« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

I Think CNN.com Badly Mischaracterizes This Site

I tried to ignore this piece at CNN.com by Tom Cohen, but given how it continues to crop up in my inbox from people on both the left and right, I think it is worth responding to.

I reached out to my friends and colleagues over at CNN.com to tell them I thought both I and RedState were being badly mischaracterized. While making an edit to the article to include “Erick Erickson, who rejected any talk of electoral fraud or an unfair Obama victory” prior to using my quotes, CNN.com’s staff tells me they stand by the article. They are entitled to, but I disagree and I think both my position and that of this site are badly mischaracterized.

Let’s take the start of the article:

Step by step, die-hard conservatives are confronting their grief over President Barack Obama’s re-election.

But judging from blog posts and other public pronouncements, many remain stuck somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance.

Got that? The premise is that we are stuck somewhere between denial and anger and “very far from acceptance” over President Obama’s re-election.

The first bit of evidence used was from Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation. It’s somewhat humorous that CNN.com would lump RedState in with the Tea Party Nation given our past writing about Tea Party Nation and its origins (see here, here, and here). Nonetheless,

prolific blogger Judson Phillips on Tea Party Nation has called for boycotting the Electoral College to prevent validating the election result and lamented the triumph of liberalism in destroying national unity and therefore America’s greatness.

Here at RedState and elsewhere, we’ve deriding this sort of nuttiness. No one on our front page has called for boycotting the Electoral College and, in fact, we’ve closed several accounts of people who’ve come to RedState to advocate doing this and also closed the accounts of the morons calling for secession.

That is the first example of being “very far from acceptance” over President Obama’s victory. Next, we get to RedState and me.

Over at RedState.com, a more sophisticated political analysis echoes calls by Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them.

Silly me, but I’m not sure how calling on “Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them” has anything to do with being in denial or anger over President Obama being re-elected. But let’s get to the quotes.

Founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson, who rejected any talk of electoral fraud or an unfair Obama victory, wrote Tuesday that “there’ll be no hand-wringing here and there sure as hell won’t be any apologies for fighting for what we believe in.”

“Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful,” said another Erickson post Tuesday. “Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies.”

Here is where the context is important and why I think CNN.com badly mischaracterizes this site.

The first quote had absolutely nothing to do with the reelection of Barack Obama. It came from this post and a criticism of RedState from within the center-right coalition that RedState was complicit in the loss for being a conservative activist site instead of just championing Republicans. The quote was a defense of RedState’s core mission to help get conservatives elected.

It had nothing to do with anger or denial about the President getting re-elected and everything to do with making no apologies for what we, as a site do, in our willingness to primary Republicans. Last I checked, Barack Obama did not run in a Republican Primary and could not in the context of that post even be in anyway implicated by that post.

The second quote came from this post. It, again, has everything to do with an analysis internally of the Presidential election within the context of the Republican Party.

More ironic, the CNN.com article is premised on the idea that we are “somewhere between anger and denial” about Barack Obama winning, but the full post at RedState quoted points out, again, that Mitt Romney was to blame for his loss, not people who voted for Barack Obama.

How a journalist could take a ding at Mitt Romney and his campaign and turn it into a pronouncement that RedState or I (particularly as well given my statements on CNN’s domestic network) would be “somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance” is anybody’s guess.

But Tom Cohen felt the need, after those two quotes, to reinforce that neither RedState nor I were in acceptance mode, helpfully adding

Some acceptance has been necessary. On Tuesday, tea party favorite Rep. Allen West of Florida conceded in his race for re-election after initially alleging electoral fraud.

(Given my own public views of Allen West, it’s additionally ironic that Tom Cohen would follow quotes from me with a suggestion that Allen West’s loss would imply “some acceptance has been necessary.)

What is most galling, frankly, about the article, is that it spends the entirety of its roughly 1,073 words focusing on serious nuttiness at the Tea Party Nation website that we here at RedState have put bright lines around as not acceptable and wrong. It has been striking to both me and to many of those who forwarded the link to me that the entirety of the article is spent on one website and a bunch of inane pronouncement we have flat out rejected at RedState, but then throws RedState in, somewhat gratuitously and completely out of context, to ensure the whole focus is not on one tea party website not even in accord with other tea party groups, let alone RedState.

It would be hard to headline the article “Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama’s victory” if it fixated on just one website. I also really have no idea what an “arch conservative” is, unless it’s something like an Arch-Duke and I’m suddenly royalty within the conservative movement or something.

This is normally something I’d characterize as drive by journalism, seemingly coming to look for quotes to fill a premise without any real digging into my writing or the context here at RedState, and that of the other front page contributors. Any time spent paying attention to RedState’s front page would show we have clearly not been of anger, denial, or a refusal to accept the President’s re-election and, in fact, have attracted significant attacks on RedState from the right because of our refusal to buy into the very same nuttiness Tom Cohen is putting next to RedState in that article.

Had Tom Cohen gone back through my writings since Election Day, he’d find, starting on election night

The Obama campaign ran a very good campaign. The Republicans did not. There was no fraud. There was no stealing the election. There was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans, many of whom will now go work for Republican Super PACs making six figure salaries, further draining the pockets of rich Republicans when not on television explaining how awesome and expert they are. Whether you can bring yourself to say it or not, like it or not, Barack Obama is, today, your President.

Moving beyond Election Day, NPR and others focused on this post wherein we flat out said, “Barack Obama won. He won by turning out the most people in a well run campaign. In other words, he won fair and square.”

In that post, we further scorned those who

spent the past four years obsessed with birth certificates. Now they are obsessed with voter fraud conspiracies, talk of secession, and supposed election changing news stories if only we had known.

So let’s add dabblers in this latest nuttiness to birthers as a category of people we do not welcome at RedState. Our aim is to beat the Democrats, not beat a retreat to a Confederacy that Generals Grant and Sherman rent asunder well over a hundred years ago.

Even the weekend before Election Day, I wrote in what is now one of the most widely read posts ever in the history of this website,

Too many of my friends have gotten so focused on the outcome and are so convinced the country as they know it is over if the other side wins that they are joyless to be around right now. They are full of dread and worry and fear. They’ve lost their sense of humor. They cannot laugh at themselves, their side, or much of anything. They are mad at others, myself included, for not being as worked up as they are. The frenzy has become a purity test, not the conviction.

I think it is hard to say that either I or the other front page contributors at RedState were angry, in denial, or refusing to accept the President’s victory when we are added our names to a post declaring he won fair and square and put on notice those peddling the conspiracies CNN highlights in that same article that those folks were not welcome at RedState.

Even Rachel Maddow at MSNBC gave us the credit Tom Cohen doesn’t seem to suggest we deserve.

I told CNN.com I thought Tom Cohen’s article badly mischaracterized RedState. CNN.com thinks otherwise. I can’t help that they are wrong, but they are wrong and the volume of my posts here, as well as my “other public pronouncements” in my post-election tweets on Twitter and my statements on CNN all back me up.

It is what it is, but I think, given the volume of emails I’ve received related to the CNN.com piece, this needed to be addressed openly.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

  • chrisinva

    Sound-byte journalism — Sounds like CNN.

  • actionsspeaklouderthanwords

    Conservatives were not defeated in the presidential election; they were defeated in the primary. Neither Obama nor Romney had a conservative record while in office, and neither made a credible conservative case.

    After seeing the multiple issues within the Republican primaries, from open primaries that encourage Democrats to pick the candidate they would most like to oppose, or the Missouri primary process, or the redistricting of Allen West, or the way delegates were treated at the convention, it rings hollow for a Republican establishment to argue the election was somehow manipulated, stolen, or unfair.

    A true enemy does not announce they oppose you then slap you in the face. A true enemy tells you they are a friend you can trust, and then stabs you in the back.

    The Republican establishment has worked diligently to teach the American people in general and the Republican base in particular, that they cannot be trusted. That is why the polls were so far wrong. People support conservative principles, but don’t trust Republicans to uphold them.

    The true enemies are those who taught their own and once loyal base that they cannot be trusted.

  • tngal

    “I also really have no idea what an “arch conservative” is..”. In their context it would be “arch nemesis”

  • Don T.

    Is this kind of commentary from CNN really a shocker? Sorry, no, it isn’t. But I commend Erick for pushing back on it, anyway.

  • gwalt

    Conservative Neutering Network…….
    This is CNN.
    They hate you. They hate me. Move on.

  • stevemaley

    They need us to accept, not that we lost, but that we are beaten. They need us to accept that the incumbent’s narrow victory carries with it some sort of mandate, a popular endorsement of his radical vision.

    We lost largely because our side failed to put forward a candidate who could clearly articulate a compelling reason to vote for him.

  • chrisinva

    That sounds about right — if you are not for us, then you are our enemy.

  • Bill S

    An “arch conservative” is someone who disagrees with the left. They just don’t have the balls to say it that way.

  • lineholder

    ROFL. No, we aren’t in denial. The outcome is what it is. Generally speaking, Conservatives are more inclined to be realists about what lies ahead rather than displaying the idealism that is seen by many Liberals. I suppose our acceptance of reality could make us seem angry (because we don’t sugar-coat the negative impact continuation of the policies that President Obama’s admin has been implementing is likely to have on our country).

    Erick, those who voted to re-elect President Obama haven’t come to grips with the reality that they own this one now. In order for the goals that Liberals want to move “forward” towards to succeed, then there will be sectors of the American population that will have to take major steps up in accepting personal responsibility in adapting to new lifestyles. After Dems constantly and repeatedly have encouraged and perpetuated a mentality of dependency on government in these sectors of society for multiple generations now, believing that this influence will be undone in the course of four years is questionable to an extreme.

    This isn’t something that white, Conservative Americans living in rural areas working in the private sector can make happen. It simply is not within our means to do so. Dems/Liberals/Progressives can continue to project this “social responsibility” via “new patriotism” onto Conservatives all they like, but it won’t alter the reality.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Welcome to the spin chamber, Erick. You have officially been named to the Hall of Major League Conservative Punditry by the left. If you think you’ve been maligned before, you ain’t seen nothing yet. (By the way, you need to wear this like a Congressional Medal of Honor, because it is an achievement to be taken on and mischaracterized this strongly by the left.)

    I only have one question: What IS Tom Cohen’s handle over at DKO’s?

  • Bill S

    That was also my assumption regarding Mr. Cohen.

  • dansvan

    OK Erick I want to say this carefully because I don’t want to be ostracized. I’m willing to listen to the truth but there are so many questions no one has addressed. I’m not sure what to believe about how this happened, and I sure don’t want to believe there was widespread or systemic fraud that gave the election to Obama. Otherwise we will never win again. But I was watching the polls, and reading so many accounts of the enthusiasm of the “anti-Obama” (not necessarily pro-Romney) people. What about the empty stadia in so many places for Obama, and the overflowing crowds for Romney? And Karl Rove – in 2008 he was saying things I did not want to hear, that Obama would win. Even he seemed to be taken aback by how the election turned out this year.
    I would really appreciate having someone like you whom I trust, address what we saw and explain/analyze how that translates into a better-run campaign and so much more enthusiasm for Obama. Because I just did not see it. Please help?
    Respectfully submitted (and hopefully accepted).

  • spinoneone

    What Cohen wants is total capitulation and a promise not to oppose whatever O has waiting for the nation. They want us to say O has a “mandate” and “accept his great victory.”

    What we need to do is learn from our mistakes, both things we did and things we didn’t do, and try not to replicate them next time. We need to do a better job of “schooling” our candidates on how to hand the press, i.e., when to say, “That’s a clown question, bro.” Four or five of our senatorial candidates would have benefited from such sessions.

    It looks to me like we are going to go over the “fiscal cliff,” and I say, “Good.” Why? Because the Dems are not negotiating in any reasonable meaning of that word. It is a WH dictat being tossed at the House. Now job number one for conservatives and Red State is to convince the people that this is Obama’s debt, Obama’s decision, and Obama’s responsibility.

  • jaykali

    It’s very frustrating. We are losing the media war as they are successfully framing conservatives and all the issues. And we are also losing elections. I don’t see how we can win another national election. Our best chance is Rubio or Jeb Bush. We can’t elect any more old white guys. And we have to counteract the media monopoly somehow.

  • Jack_Savage

    I am surprised that you are surprised.
    You knew they were snakes when you picked them up. Figuratively, of course.

  • chipbennett

    The “mandate” argument is a straw man. Winning an election – no matter how narrow nor how large – is an *inherent* mandate. Barack Obama may be a pompous narcissist for declaring, “I won”; but in the end he’s right: he won.

    The problem, though, is that such mandates have a very short shelf-life: 2 years for representatives, 4 years for presidents, and 6 years for senators. So you’re also right: they want us to believe that we are *beaten*, and thus give up our right to determine who gets the *next* mandate.

  • luciusacius

    Well said. It is time to get to work and start the re-building of conservative grass roots organizations for the next primaries. Time to recruit good solid conservatives fro action, not time to waste in circular firing squads.

  • streiff

    really? you think a win equals a mandate? As James Carville said, the only politician with a mandate is Jim McGreevy. Obama is a lame duck. He has no mandate as not carrying the House proves.

  • gscandlen

    What exactly is wrong with being angry over the election results? I am angry that we squandered an opportunity. I am angry that the GOP establishment preferred to waste money on saturation advertising rather than grassroots work. I am angry that so many of our political analysts mislead us about the polls. And I am angry that today establishment Republicans are blaming the Tea Party for Senate losses when most of the losers were establishment picks and not Tea Party at all.

    In what way are these sentiments dysfunctional? Would the Dems not be angry id Obama had lost (silly question — they would be rioting.)

  • mtmnd

    The CNN article is poorly written and poorly headlined, and conflates two key reactions to the election. On the one hand, the article correctly points out that there are plenty of nut jobs like Phillips who seem intent on embarrassing themselves and conservatives generally by denying the validity of Obama’s victory and by carrying on with the nonsense that Mr. Erickson considers “not acceptable and wrong.” (Unfortunately many posters here seem closer to Phillips than Erickson on this issue, but perhaps that is an issue for another day.) Understandably, Mr. Erickson wants nothing to do with these views and no self-respecting conservative or American should want anything to do with these views.

    On the other hand, even if inarticulately, the mixed up article also touches on a more subtle reaction to the election, one concerned not with denying the result, but with with explaining (or denying) the underlying REASONS for the result. To put it bluntly, if there is “denial” by Mr. Erickson, it isn’t denial of the result, it is possible denial of underlying REASONS for the results (including Senate and House results.) As one of the few coherent sentences in the article put it:

    Overall, though, hard-core conservatives continue to reject that they are a minority in a country built on the core principle of liberty that they embrace.

    Now that is an issue, perhaps THE issue, which needs addressing. But when Mr. Erickson and many others squarely place the blame Romney (“Mitt Romney was to blame for his loss”) I am not so sure they are squarely addressing it. If there is “denial” it involves the failure to address the very real possibility that 1) Ideological conservatives may be in the minority nationwide and will thus have great difficulty winning national elections, and 2) wishy washy moderates who pretend to embrace conservative ideology to secure nominations won’t not be electable either. That is a dilemma.

  • gscandlen

    Nonsense. Old white guys are fine — if they know how to organize and stand on principle. Old white guys win elections all the time.

  • ohiohistorian

    I just read the following above with dismay:

    “…we’ve closed several accounts of people who’ve come to RedState to
    advocate doing this and also closed the accounts of the morons calling
    for secession.”

    I agree, this IS your space that you graciously allow others to post upon. However, I don’t like the action taken above. LGF closed me out because I was too nutty to admit that evolution is the only fact, and that creationism could be taught as an alternative.

    I agree that the nuisance posters that post how they make income from home and post after every comment should be banned, but reasoned people who can speak about secession and picketing the Electoral College and do it coherently? There was enough chicanery in the election that they may have a point of discussion. Further, if the Electoral College doesn’t choose a President, there IS a Constitutional way that this can still be done. This is NOT a crisis. If you want to protect your image, Erick and others over developing a conservative-based conversation, let me know and I will stop posting also.

  • chipbennett

    Yes, a win equals a mandate.

    MANDATE: “(politics) the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”

    Thus, Obama has a mandate as the executive – just as Republicans in the House of Representatives have a mandate in their half of the legislative branch.

    That others have chosen to co-opt the term “mandate” to mean “requirement that my opponents capitulate to me” is not my fault.

    Obama’s electoral win has earned him a mandate, NOT a right to claim that Republicans in the House must capitulate to his agenda.

  • streiff

    no, reasonable people can’t really talk about secession (that was decided in 1865, the answer is no, you can’t do it) and picketing/boycotting the electoral college is just stupidity.

    These kinds of comments, like those by birthers (whom we’ve banned), truthers (whom we’ve banned), and Ron Paul toadies (whom we’ve banned) do damage to the site.

    This is the flip side to why we don’t allow leftists to present their views and comment on the site.

    No one with any concern for their reputation is going to want to post on a site that allows nuttery. Whirled Nuts Daily caters to that audience.

  • streiff

    that’s just sophistry and identifies you as someone who is much less clever than they think they are and not serious in the bargain. Thanks for letting me know. I won’t waste any more time on you in the future.

  • chipbennett

    In general, I support effort to keep the place clear of the Abolish The Electoral College crowd. The Electoral College is, at this point, just about the only remaining bastion of federalism. Without it, we would all but cease to be a Republic.

    That said, having a front-page author write a definitive post defending the Electoral College, and keeping all debate there, might not be a bad idea.

  • chipbennett

    Really? It is sophistry to believe that elections have consequences, and that those who are elected DO have a mandate to legislate as they choose?

    Will it matter one iota what “mandate” means, and whether or not Obama has one, when he submits two more SCOTUS nominations to the Senate during his second term?

    That’s my point: he won the election, so he gets to make those nominations. We failed to reclaim the Senate, so the majority Democrats get to confirm those nominations. (Which is, coincidentally, the same way that Democrats force-fed us ObamaCare.)

  • streiff

    it is sophistry to say that winning is a mandate.

  • lineholder

    Do you think we’re in a minority? I don’t. Not really. There is one area where we did very poorly in this last election, though…in addressing the issue of poverty. It’s both a social and economic issue, and we more or less left it open to the Dems to play it to their advantage.

    I’m saying that primarily in response to my own experiences and to articles I’ve read since the election, including this one
    http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2012/11/23/black_voters_look_to_leverage_their_loyalty

    Addressing fiscal issues at a national level will be difficult for Republicans in Congress during this term, and I daresay the tough decisions that will have to be made won’t improve the perception that the general public has on how Repubs and Conservative view poverty. But it is possible that the R Governors could counteract this somewhat, depending on how they decide to approach the issue. If they succeed, then we may actually gain ground across with the general public prior to the next election.

    And no, I’m not calling for big-government type programs. I’m thinking more along the lines of how many jobs or functions of state-level government could be shifted to the private sector.

  • chipbennett

    It would be sophistry to say that “winning” equals “political capital”, or that “winning” equals “the right to compel one’s opponents to capitulate”. But “mandate” doesn’t mean either of those two things.

    “Mandate” simply means “authority derived through electoral victory”.

    I think we should just ignore the term “mandate” entirely. To the extent that it applies, it is tautological; to the extent that the term is co-opted, it is co-opted to mean either that Republicans in the majority don’t have the right or authority to carry out their agenda, or else that Republicans in the minority don’t have the right to oppose the Democrats’ agenda.

    The term is simply misappropriated to mean whatever the Democrats and the media want it to mean (and where said meaning always benefits Democrats to the detriment of Republicans).

    (And yes: my pedantic nature does not like to see the clear meaning of words abused. Some find such pedantry not worth “wasting time on,” and if that were the case, I would not hold it against you. :) )

  • ohiohistorian

    Streiff, there you go again. Your point on 1865 is a good one, and then you step in it by call picketing/boycotting the electoral college as “nutty”. Again, your opinion.

    I remember about 4 years ago that thinking that we would even have a Republican House again was “nutty”.

    However, as I indicated, it is your site. Please put up somewhere a terms of use, so that we can bar all of the “nutty” and banned ideas. Again, I recognize that this is free speech with your sufferance, but think you owe it to those of us who do read and comment to tell us where you draw your lines so that we know where we have to augment our thinking.

    BTW, I find almost nothing here offensive as long as it is well argued, well reasoned, on topic, and not a canned response to every other response on a given article or day. Even Paulbots have their use.

  • garfieldjl

    Who really cares what the person’s skin color is? Seriously, I want us to nominate the best candidate possible in 2016, I really don’t care what color the guy or girl’s skin color is.

  • kowalski

    Excellent post and one of the best you’ve written in a long time. My only problem with your posts leading up to the election was that – if anything – you were too “accepting” of the outcome, far too prematurely. CNN isn’t thinking very clearly at all.

    I wouldn’t be posting here today if Redstate was guilty of the things CNN is accusing it of being. I read this website every single day. I’ve been a member here for a very long time now. I’ve never been a big Tea Party supporter, I thought it was interesting and fascinating but not particularly compelling, and I’m not a member of any Tea Party group right now. I’m pretty much a mainstream/moderate Republican. If anything your tone in the final few days before the election struck me as a kind of concession – THAT is what got my dander up.

    Anyway, they’re just full of it. I accepted the loss at about 8:30 p.m. on election night, and then I did a little talking about how silly it was to roll out an untested internet application as the culmination of the “ground game”. And just recently I told everyone basically to suck it up, clear their heads, make a clean break, wait a few months, concentrate on things close to home, and then reassess the situation well after Groundhog’s Day.

    And I trust that my judgment in saying those things was shaped by my longstanding experience here at Redstate.

    It’s called: “Projection.” The basic idea is to project onto someone else thoughts and feelings they don’t have and make them defend themselves against something they didn’t do. Children do this stuff, if they’re semi-talented. Then later in life they make movies about it. But it’s garbage.

  • bobguzzardi

    From my reading Eric Erickson and RedState are reliable and reasonable and open to diverse perspectives.

    We lost an election; that does mean we were wrong and it doesn’t mean our country isn’t going bankrupt.

  • bobguzzardi

    We won some elections ourselves. Senator Ted Cruz and my Senator Pat Toomey and Senator Deb Fischer who will be voices for Constitutional Limited Government, Free Markets and Economic Freedom, Personal Responsibility and the Judeo-Christian Ethos.

  • bobguzzardi

    I would be concerned if CNN praised RedState. Even total surrender would not earn anything but contempt from CNN and the Obama Progressives.

    And I would not be surprised to see Sarah Palin re-emerge have learned a lot and polished her presentation.

    I am a Jew and this is not the worst we have have seen. America is not NAZI Germany, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. The Bible tells us what we must do and it is not surrender or abandonment of core Constitutional principles.

  • Kyle-MI

    I think you have identified the most important issue for conservatives for future elections. If it was just the person, then all we need to do is stand firm on our issues and find the right person to champion them. If we are in the minority, then things are a lot more difficult. We might need to give a little on some issues in order to realign ourselves with the electorate. Or, if we need to firmly stand our ground, then we need to find some way to reeducate the voters in order to try to shift them to the right.

    I tend to think, based on the outcome of all the races, that we are in a minority status. But I also think that there is no majority for any ideology. There is only a plurality supported by swing voters who vote on things other than ideology.

  • clowngirl

    Very well put Steve Maley– I would add that the Democrats idea of “accept” would also include notions like “regard President Obama as dictator” and “rubber stamp”

    A lot of Democrats don’t seem to have accepted the separation of powers- and would like to portray principled resistance as though it’s some childish tantrum.

  • civil truth

    I think Mr. Cohen is being honest in his assessment, from his perspective.

    I also think that the Kubler-Ross model of dealing with loss offers a helpful model for understanding the reactions of many of us – I’ve additionally encountered bargaining and depression as well in the various writings I’ve read.

    The error in Cohen’s analysis arises because he makes the false assumption that the election represents a rejection of Conservatism as a philosophy of governance – as opposed to the rejection of a specific group of candidates in an election, especially Mr. Romney.

    Having made that faulty assumption, Mr. Cohen then concludes that “acceptance” means surrendering to liberalism, rather than reaching a point of clarity and understanding.

    Hopefully we will be able to demonstrate that Mr. Cohen is wrong in the next elections – assuming we draw the correct answers from the election results, neither buying into the left triumphalism nor failing to make course corrections on our part.

    But what course corrections we need to make is the topic for a separate discussion.

  • runner12

    Well, what a shocker. CNN engaging in drive-by journalism again. It is amazing to me how someone would not be embarassed to put their name to such a poorly researched article.

    I had not hearc about people wanting to boycott the Electoral College. That seems a little crazy to me without clear, substantive proof that voter fraud resulted in Obama getting re-elected. That is not to say that voter fraud did not go on, it clearly did. In some states, it was rather widespread. I certainly do not want to just allow the Left to silence us on this issue becaues we are afraid of being linked to some kooks out there.

    But so far there has been no substantive proof that it affected the outcome of the election. Given that ORCA was a colossal flop, I would bet that had more to do with it than voter fraud. It is dangerous to call for such radical actions with no substantive proof, and it hurts the Tea Party movement (though TPN does not speak for the entire movement).

  • mtmnd

    “Do you think we’re in a minority? I don’t.”

    This strikes me as wishful thinking or perhaps even “denial” and I think the problem goes further than the issue of “poverty.” (Mourdock didn’t lose in Indiana because of his views on “poverty.”) I am not a huge fan of Gingrich but there was a lot of truth in this statement of his from 2007:

    If I throw away African Americans, and then I throw away Latinos, and then I throw away suburban women, and then I throw away people under 40, and then I throw away everything north of Philadelphia — there’s a morning where Republicans can’t get to a majority.

    What was true in 2007 has become moreso each year. At present the demographics just don’t ad up for conservatives on a national level, and some of the strongly held opinions of ardent conservatives spell instant death in broad elections.

    Many have correctly noted that losing the election doesn’t necessarily mean that conservatives are wrong, But the converse is true as well –being right doesn’t necessarily mean that conservatives will win national elections any time soon. Right or wrong, it just wont happen without the numbers. And I for one cannot see how doubling down on conservative ideas is going to make it happen on the national level. I don’t see Mr. Erickson taking on this dilemma, and quite frankly I am not sure an acceptable solution even exists.

  • clowngirl

    1. You are using a just one very narrow definition of “mandate” that is not only different from what Democrats are claiming (if all they meant by “mandate” was that Obama won the election – bringing it up would be completely redundant) but also different from how the word had generally been used in political discourse in recent decades.

    2. They are specifically claiming that Obama has a mandate to hike taxes- this is pretty obviously false for 2 main reasons

    : A. Not everyone who votes for a candidate is actually in favor of everything that candidate plans to do — Obama only got something like 50.5% of the vote – barely a majority (and far from a majority of the adult population of the United States) a certain number of those voters are likely to have been one issue voters who picked Obama as the lesser evil for reasons relating to social issues.

    B. (obviously) a majority of districts still voted Republican for US Congress – strongly suggesting they do NOT want the House to approve Obama’s proposed tax hikes.

  • stevemaley

    I used “mandate” consistent with usage #1 at dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mandate?s=t

    Merriam-Webster gives a definition more consistent with yours.

    Regardless, my meaning is quite clear.

    And as long as we’re being pedants, mine was not a straw man argument.

  • Donald Ayotte

    Well Erick

    CNN mischaracterizes many things, why not this blog also.

  • chipbennett

    I’m sorry; I don’t think I articulated it very clearly that I wasn’t questioning anything you said (it appears we are in perfect agreement there), but rather the Democrats’ typical wielding of the “mandate” term as a billy club in an attempt to bludgeon Republicans into capitulation.

    It was an attempt – and an apparently inarticulate one, at that – to say that we should just stop playing the Democrats’ game with respect to “mandates.”

    Republicans were elected to a huge majority in the House, and should legislate accordingly. The electoral mandate given to Obama is no different from the electoral mandate given to the House GOP. And if anything, the *popular support* behind that electoral mandate is far *stronger* for the House GOP than it is for President Obama.

  • chipbennett

    We are in complete agreement.

    I believe the so-called “narrow” definition is the correct one, and the only *objective* one; the contemporary usage of the term is more broad and more subjective, which is precisely the problem. In contemporary usage, “mandate” means whatever the Democrats want it to mean.

    That is the main reason that I was attempting to argue that we should simply stop letting them set the narrative with a subjectively defined term such as “mandate.”

    Let the Democrats whine about “mandates” while the House GOP legislates like fiscally conservative Republicans. (I know: wishful thinking so long as the Boehner cabal is in control.)

  • mearsc

    I will anxiously await the CNN article complaining that liberals still haven’t accepted the results of the 2000 election

  • clowngirl

    Well- I’m mostly in agreement. I still disagree in that I do think there is a legitimate secondary definition – I just think it is being willfully misapplied. If Obama had won the election 60% to 40% and the Democrats had won back the House with 30 seats to spare — I would agree that he had a clear mandate to raise taxes- and the rest of us may not like it – but would have to on some level accept that it was what a clear majority of our fellow citizens wanted and the government was acting in a manner representative of the will of the people. (at least a majority of them)

    I think that there was an unacknowledged mandate AGAINST Obamacare ( by that I mean unacknowledged by Democrats) when around 60% of the public was against its passage — and in some cases 70% if the people who elected various “blue dog” Senators. I think it’s clear Democrats ignored the will of the people. (I don’t think this was less of a mandate because most citizens didn’t have a chance to express their views in the voting booth until 2010)

  • reggie1

    Now that they’re empowered by a second term, I think this is the beginning of the purge. MSM has begun the process of gravitating toward the MSNBC end of the spectrum. But they can’t simply drop folks like Erick unilaterally, so they must make the case against them. And if it gets Erick or the others to act out or to fight back, then they’ll have that case against them too. Gergen and Frum et al will still be around, softening their shtick, arguing for a softer Right. Erick, etc. will be left to the web.

  • lineholder

    What you’re talking about is catering to demographics of people in terms of special interest groups like the Dems do, isn’t it? I’m not convinced that is the best approach to take. There are issues that span across demographic groups, and I think the answer to the “workable solution” you’re wondering about lies in identifying and focusing on those issues.

    Take education as an example. The quality of education being provided in our school system keeps dropping lower and lower while the costs of providing that education keep increasing. Think this isn’t an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of people all across the political spectrum? Sure it is. What’s more, this an issue that is of specific interest to quite a few people currently living in poverty. Why? Because they want their kids to have the opportunity to succeed in life and they realize that the quality of education has a direct impact on the outcomes for their children.

    How many Repubs do we have who have attempted to bring education front-and-center? I know that Jindal is trying to do so. Who else is attempting to do so as well? Are we supporting them in those efforts, staying informed about the process they are making, sharing that information with those around us? And are there any efforts being made to establish communication with individuals living in areas where quality of education faces the highest risks to determine what kind of efforts they might support? If not, why not? If we’re not willing to make any outreach efforts, then we might as well go ahead and give it all up now. Is that really what we want to do?

    What about delivery of education? We’ve been utilizing the same education model for almost century now. Could that model be improved upon, made more cost-efficient? If so, how? Do we have any groups that are supporting research into these areas? Are we doing the best we can to assist them in the goals they are trying to accomplish and achieve?

    The point is that we do still have options, and focusing on issues rather than catering to special interest groups could be the door of opportunity that would allow us to succeed

    We need clearly-defined goals to shoot for…policy goals that can have an impact nationally across demographic groups. We need to get organized quickly. And we need to have those in the Repub inner circle stop the [redacted] bickering between moderates and Conservatives, communicate with each other focused on specific goals, and communicate to us so that we can be proactively involved at the grassroots level.

  • californiasquish

    Complete agreement.

  • The_Gadfly

    No, when the Dems say The Big 0 has a “mandate”, what they have in mind is the mandate Reagan won in 1984. And it is precisely that mandate they wish to reverse before they write him out of the history books.

  • jiminga

    Responding to liberals’ criticisms is always futile, much like all the ‘racist” charges leveled at conservatives. They use their flawed minds to come to meaningless conclusions and we should focus our energies on our mission, not refuting their version of our mission.

  • lineholder

    Really? Let’s look carefully at mtmnd’s last paragraph, shall we?

    “If there is “denial” it involves the failure to address the very real possibility that 1) Ideological conservatives may be in the minority nationwide and will thus have great difficulty winning national elections, and 2) wishy washy moderates who pretend to embrace conservative ideology to secure nominations probably won’t be elected either.”

    What is being suggested here? Conservatism can not win a national election. Period. Full stop. No option. No chance. What is implied is that only by making a shift to a moderate stance is there any hope of winning a national election.

    Tell me, what are moderates known to fight for or against? Anything at all?

  • http://rightwardjournal.com Jeff Swanson

    Maybe they ‘where right in the main’? Oh wait, that was CNN’s Candy Crowley who said that…

    In other words, CNN misses the boat again.

    I have seen so little of the post-election fits of us on the right focused on Obama. I think nearly the last thing that has happened is the conspiracies of the paranoid. Particularly on this site.

    I have see MANY writings about what the Republican Party did wrong and what it needs to do going forward.

    In other words, again, doing what healthy people do; assess the situation and move on.
    Not, as CNN asserts, not letting go.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I stopped by looking for the article on how Chambliss dropped his anti-tax pledge in “the interest of the country- guess that will have to wait.

    Instead we have some naval gazing prompted by people who now believe that because their candidate won a reelection, we should surrender the country to them. Furthermore, they believe it opportune to theorize that those who “lost” this battle are finished, because they are all summarily radicals, conspiracy theorists and generally folks who “just don’t get the new reality”.

    One word. Nuts.

    There are still enough of us ready to die on the hill of liberty to preserve the future for our children. If that means we need to suffer some more at the hands of those running this government- so be it. But I am not about to give up or stop trying.

    Notice that didn’t involve talk of succession or illegitimacy. But it does involve resistance in the democratic process to articulate and proliferate the fundamental ideals which made this country great. It will involve a significant amount of hard work with our countrymen to convince them of the nobility of our cause. It will involve battling the Vichy-Republicans who seem to be reappearing on Capital Hill.

    But it won’t involve surrendering to the mischaracterizations of pundits and whims of an administration who not only by Constitutional definition is temporary, but one of limited powers.

  • APA Guy

    CNN…the same media organization that seeks to legitimize Van Jones as a source of credible information and analysis. I’m shocked – SHOCKED, I tell you – that they would mischaracterize RedState or any other conservative media outlet.

  • APA Guy

    BS, chipbennett…I give you Bush 2000 as an example of how a close election does not equal a mandate. Obama pulled out re-election, but he won by a narrower margin and lost the House between 2008 and 2012. He has NO mandate…period.

  • romeg

    I, along with virtually every other person who reads and posts to this site and view it as the ‘House Organ’ of the conservative movement, am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that we are being characterized by some left-wing hack, writing for a left-of-center network that parades as ‘centrist’ in its POV , as something other than what we are, stands by that characterization?

    Do you suppose that the fact that we as a movement, a Party and a website, have allowed this to happen going as far back as one cares to look without taking a hard-nosed stand against it by responding in kind, might, somehow, be encouraging them to continue to do this?

    Just asking.

    Perhaps you might want to consider following Glenn Beck’s example and either start your own network or become part of his instead of holding on to that gig at CNN.

  • sharkey

    You better get used to mischaracterizations by the Left. You’re a seasoned political pundit who is also a conservative and as we know progressives don’t like views or opinions that differ from their own. You have a clear conscience i.e. you know you didn’t do anything wrong, and therefore, CNN’s bogus argument should roll off you like water off a duck’s back. Which I’m sure it already has.

    I was dejected after Barack Obama’s win and I’m sure millions of other Republicans and conservatives were also. Mitt Romney played it safe and ended up losing to Santa Claus and that’s all there is to it.

    When Romney failed to distinguish himself from Obama at the second and especially the third presidential debate (agreeing with practically everything Obama said) the American people decided that the devil they knew was better than the devil they didn’t know as the old saying goes. Romney’s 47% remark was devastating to his campaign since it made Romney look ‘out of touch’ and lacking empathy. Before even that incident he went on record saying he “didn’t care for the poor” because they had a safety net. Yes they do, but it is still no reason not to care about low-income Americans. The majority of the American people mostly viewed Romney as an über rich guy who cared more about Wall Street than those on Main Street in my opinion.

    In the GOP presidential race for 2016 (which is ramping up even as we speak) the Republican Party should seek out ‘true’ conservatives with stellar records and with backbones and charisma to match. Mitt Romney said basically anything and everything to get the nomination and as we know he’s also a flip-flopper. That was also the main reason Mitt Romney lost the Republican nomination in 2008 (people more or less didn’t trust him) and in 2012 it basically proved the same conundrum for the American people in the general election as it turns out.

    Millions of Republicans didn’t show up to vote on election day and as a result of that low turn-out it cost Romney the presidency, needless to say. In fact, the majority of Christians don’t vote in elections either from what I understand. Billy Graham ministries did extensive research and the data revealed the majority of believers don’t participate in the electoral process. With such a void of enthusiasm is it any wonder then why Christians continue to be persecuted in America and their beliefs not represented in Washington D.C. by the Left or by Obama? When mostly atheists run the government is it also any wonder why the United States is facing monumental crisis and going bankrupt? It takes moral courage NOT to spend more money than you take in. The Obama administration obviously doesn’t have moral courage necessary to do the right thing. And as a result America is on the precipice of going belly up and in severe moral and economic decline.

    For what it’s worth if Mitt Romney had received roughly a million additional votes spread out over just a few of the swing states… Mitt Romney would be President instead of Barack Obama. Hindsight is always 20/20 they say. I hope the Republican Party learns it lesson. That is to say, nominate a “moderate” and you almost always end up losing. Nominate a Ronald Wilson Reagan figurehead type, or some other ‘true’ conservative,… and more often than not you end up WINNING! It’s pretty simple really.

  • kyletp2

    I don’t believe in secession…but did you really close accounts for people being for it?? I believe freedom of speech and don’t agree with this

  • Bill S

    Yes.

    Freedom of speech applies in the public square, not on private property. We reserve the right to refuse service to crazy people.

  • clowngirl

    I think if we who are Christians were to increasingly focus our energies on executing the Great Commission, we would see Republicans winning elections as something of a side effect.

  • californiasquish

    I think you’re reading it a little wrong. What is being suggested, I would argue strongest by the election exit polls, is that conservatism, can no longer win national elections without changing the game. That last bit is paramount.

    Because of the changing national demographics, Republican candidates have to burn bridges with voters in the primary that they need to win the general.

    Romney’s numbers with Latinos prove this out.

    Conservatives don’t have to moderate to win necessarily, but they do have to reach out to broader constituencies. Nobody is saying a conservative CAN’T win. But if you look at the demographics, you’d be a fool to argue the cards aren’t stacked against them now. And I’m not talking about the media, or pandering. What I’m saying is 30 years ago, conservatives didn’t need Latinos, or suburban women, or African-americans to win, so they stopped reaching out to those groups. If they want to win, they need to start.

    Since your asking me about moderates, I would say we are known for fighting for consensus above ideology. We fight for good ideas no matter where they came from. We fight against corruption on both sides of the aisle. Generally, Rockefeller Republican moderates are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (me), and Blue Dog democrats are the flip side of that. But overall, it’s a really a question of tone more than issues. “Yes, you and I disagree on issue X, but we agree on issue Y, so let’s co-sponsor this bill”

    As for your last question: a moderate platform that could win a national election would look exactly like Jon Huntsman. That’s why Team Obama was so afraid of him. And to answer your next question, yes, he was my favorite in the primary.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/huntsman-bigger-threat-romney-obama-campaign-manager-article-1.1206914

  • chipbennett

    Please read the rest of my comments. You’re replying to what you *think* I’m saying, rather than to what I’m *actually* saying.

  • jaykali

    Look I agree in principle, but I still think Rubio is the way too go. Even if you can look past skin, the “old” part is a problem too. Elections are won on very superficial grounds.

  • wiredaces80

    Very well crafted response Erick.

  • rick554

    Geez Erick, like my old granny used to say, if you get in the pen with the pigs,…..expect to get dirty. Myself, I havent wasted one electron watching those shills.But , you do what you think is best. Good luck with that, tho.

  • davesinsanantonio

    That is why we must find candidates with clean records who can articulate conservative principles clearly–so that the superficial do not become the reasons for voting majorities. Start now. Waiting until the spring of ’16 will be way too late! And, waiting for another year for the down-ballot races will also be too late. Start NOW!!!

  • davesinsanantonio

    And your last paragraph tells us why we just cannot ignore CNN or others when they lie or mis-characterize us, or positions, or our efforts. We just cannot pretend they don’t exist. If we ignore them they will keep doing it. If we point out their lies, biases, or errors, there is a chance, if they have any morality in them (highly questionable, I know), they will respond better in the future. If they haven’t any morality left, we still cannot ignore them, because it would just be wrong to “surrender or abandonment of core Constitutional principles”

  • funwithknives

    …and in this I can add very little except to ask : Where in the Holy Hubs of Hell did all those 2008 McCain voters get to?
    Was it Two for One day at every local pub in America?
    Was it ‘Free Hot Wings for Honorary Elephants Day’ at same?
    Was Mitt that much of a percieved ‘weak sister’?
    …and where did 7 plus Million of Barry’s Former Boosters get to?
    Dave, you post ‘em and I’ll read ‘em. It is a trifle scary to read you and see so many personal similarities.
    We simply have to ‘out’ these lying suckers every time we see falsehoods.
    To do less demeans Conservatism,Freedom and Our Sacred Liberty at it’s very core, and gives a huge signal that it can continue unabated.
    BTW I never watch CNN and never could. If I knew when Erick was gonna be on (a schedule, perhaps?) That Would be Sweet!

  • rightlane1111

    Oh Lordy…well…I guess I have something to say about this article. I agree that Obama won … not by voter fraud…although there probably was some…but by “stacking the deck”. What do I mean by that…The Fourth Arm of Government…the Media. People that post on this site know what is going on in the world…many do not because of self interest or they just don’t care anymore. Now…that is something that makes me very sad…because my crystal ball is working on overtime. Am I fun to be around…sure…but not when it comes to Statists who continually spin events wherein they don’t even resemble facts anymore. I can either argue…or become compliant. Should I call my representatives…they care only of their legacy and their pockets.

    The Tea Party, of which I supported (remember we still believe in free speech here at RedState) believed in “Taxed Enough”. So…here is an interesting perceptive from the Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/curl-post-election-surprise-slew-bad-news/

    I knew it would said sooner of later…I knew that it was factual…and I also know that 2013 is going to be a very bad year for Americans. Why…because there are policies baked into Obamacare that have nothing to do with healthcare and what there is written in concerning healthcare would make the Soviet Union look like a democracy.

    I will continue to say…whether it ever happens because of our dwindling numbers…that Conservatism…first, last and always is the formula for a healthy America. The Community Reinvestment Act is still alive and more “liberal” TODAY. We now have Sallie Mae added into Obamacare that, like the former, is an edict to families concerning college financing. We’ve got “middle class”…yes…that is right…”middle class” tax hikes in there that will frost your hair.

    Romney…you failed to ignite the base, you were born into the wrong religion (which is bigotry for the USA) and you focused on one issue…and one only and we have a myriad of problems.

    I’ve gone through some of the stages of grief…I’ve come to the acceptance part…it is what it is and “we the people” deserve most of the credit. http://justaquarrel.com

  • zollistar

    <>

    This primary and election cycle, including ending up with Mitt Romney as “our” candidate, convinced me that there really is a Republican Establishment. Worse, it’s almost as much opposed to our values as today’s Democrats are opposed to our values.

    As I see it, we have to fight the Dems AND ALSO fight the RINOs. The good news? The RINOs were beaten — and beaten badly. Now there is a breach; conservatives who believe in limited, constitutional government have an opportunity to step in to that breach.
    Let’s seize the opportunity.

  • jasondeegan

    Today is the day I stopped following RedState and Erick Erickson. “…the morons that support secession.” Although I’m not advocating secession, I am certainly keeping my options open for a government that might return to us to an original United States vision. Lincoln was wrong for killing his brothers to force the people to be “united” and it’s ignorant for anyone to write off this perfectly legitimate response to the federal government’s intrusions.

    You know what conservatism is SUPPOSED to be about? It’s supposed to be about liberty. Liberty equated to people deciding how they best govern themselves. Anybody who wants to secede from this overspending, privacy-invading, liberalized, non-constitution-following govt has a legitimate argument.

  • remalimo

    Soul searching for why the Romney Clan lost the election? Have you ever watched a football team get ahead and drop back and play PREVENT DEFENSE? rOMNEY’S HANNDLERS lost the race due to playing PREVENT DEFENSE! Thhis game started after the first debate. Romney campaign started to stop the rushing BO and dropped Romney’s Defensive backs ten yards and let BO complete the passes within the 10 yards of the line of scrimmage. Oh, but Romney looked Executive like.

    Until the Rep. change the method in how our candidate is chosen we will all be LOSERS. (L)

  • shadowmane

    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Personally, I think we need to have three “Big Tuesdays”, or “Big Saturdays” or whatever. We get the States together and have one block vote in the first week of January, one vote in the last week of January, and one vote in the first week of February. By that first week of February, we will have our nominee, and can then go on the attack, bringing all our money and influence to bear on the all the Democrats left in the race. If you want to spread it out a little, then go with one in January, one in February and one in March. But each block should be regional, so that the Candidates are jetting around the country scrambling. Campaigns cost so much because of this, and we need to fix it.

  • zollistar

    To your point, Action:

    “Make no mistake about it, had Mitt Romney won, this would not have been our victory. it is quite likely that the Tea Party and Constitutional conservative movements would have been discarded like this morning’s coffee within moments of the victory speech. We would have been shunted outside, left in the cold of night, to press our noses against the glass like the little child who isn’t invited to the party. Indeed, the Tea Party News Network (http://tpnn.com) declined to endorse Romney on the eve of the election, instead endorsing none of the above.

    “What is curious — and which must not be forgotten — is the eagerness with which our detractors — our enemies, let’s not kid ourselves — have assigned blame for defeat to our side. We are called radicals, extremists. If this is what we are called by the Republican establishment, then why are we not celebrating their defeat? ”
    Read the rest of Eric Dixon’s blog here: http://tinyurl.com/d56nz2q

  • jacrtp

    Well-crafted sentences that make scapegoats of establishment republicans and Mitt Romney are examples of conservative denial. I’ll say it again using different words; conservatives are the reason for poor Republican Party election results.

    Yes, the rest of America sees conservative denial. All of it doesn’t originate at RedState, but none the less it exists here. Erick saying, ‘These are exciting times for the conservative movement…’ two days after the election is one of the best examples of denial. The election showed that the majority of American voters disagree with the conservative worldview.

    When the varied parts of the conservative movement sing it becomes a choir that marginalizes, if not blatantly degrades the rest of the electorate. When people who align themselves or emphasize with; other faiths or lack of faith, education, labor, the poor, minorities, immigrants, women and untraditional families hear this chorus-from
    what pool will we draw new recruits to fashion this future conservative movement in America?

    We need to express our core values and with one clear voice show how each of them will improve the lives of ordinary American’s. We need to stop marginalizing everyone that doesn’t agree with everything we believe and start denouncing all those in this
    movement that continue to.

  • rightlane1111

    Yes…except some of those organizations are against what is Godly…or Divine…whatever your principle…we cannot afford to endorse that which is not right.

  • Bill S

    You should have stopped following before commenting. But hey, we have one less secessionist nutcase to worry about here.

  • celador2

    What CNN and Maddow think of RS means little to me. I march to a different beat Both CNN and Maddow are anti conservatives and out to destroy us and diminish our policies’ influences. While I speak as a blogger and not editor or front page contributor I lose no sleep over liberal mischaracterizations.

  • http://www.BillBowenAuthor.com RightinSanFrancisco

    Eric: For what it’s worth, I am a long-time Romney supporter who thinks that he got badly out-campaigned, that the election result does not reflect a rejection of conservative principles, and that policies on immigration and women’s health can be fixed without sacrificing our principles. In classes that I teach and in my blog, I reference Red State and Erick Erickson as the strongest responsible voice for conservative values. Illigitimi non carborundum.
    www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

  • Finrod

    Or the 2004 election, for that matter. You should see the conspiracy theories the Left has about that one.

  • d4dio

    You should feel fortunate the CNN characterizes this site in any way, good or bad.

    I have lurked here for a long while. I enjoy the dialog. But, it’s hard not to categorize at least some of the posts here since the election, as denial or failure of acceptance. I mean, there was a multi-part post about why the writer had completely eschewed logic, and rejected the scientific polling that turned out to be completely correct (again). When, the writer and others who kept denying scientific polling, could simply have said that they were being emotional, illogical, and weren’t willing to accept the political reality that Romney was going to lose despite all the signs. That would be human nature, by the way. Say what you will, but all those folks look pretty silly and have certainly lost credibility. Was it denial? Well, most people in denial won’t see it that way. That’s kind of what denial is all about. There are people posting here are slightly delusional and in some level of denial.It’s an accurate depiction at the moment.

    In any case, the political reality in the country is that Americans, on the whole, want big Government. Only a few here seem to accept that. Only a few here actually accept the fact that conservatism has become a minority position. The GOP enjoy being elected, so you’ll see that they will move to the center to become more electable. To think anything else is going to happen is probably denial too.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think conservatism being a minority point of view is necessarily good. I just accept it. For now.

  • camogreen

    Holy Crow! I have subscribed to the Daily Briefing for a few years. Just last week posted some comments for the first time but this article and most of the comments makes it clear this site cares most for what the left thinks of them. The left will hate you regardless of pandering. You can accept the BHO re-election I don’t. We have now seen election fraud on a massive scale and no one cares. Many districts/divisions reporting over 100% for the Liar in Charge. Now the left has the “supposed” right wringing their hands “OMG what did we do wrong?” Nothing you just experienced Chicago politics on a national scale but all we hear is Romney screwed up. His campaign was flawed. OCRA didn’t work. The media picked our candidate. Yes I agree he wasn’t the conservative I would have liked but I believe he would have been a good president way above what we got. The left has been winning and changing America since FDR. Republicans in office are weak, don’t have a stomach for the fight, and I believe we are done. Sorry. America is a lost nation. I was upset that this past Feb I reached my 60th birthday. Now I’m not so upset but am very concerned for my kids who will have to live with this future for 30 or 40 years and my grandkids for 50 or 60 years. Too bad the GOP doesn’t seem to think this country is worth fighting for and is happy with “go along to get along.” The American people have been bamboozled. Don’t bother banning me I already unsubscribed to the briefing and won’t be coming here any longer. This site has no balls.

  • msigmon

    I’m a progressive reader of redstate, and while I disagree with a lot (most?) of the things posted, I come here (as opposed to other sites) to get my “enemy intel” because of the distinctions that Erickson mentions. And so I respect this post greatly, although the nod to “a more sophisticated political analysis” does, in my opinion, somewhat counter the guilty-by-association that Erickson is rightfully concerned about.

  • msigmon

    The majority of voters voted for Democratic representatives, however. The magic of gerrymandering! (A “sin” always committed by whomever is in power.)

  • clowngirl

    I wouldn’t assume that – and you aren’t bothering to back up your assertion. . Each district gets to pick their own representative — if Democrats tended to win by larger margins in districts that they won- fine. It doesn’t change the right of each districts to choose who they prefer, or the fact Republicans won more of them.

  • jaykali

    Sure, let’s do it. I am fully on the Rubio bandwagon, if someone can show me someone else that’s better then great. I have come around on the need to stop electing RINO’s. This last election I still think Romney was probably the best choice of a bad set of options, I would have rather rolled with the extremely volatile Rick Perry in retrospect hoping that he could get the thing turned around eventually. Our primary is so late it’s a moot point but I know I will never give money to a moderate Republican-type in the future. I have jumped off the Christy bandwagon for sure.