Michael Heath:

    Stuart Stevens writes:

    Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

    Uh no, Obama crushed him in the tech sector. I’m also with raven, I’m surprised anyone except conservatives would take this guy at his word.

  42. dingojack:

    Lorn (@35) – ” Americans were really ready for a zombie-American president and Romney in his normal, shambling, stumbling, mumbling, with unexpected shouts for “brains”, gray-green pallor with random bit falling off was the Romney that could have won”.

    You forget that America has already tried that – Reagan.

    ;) Dingo

  43. dingojack:

    OK I got curious:
    Those earning less than $50,000 p.a. are:
    Males All races: 70.57%; Females All races: 85.06%

    Source

    Dingo

  44. Dr X:

    Biblical cherry pick of the day:

    Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

    What part of woe do Republichrists not understand?

  45. tim rowledge, Ersatz Haderach:

    So they only lost the ‘poor people’? Maybe they shouldn’t have spent so much effort creating so many?

  46. chrisdevries:

    Let them keep telling themselves that everything’ll be juust fine, nothin’ to worry about, no sir! They can keep to the (barely) revamped Southern Strategy and keep on being stunned every fourth November when it fails miserably.

    This could actually be a good thing for the Democrats. The less people who are able to convince themselves that the Republicans represent their interests, the more people who will either stay at home or vote Democrat strategically. The Democrats have to keep people voting to guarantee their success, so the candidate they field has to be broadly acceptable to the non-Masters-of-the-Universe who make up their base. But since some of the anti-Republicans will vote Democrat no matter who runs, they can still take a chance on a candidate who publicly aligns him/herself with more of our values.

    It will certainly make primary season more interesting.* The values we care about have a chance to make a comeback in the mainstream public consciousness. Even this year, Obama reluctantly came out in favor of same-sex marriage, a risky move in an election year. But his support there may have both gained him votes, AND helped get out people to vote on the ballot initiatives that went our way. Democrats are by no means as unscrupulous and conniving as Republicans, but they are also pretty conservative with offering any strong, “left-leaning” opinion that might cost them votes. They aren’t hypocritical, necessarily, just cowards.

    But many of the values we hold dear are no longer as controversial in American society as they were even ten years ago. Declaring support for a women’s right to choose what to do with the fetus living in her body could win you votes in 2016. And let’s not forget that the Republicans lost at least two pretty safe Senate seats this year because they were dumb enough to think women wouldn’t notice just how little they thought of them. In mobilizing THEIR base, they inadvertently mobilized OURS. And while we may not be able to rely on Republicans to open their fat mouths and say dumb shit (well…I just don’t want to take this for granted, that’s all!!), Democratic candidates can certainly promote policies that infuriate the christofascists enough that they spew their hatred on cue. Targeted theocrat-baiting.

    Yes, it would be better to have three or four mainstream parties, each of which is committed to representing the will of ALL Americans; but as long as Republicans remain wishful-thinkers who mock our “reality-based community”, we might as well take full advantage of their idiocy.

    *Although, this year was pretty fun, watching the extreme religious wing of the Republicans courting a new candidate every week only to drop ‘em like they had an STD when they saw just how green the grass was over there, where uncle Newt is sitting. Mitt had the best chance at winning; imagine what happens if they “learn” from their “mistake” by doubling down on ideological purity next time.

  47. Nick Gotts (formerly KG):

    dingojack@43,

    Stevens appears to be talking about household income; according to the top line of this table, which I found from your link, median household income 2010-11 was $50,443. I didn’t find your figures, but since they are separate figures for women and men, they must be for individual income. If the figures in the table I link to are accurate (they may be underestimates, apparently people tend to under-report income on census forms), then Romney got a majority among all household income bands above the median.

    But is the “middle class” exclusively composed of those with above-median income? My impression is that in normal American parlance, “middle class” includes all but the seriously rich and the seriously poor – but maybe I’m wrong there.

  48. democommie:

    “On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.”

    The majority of those who VOTED. Wonder how Mittmoroni would have fared if the entire electorate had voted. This link (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says) suggests that something like 43% of them did not exercise the franchise. I’m gonna go way out on a Kevlar reinforced limb and say that WAY MORE than 47% of that number were people Romney disdains.

    “agree. I dislike the Republicans but we need to have more than one political party generating good ideas and moving the country forward.”

    Nitpick. We currently have about 65-70 of ONE party generating good ideas.

  49. Akira MacKenzie:

    When I told him he was denying reality, his comment was that by defining reality the way I do means that the solutions I come up with will be limited to the model I use. Of course, if his solution is to deny that there is a problem, of course the course of actions we suggest are going to differ.

    Gee, that sounds really, really familiar:

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Yes, we shouldn’t let a pesky little thing like the facts get in the way of making those bold policy decisions, especially when we think that are rich and powerful to bend events to our hubristic wills.

  50. dingojack:

    Nick – I didn’t include my working because I thought it would have been obvious:

    1) Take the sum of the numbers of each income slice
    2) Divide the numbers in each slice by the total number to form a percentage
    3) Cumulatively add each percentage of the total number up to the limit.

    Males All races: 70.57%; Females All races: 85.06%. Average = 77.915%.

    Curiously, if you take the number in each slice and multiply it by the mean income in each slice to get the total income for each slice, then add them to get the total population income, divide the total income for each slice by the total population income to get a percentage , then cumulatively add the percentages until you get 50% – you get a mean income of around $45800.

    Most people earn under the mean.

    If Romney won 55% of those earning over $50000 and Obama won 55% of those earning under $50000 then:

    Obama
    <50000 = 0.55*0.77815 = 0.4279825
    >50000 = (1-0.55)*(1-0.77815) = 0.0998325
    Total = 0.527815
    Romney
    <50000 = (1-0.55)*0.77815 = 0.3501675
    >50000 = 0.55*(1-0.77815) = 0.1220175 [1]
    Total = 0.4721853

    If Obama won 64.24% of those earning <50000 then Romney would have had to win every single vote in the over 50000 demographic just to tie.

    Dingo
    —–
    [1] – Romney’s aide was boasting over winning over a whopping 12.2% like that’s some great victory. They out polled Obama in the upper group by (in this example) by 3%, but lost 7% in the lower one. A Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.

  51. pacal:

    Dingo Jack your calculation seems to ignore that the Median reported by Nick is 50,443$ for Household incomes which means that 50% of households had less than that and 50% had above that.

    You seem to have calculated an arithmetic mean of Personal not Household income.

    A Household can of course consist of one person or many persons, and can have more than one personal income coming in.

    I’m actually a little floored that Median Household income is so low, considering that a very large number of such Households would have more than one income and be supporting more than two people.

    Certainly one person would do well on 50,443$. A family of 4 would do much less well on the same income.

    I suspect that if a large number of women quite working outside the home and thus adding a second income to the Household income the way a lot of “Conservatives” seem to desire, that such a move would plunge many Households into what can only be described as poverty.

  52. dingojack:

    Just using the figures at hand.
    Dingo

  53. Ichthyic:

    Dingo Jack your calculation seems to ignore that the Median reported by Nick is 50,443$ for Household incomes which means that 50% of households had less than that and 50% had above that.

    I’ve always wondered… why use median income instead of mean?

    it makes no sense to me.

    median numbers are based on a sequence; it’s not necessarily a good reflection of what people are earning unless you have a perfectly normal distribution, which is rarely the case.

  54. Ichthyic:

    nevermind, I answered my own question.

    using the median value over time, when you have changing and skewed distributions, tends to reflect “average” income better than the mean does.

    Of course, they should use both, because both contain useful information about what is happening with income and income value distributions.

    you can always use a transform to normalize distributions, for example.

    anywho, I did find a bit of an online explanation in case anyone else was wondering:

    http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/PAGES/mean_or_median.html

  55. dingojack:

    IF you take the data to spreadsheet and chart them using a column graph, you’ll see that (apart from the ‘Romney bulge’ at around $100,000 or so) the numbers rise rapidly to a peak then gently decline as you go from lower to higher incomes.
    This skewing of the curve moves the median away from the mean in the direction of lower incomes (mean ≈ $45,800 but median ≈ $26,500 [off the top of my head]), thus the majority of people (approx. 77%) earn less than $20,000 p.a.
    Even statistics, in this case, has liberal bias.

    Dingo

  56. dingojack:

    OK using this (see figure one):
    states having a median household incomes over $50,000
    >$60,000
    AK (R)
    HI
    VA
    MD
    (DC)
    NJ
    CT
    MA
    NH
    $50,000 – $59,999
    RI
    VT
    NY
    PA
    DE
    IL
    WI
    MN
    ND (R)
    NE (R)
    WY (R)
    CO
    UT (R)
    WA
    CA

    23 States in all; 5 carried for the Republicans.

    Dingo

  57. Childermass:

    Sure Mitt lost with those making less than $50K. But he also lost the following groups (and even among their members making more than $50K): Women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBT, Jews, nonbelievers, and non-Christian believers. Some of these groups (Women, LGBT, blacks, Hispanics) could have provided Mitt with victory.
    Indeed if the GOP is going to going to be a contender they will need to be able to attract voters from these groups.

    Married whites that are either uneducated or not poor and who are Christian and who either hate or are apathetic towards gays is not exactly a growth demographic.

  58. Ichthyic:

    Romney Adviser: We Won the People Who Matter

    I keep reading that, and thinking:

    “What? Did they win people in a raffle and take them home as indentured servants or something?”

  59. bradleybetts:

    “And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.”

    … but he lost. Dafuq is this guy on about?

Leave a comment

You must be