WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT CONSERVATIVES NEED TO DO ABOUT IT !

[Whirlaway]

From Powerlineblog.com

Our friend Roger Magnuson is one of the most prominent trial lawyers in the Twin Cities. A prolific author, Roger has written numerous articles and books on a variety of legal topics. His most recent works includes a chapter in New Developments in Securities Litigation, discussing security law litigation and compliance strategies. (Click here to read “Aggressive Securities Law Litigation and Compliance Strategies.”)

Roger is also the author of Barracuda Bait: New and Growing Litigious Risks to American Businesses, in which he shares insights from a dozen memorable cases and describes how companies faced with litigation can take advantage of unusual ways to “bite back.”

Last night Roger wrote to John and copied me, taking up one side of an argument conservatives are going to have in the coming days. I thought it would be of interest to readers and Roger has kindly given us permission to publish his message, which I am posting below verbatim, including the compliments and smiley face:

John,

For what it’s worth, a few thoughts on the debacle.

As I mentioned in our intermittent club pub conversations on the subject of Moderate Mitt, I never thought he would have any real chance of beating the worst president imaginable. I never thought otherwise at any stage of the campaign.

While I respected your always incredibly informed political acumen, the simple truth for me is that wets never win. Never. Or as I mentioned to Herman Cain in LA a few months back, you never beat a demagogic vision with no vision.

Put another way, if I tried high profile cases using consultants like Stuart Stevens, I would spend boatloads of my clients’ money, and end up lamenting that it seemed impossible to lose because we had such great arguments, and ultimately blame the stupid fact finders and the demographics of the jury and their “baggage.” We’ve both seen our share of big firm litigators in that mode, haven’t we, thankfully usually on the other side.

I only know one way to win these arguments: by putting overwhelming intellectual, moral and affective pressure on the other side until my metaphors imprison and prevail. Get the theory and attack and define relentlessly, albeit of course with charm.

My almost visceral reaction to a relatively smart and decent guy was his manifest propensity to lose the unlosable.

Demographics? They haven’t changed much since the 2010 shellacking of the Democrats, ditto the so-called tipping point or 47 per cent.

What happened is in my view less complicated.

1) Romney let himself get defined early in the same brutal way we would define a litigation adversary early and often. The definition largely stuck and there was no early response, and no aggressive defining of an opponent who was a walking, talking incredibly rich target.

2) Romney organized a colorless and utterly insipid convention the point of which was to establish that he wasn’t as bad as the other side made him out to be and he really loved and some of his best friends were women.

3) Romney’s campaign then stumbled forward on a benign, six basic metrics referendum on the economy tack, leaving a treasure trove laden rich armory of munitions undeployed. Obamacare, the explosive issue of 2010 ignored. Social issues tied to huge avenues of attack on Obama viewed as too controversial, foreign policy neutered, Dukakis competence thought able to carry the day, all from the conventional Tory playbook, without sharp edges or ideological vision.

4) When he finally showed a pulse in the first debate and acted like he could almost be a decent trial lawyer, he got an immediate bump in the polls, and, immediately, lapsed back into a play it safe, sit on a lead, be nice and bipartisan mode. He couldn’t even do the Benghazi battle.

5) His everybody loves this country, reach across the aisle close was the final insipid wetness.

I hated to be Nate Silver but Mittens never had a chance against a terrible President with the silliest of demagogic campaigns.

So John, if we’re ever on opposite sides of major litigation again, please retain consultants like Stevens. It might be my only chance…

Love that Power Line!

[markroxny]

When are you going to admit that all your predictions and polls and trending articles were WRONG Whirly?

[Whirlaway]

When you admit that Obama's first term has been an unmitigated failure.

Originally Posted by markroxny

When are you going to admit that all your predictions and polls and trending articles were WRONG Whirly?

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

When you admit that Obama's first term has been an unmitigated failure.

If it was such a failure, he wouldn't have been re-elected.

You are a certified coward and a punk.

But I am enjoying your loss and pathetic attempt to come to grips with it, and the fact that ALL your predictions were proven wrong.

[ChoomCzar]

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed on little publicly, but they did agree that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the voters recognize that, they will send to government only those who promise them a bigger piece of the pie

[WTF]

Originally Posted by markroxny

When are you going to admit that all your predictions and polls and trending articles were WRONG Whirly?

My prediction is that Whirly will never admit that his polls were wrong. In his world, Mitt is President!

[Whirlaway]

Dumpshits; the polls were incredibly accurate this cycle....read up before you post.

Today's WSJ: Pollsters Won With Accurate Numbers !

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Dumpshits; the polls were incredibly accurate this cycle....read up before you post.

Today's WSJ: Pollsters Won With Accurate Numbers !

But they weren't picking mittens..

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Dumpshits; the polls were incredibly accurate this cycle....read up before you post.

Today's WSJ: Pollsters Won With Accurate Numbers !

Not the polls you had been posting.

[Whirlaway]

The vote count was within the margin of error almost ALL polling including Rasmussen.

[markroxny]

Give it up Whirly. You predicted a Romney landslide and used stupid prediction articles and polls to support your assersion......

Like this one:
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=589585

AND YOU WERE WRONG!

[icuminpeace]

I heard the Nov 6 poll was 100% accurate.

[Whirlaway]

Your compltely off topic Marxy........as usual.

[Yssup Rider]

And you need to take some Maalox, Whirlyturd.

the topic here is "What Happened and What Conservatives Need to do about it"

The polls were accurate enough to show movement. Romney tried a number of mid course corrections, but couldn't make any of them stick. People didn't LIKE him. That's why the GOP latched on to everybody else. Romney was a dick.

What happened is that the REPUBLICANS fucked up a race they could have won. CONSERVATIVES need to form their own Party, if that's what you're labeling yourselves.

The far right has doomed the Republican Party. Period. America isn't growing any more Republicans by today's definition ... The far right wing.

You silly fuckers need to stand up for yourselves or continue to get your asses whipped. It's only gonna get worse.

Oh yeah, and don't look at a horse and call it a cow

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Dumpshits; the polls were incredibly accurate this cycle....read up before you post.

Today's WSJ: Pollsters Won With Accurate Numbers !

To bad the vote was Nov 6th and not when you posted your trending polls!