One thing never ceases to amaze me: the determination of the media, even when the present facts to the contrary, to convince us all that the Republican Party lost the presidential race because it is too conservative to reach the all-determining "independent voter."
Just six days ago, Politico ran "The Disappearing Independent," a striking piece for a mainstream media source in that it acknowledged independents are NOT the determining factor in elections any longer. If they were, Mitt Romney would be the President-elect. He won so-called independents, but did not solidify the support of his base, members of whom doubted his fidelity to conservative principles.
Lois Romano wrote,
"Strategists in both parties now believe that the Romney campaign and the GOP in general completely missed a significant new reality: Many voters who chose to remain unaffiliated with either party are no longer shifting their allegiance from election to election, candidate to candidate. Instead, they are becoming increasingly partisan and predictable. That means that in order to win, each party must be far more ambitious in cementing its base — as Team Obama did — to win elections."
And yet this morning, Politico took great glee in opining that the conservative attorney general in Virginia, and candidate for governor in 2013, Ken Cuccinelli, is far too conservative to win over independents. So Cuccinelli, the guy likely to cement the Republican base, can't (according to the MSM) win the non-existent (or vastly overstated) independent voter and therefore must lose?
Doesn't make a lick of sense, but sense is not the MSM's objective. Beating conservatives is.