No Pancakes for You: 2012 Election Reflections

By Lloyd the Idiot

A few random thoughts on the elections as they came to mind.  Any one of these has been, could be or will be a post of its own.

*Novatownhall is officially batshit crazy.  Talk about the neighborhood going to hell.  Ever since Joe B left, there’s been a steady descent into partisan insanity capped off with what  I read this morning for the first time about Angry Pancake Man, and suggesting that Black Out, because he was wearing the button of the opposing party, basically invited, if not deserved, the abuse.  Crazy.  Imagine if that had happened to someone wearing a Romney pin.  Do you think their reaction would have been the same?  Of course not – disingenuous jerks.  Making all Republicans look bad.

*TC bestows its honorary Master of the Obvious degree on Matt “Brick” Letourneau for his Facebook comment: “It’s time for our party to truly begin outreach to ethnic groups that today voted for President Obama but who I believe fundamentally share our values.”  Yathink.  Problem is, at least in Loudoun County, the “outreach” expects those voters to yield to the Republican hardline instead of the other way around.  As long as you have LCRC meetings that put Baptist tent revivals to shame, don’t count on getting the growing Hindu and Buddhist votes – not to mention those who just aren’t that religious.

*Romney was a good candidate and ran as a good campaign as he could have.  The broader problem is the appeal of the party.  If you want to reach minorities or women, don’t do stuff that pisses them off – like vaginal probes and stupid remarks about rape.  That crap has consequences for all candidates throughout the nation.

*Brick redeems himself with another post:  “The lesson here…polls are right.  Believe the data.”  Gotta say, the pollsters got this stuff right.  Amazingly right.

*Tea Party whack jobs have now cost Republicans five US Senate seats.

*Can’t wait to see what Obama and Putin have in store for us now that Obama has greater “flexibility.”

*Obama did surprisingly well in Loudoun.  Although his numbers dropped, he still managed to carry most of the precincts.  Surprised that I owe only one beer given my generous bet.  Seems like the Dems are as surprised as I.

*Thank goodness, the Republicans kept control of the House.  Avoids a return to the extremism that was 2009-2011.  We very well could get sequestration now, contrary to Obama’s promise that it simply wouldn’t happen.  Four more years simply means more of the same that we’ve had for the last two. Gridlock.

*After all the contact Republicans received from the Romney campaign, I’m surprised there wasn’t a “thanks for the effort” email or something like that last night or today.  Nothing.  Bad form.

*Right after we figured Obama had won, the War Department and I decided to permanently table a kitchen remodel because our taxes would be going up.  Direct cause and effect between Obama policies and the hit small businesses take.

*Forget ever getting rid of Obamacare or the Dodd-Frank Act.  By the time Republicans can do anything about them, they’ll be too entrenched.


  • ACTivist says:

    BE, your last statement is being disingenuous also. I’m not frustrated with the conversation. I am giving my reasoning and viewpoint here. I carried an article to NVTH for discussion with those that don’t come here. This is a case point where you assume too much without getting the facts. I do not willingly or consciensely tell you or anyone else lies, yet your preception of me is in the negative. This shows me that what you are projecting is YOUR values.

  • ACTivist says:

    I don’t look at abortion as a womans right yet they have the right to an abortion by law. I see it different than you but will concede your point for clarity purposes. He did say he would eliminate abortions but for certain cases. If that is all a woman has a right to than he would have effectively stated it as womens’ rights. If not and a woman has more rights than that, then the Dem add was a lie.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Romney said he would if he could. The President doesn’t have the authority to overturn Roe v Wade. If he did, Bush would have.

  • Ben Dover says:

    “It was a loss. Not a humiliating defeat. Changes need to be made, but they are course corrections not plotting a new course entirely.”

    DD: Given the overwhelming confidence levels (to include your own) preceding the inevitable and predictable outcome of this particular presidential election, nationally, in the Commonwealth of VA, and within Loudoun, and given the incredibly despondent (real-time) state of many R’s that I know (honest-to-God, palpable, tangible, short-term depression), it was nothing less than a beat-down of epic proportions.

    The GOP is a complete schizophrenic mess. Only a matter of course corrections, you say? Maybe if by course corrections you really mean wholesale changes.

    Personally, I think the biggest problem is that the overall brand identify of the GOP is no longer all that appealing. As long as the GOP brand is defined by people like Rush, and Hannity, and Rove, and Levin and others who dole out a steady diet of cynicism, negativity, and paranoia, I think that the brand continues to become diminished. Perhaps it can be fixed, but in the short term, I don’t think so. There simply is no evidence to suggest that anything will change.

  • BlackOut says:

    Semantics DD.

  • David Dickinson says:

    BD, no doubt, I was stunned by Obama’s victory on all levels. All traditional indicators pointed against it. Case in point, Obama gets a 3,500 person crowd in Leesburg and Romney gets 8,500.

    And Republican’s are depressed. I heard someone call yesterday “Black Wednesday.” Republicans are in mourning.

    No, the Republicans’don’t need wholesale change. It is more a matter of style than substance.

    When liberals got crushed just 2 years ago, did the Democrats suddenly run to the Right? No, not at all. Did thye make radical changes? Nope. And that was a real beat-down of an election.

    After all the battle, the bottom line of this election is that absolutly nothing changed. It isn’t like the Democrats gained ground, excepting a couple of Senate seats. But the balance of power remains the same.

    The sky didn’t fall. We just expected to do much better and were wrong.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Semantics” ???

    Semantics means that there is in real difference. There is a huge difference. It is having the authority to make change and not having the authority.

    No President can change Roe v Wade. The House has to pass a bill as does the Senate and send it to the President’s desk for signature.

    We don’t have royal edicts.

  • liz says:

    Obama wasn’t able to get Ida Lee Park for his event in Leesburg this time. All available tickets for every event that the President (or his wife) held in Loudoun in particular, and NOVA in general, went like hotcakes with two days notice.

    10,000 attendees at GMU two weeks after he’d already been there with another 10,000 attendees. Again, with just two days notice.

    Sold out Jiffy Lube center. With 4 days notice.

    I’ll admit I was worried, but that’s the pessimistic evil-eye-fearing superstitious Jewish tradition coming out in me.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “No President can change Roe v Wade”

    You need to change the court to get this done. That was possible.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Except that the morning of his appearance in Leesburg the LT announced tickets were still available.

    But all these numbers are down considerably from what he did last time, which was just another indicator that enthusiasm had waned and another inndication he would lose.

    Who would have thunk a President who had higher unemployment than when he took office would be re-elected? I certainly didn’t.

    But kudos to his campaign for spinning it to make it appear that is was Congress’ fault, even after Democrats had the table run for 2 full years.

    Amazing. It will go down in political history.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, it is semantics. He stated his view supporting the repeal of roe v wade. Saying that he couldn’t do it from the oval office is not the same. Voters rightfully read Mitts remarks as being anti-choice.

    You’re trying to use a nuance to say he didn’t mean it.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “You need to change the court to get this done. That was possible.”

    The Court can only change when individual members quit or die. The President has no control over that.

    And there is NOTHING the Court can do that the Legislative can’t undo. As is most often the case, it is just that the Legislative isn’t willing to go to the measures necessary.

    Back to Joe B’s post the other day. The Presidency has too much power as it is today, and people furthermore project power onto the office that it just doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have as is demonstrated by the fact that people actually think the President’s position on abortion will change it. It won’t. It may influence it, but it takes much more than one President to change it.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I’m not saying he didn’t mean what he said (although, frankly, I don’t know if he had that conviction in him) when he said he would IF HE COULD. But he can’t, so he won’t.

    Romney was clearly saying he was pro-life.

    But, again, the President can’t legislate.

  • liz says:

    DD puleeeeeeese.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in her late 80s. He’d probably have gotten at least one SC appointment, more likely two. And with this 5-4 court, one’s all it would take.

    And that one is all it took for most women to vote for Obama. That one is all it took for 90% of LGBT folk to vote for Obama. That one is all it took for people who value voting rights to vote for Obama.

    Aside from the myriad other reasons why we voted for him.

  • David Dickinson says:

    If she was so interested in retiring, she would have. Democrats held/hold the Senate and the Presidency and had the House for 2 years.

    Obviously, she wasn’t interested. She could go another 10 years for all we know.

  • David Dickinson says:

    The majority of married women voted for Romney. It was only single women that voted for Obama.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, it would be much more constructive if you were studying how Romney lost rather than pointing out spins of were you think he won.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    From all of the Republican blog threads I’ve read, plus some Republicans I’ve talked to personally, here’s how it seems to sum up:

    Republicans are actually correct, but they need to better explain it to all the moochers out there. That includes revamping (preferably eliminating) public school education, increasing church going, better messaging and getting more minorities to act as a front for the party.

    Nowhere have I seen anyone actually say that maybe changing policies on taxation, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, defense spending or anything else is the thing to do. Just stick to their Republican guns – literally and figuratively – and convince more of the moochers and heathens to become social conservatives.

    Sounds to me like a party that really, really doesn’t get it, and won’t for some time. Many seemingly don’t think they lost HUGE this week.

    We keep hearing about how everyone they knew was voting for Romney, about how one Romney rally had more people than an Obama rally, that one road had more Romney signs on it than Obama signs, blah blah blah. All of this “hard evidence” was accepted, but the actual hard evidence – the polls, and the math behind them – were dismissed as being biased, or false.

    It became a religious argument to Republicans, faith versus science.

    On Tuesday, science won. The polls, which clearly stated, for months and months, what would happen, did in fact predict what happened. Very, very accurately.

    It really is cognitive dissonance. Republicans are self-segregating more and more. They keep moving further west and south, they home school their kids more and more, they don’t mix with other races unless that race is mowing their lawn or handing them an Egg McMuffin. They filter their worldview by only watching Fox, by only reading blogs and websites that reinforce their views. It’s classic cognitive dissonance. They honestly thought they were going to win this week, and win big. Instead, they got slaughtered. They lost 2 seats in the Senate, when they should have taken control of it. Obama won by an electoral landslide, which is the only landslide that really counts. When all the votes are finally tallied, his margin of victory will be close to 4%, which is fairly comfortable. About 8 seats are being picked up in the House, which isn’t bad the first election after redistricting.

    What did Republicans gain this week? A senate seat in Nebraska and the governorship of North Carolina. The Arkansas state house.

    Yeah, those gains will keep them really warm this winter.

  • David Dickinson says:

    BO, just pointing out the liberal propoganda. Married women went for Romney by 7% and the the President can’t change abortion. Facts are facts.

    Romney lost. Can’t put any spin on that.

  • liz says:

    I’m a married woman, and I voted for Obama.
    Every married woman in my family voted for Obama.
    Every married woman among my friends voted for Obama.

    One of the LCRC volunteers at the polls on Tuesday, a married woman, told me that she’d voted for Obama. And then she handed out both sample ballots.

    There may have been a majority of married women who went for Romney, but I’m here to tell you that it isn’t just single women who voted for Obama.

    And it isn’t just young women, either. My grandma, who won’t see 90 again, voted for him (and phone-banked for him, too, I owe my volunteerism to her).

    If the GOP stays on the course it’s on, you probably won’t have a majority of married women the next time.

  • David Dickinson says:

    NJSM, you forgot to mention that Republicans went something like 650+ seats across the nation 2 years ago. That was a red tidal wave.

    This election, the needle budged a smidge to the left.

    Republicans EXPECTED some big wins. Instead, it was a draw. The problem is the difference between the expectation (high) and the reality (nothing changed). It isn’t that Republicans lost a lot of ground. It is that they didn’t gain what they had hoped for.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “If the GOP stays on the course it’s on, you probably won’t have a majority of married women the next time.”

    Except the percentage of married people voting Republican this election (14 poins) was larger than it was last election.

    So, if the trend continues, even more married people (men and women) will vote Republican next election

  • NotJohnSMosby says:


    A draw? Are you saying that winning the Presidency for 4 years, and four Senate seats we should have lost (Indiana, Missouri, Montana and NORTH FUCKING DAKOTA FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!!) for six years is a draw? The needle moved a SMIDGE to the left?

    What the hell are you thinking? Karl Rove wasn’t hopping in his seat the other night like a six-inch butt plug had been rammed up his ass because he was happy for the “draw”.

    Damn, you guys are amazing. You lose the grand prize and first runner up, but are thrilled that the certificate of participation from a couple of years ago is still hanging on the refrigerator door.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I’m not happy about it either. But the balance of power went nowhere this time around. Same old, same old. Last election, there was a seismic shift. This election, nothing.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Karl Rove lost a ton of money. I’d be upset too if I blew hundreds of millions of dollars and didn’t gain anything.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    Whatever makes you sleep better. Because yeah, winning the Arkansas state senate is the same as President of the United States.

    You really won.

  • David Dickinson says:

    It’s not the same. If the Democrats picked up 650+ seats across the country like Republicans did last time, then I’d think the sky is falling. But the election this year was like the economy. Flat growth. Just treading water, not going anywhere.

    But look at the bright side. Romney losing gives Governor Cuccinelli a better shot at becoming President Cuccinelli in 2016. If Romney won, then Bolling would have become Governor when McD got tapped for some Secretary position and put Bolling in a better spot to compete. Bolling might as well drop out now. And with no incumbent Republican in 2016, the sitting Governor Cuccinelli will have a good shot at the nomination.

    All clouds have a silver lining.

  • liz says:

    And I’m sorry, DD, but your guy didn’t win a majority of married women. He won a majority of married women who are white and middle class. There IS a difference.

    He may have gotten a larger proportion of that population, but that population is shrinking in proportion to the electorate as a whole, so still no cookies for you.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    I really, really hope that Cooch is the Republican nominee for President in 2016. I’ll volunteer time and money to get him on the general election ballot. Every Dem will.

  • “Every married woman among my friends voted for Obama.”

    Do you have any Republican friends, Liz?

  • David Dickinson says:

    Romney won 53% of the married woman total, not just white women. Only 46% of married women (all races combined) voted for Obama.

    I would think if you just looked at white married women, the percentage would be even higher….but I don’t know that statistic.

  • Matthew Osborn says:


    “Romney won 48.1 percent of the overall vote. White people who voted for Romney made up 42.5 percent of the overall vote. That works out to 88 percent of Romney voters being white.
    Using the same method, we find that 2 percent of Romney’s voters were black, 6 percent were Latino, 2 percent were Asian, and 2 percent had some other ethnic classification.”

    As I read somewhere earlier, the country isn’t getting whiter.

    I’ll echo NJSM. Please nominate Cooch.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Oh, we will. We will indeed.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    NJSM is a funny bastard.

    BTW – here’s a good article about the GOTV fail:

  • Pragmatist says:

    My theory about signs, bumper sticker, etc. is that placing them is motivated by anger / angst. If you are unhappy with the current occupant of office, you’re more motivated to express that displeasure by posting a sign, defacing your automobile with a sticker (the horror!!!), or doing something else in an effort to let those around you know you’re not happy.

    Voters who are happy with the current office holder may be less motivated to make a statement (other than with their vote). I know this is how I feel…I voted for Obama, but I felt no overwhelming need to hunt down a sign or anything else to advertise the fact that I was planning to stay the course.

    I’m really not sure what the point of signs or stickers or anything else is, especially for the Presidential election. If you don’t know who’s running after all the money spent on ads, you probably shouldn’t be allowed near a polling place.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    Yes, nominate Cooch in 2016. Ohhh, I beg you.

    The country is going to be more diverse in 2016. Many more states than 4 will have voted in gay marriage, and the white evangelical vote will be even less relevant than it was this year. The Hispanic vote will exceed the 10% that it was this year.

    And some conservatives want to trot out a man who has stated that homosexual acts are wrong and introduced bills to amend the US Constitution to revoke citizenship rights for children of illegal immigrants and tried to make an inability to speak English grounds to revoke unemployment benefits.

    I can only hope that the Republican Party will be foolish enough to put up such a candidate in 2016. *Sigh*… a girl can dream.

  • Dan says:


    The Senate result is hardly insignificant. To borrow a phrase from Vice President Biden, it is a big f*cking deal.

    Being a total political junkie, my first thought after the Democrats ran the table and took the Senate in 2006 was that we’d have one hell of a lot of terrain to defend in 2012. It was almost a given that some number of those seats would likely be lost this year.

    To not only avoid losing seats this year but to instead pick up two is huge! Not a single Democratic incumbent lost. In a year when the Democrats were defending 23 of the 33 seats up for election! You can spin like a top if you want but you can’t change the reality that this was an epic fail on the part of the NRSC.

    The fact that the Democrats padded their majority by those two seats markedly decreases the chances of the Republicans taking the Senate in 2014. Which becomes even more important when you realize that in 2016 the Republicans will be defending 24 of the 34 seats up. The strong probability is that the Senate will have a Democratic majority for at least the next six years.

    But keep pretending that this election had no real significance. And send a thank you card to the so called Tea Party. They were a great help in both 2010 and 2012. Here’s hoping they continue their efforts in 2014.

    I missed who said it, but the best comment on the Senate elections this year was this:

    “You know your party is in trouble when someone asks you if the rape guy won and you have to ask which one.”

  • Elder Berry says:

    Good Lord, Ben Dover sounds rational.

    This was a beat-down. Yes it was.

    The GOP will continue to falter until it comes back from the brink, stops drinking the Tea Party Kool-Aid that the Koch Brothers, Adelson and Murdoch are serving, and rejoins the reality-based universe.

    What lost this election for the Republicans was embracing radical fringe social policies and embracing oligarchy. Oh, and the tinge of racism and discrimination against minorities didn’t help either.

    Romney turned himself out to try to get nominated, appealing to the worst of that radical fringe who dominate the modern vote in the primaries. That doomed him in the general by making him look like (whether he was or not) a man with no principles.

    Lessons the party needs to learn: Women care about ownership of their own bodies. Minorities care about being respected and treated like good Americans. Taxpayers care about having rich oligarchs skate by paying less taxes than their secretaries. People of most religions worry when it seems as if one religion is taking over policy-making.

    Is that so complicated, really?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    That quote is awesome, Dan! Sad, but true.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    It wasn’t just the net +2 pickup. A real Democrat has replaced Joe Lieberman. Heidi Heitkemp is much better than Kent Conrad. Tim Kaine is quite a bit more progressive than Jim Webb, although I had no problems with Webb as a senator. However, I am much happier with Tim Kaine.

    So, all in all, six seats in the Senate get more progressive than today.

  • David says:

    The majority of married women voted for Romney.

    I’m curious, DD. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make here? How do you think this helps you?

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    Dick-in-son is trying to say that the burqa-free hussies roaming the countryside having guilt-free sex and monthly abortions voted for Obama.

    All the good christian women, safely barefoot and pregnant and working in the kitchens of their husbands’ castles, voted for Romney.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I came across this today, “Romney got 56% of the white female vote; Obama got just 42%.”

    My point was that Obama won the overall female vote because he won the the single female vote by huge margins. If you look at other demographics of women, Obama lost.

    You can’t say women vote Democrat. Single women vote Democrat. Married women vote Republican.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Dan, all elections are significant. But the bottom line is the balance of power didn’t move. There is no difference between how it looked on November 5th to the eve of November 6th.

    There will be no committee changes etc. The election might as well as not happened.

  • David says:


    You can’t say women vote Democrat. Single women vote Democrat. Married women vote Republican.

    Why not? You just did in the previous sentence:

    My point was that Obama won the overall female vote because he won the the single female vote by huge margins.

    You can make the exit poll data more granular in any number of ways. I understand that single women and married women voted differently. My question was why is that the distinction that’s important to you? What is the point you are trying to make by differentiating between single and married women, in particular, as opposed to some other attribute of women voters?

  • BlackOut says:

    Well DD, if only all the old woman voted for the GOP and the younger woman voted dem, I’d say that doesn’t look so good for the future for the GOP.

    Assuming one buys into your convoluted way of looking at things, which I don’t.

Leave Comment