Republicans Start To Cave

[cheri1122]

Cherri Im not sure where you get your fac5s but it certainly isn't all around the web.

Certainly? How can you assert that, oh wise one?

Much of it is factually wrong and very biased to the truth. You claim things such as romney isn't a leader and can't work with others which like many things you state history proves to be incorrect.

What I claimed is that Romney can't deal with people he can't command, and there's no lack of history showing that - heck, just watch one of the vids where he is heckled, or questioned by an older blue collar 'salt of the earth' type that turns out to be a gay vet - Romney is just totally at a loss for a way out without making it worse. There are a whole lot of little moments when he shows who he really is, if you're watching: a man unused to dealing with people who don't treat him with great respect. And that's something a president has got to be good at, because those people exist, and they're not all unimportant.

Your posts do tend to hint to the types of places on the web your ideas come from. I have no problem with people voting for who they feel better about but i do think people on both sides need to be more honest with facts.

In his time as Governor, his claim to bipartisan success is underwhelming: with an 80something % Dem legislature, did he have much choice? Even there, his style was described by [even his own staffers] as abrasive, alternating with 'charm offensives'. That works for a CEO , maybe, but it's not real leadership. True leaders are those whom people follow because they believe, [as in war], not the ones who order them to do it.
The final proof is how fast Romney's 'supporters' peeled away - about 30 seconds after they knew he'd lost.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

You still fail to explain why you need two Democratic Parties, one with the familiar (D) and the other with the (R).

You fail to explain why it's up to me to explain something I never contended to begin with.

You fail utterly to explain why people who believe in conservative values don't have any right to expect to have a candidate who expresses their--our-- values.

People who believe in conservative values have every right to expect their candidate to express their ---your---values. Where did I say they don't? What I said is the majority of American citizens don't share many of those values, which means conservative candidates don't win a majority of elections, federal or state.
That's where the 'demographics' are right now - in years to come, that could change.

As it is now, the two-party system is largely sham, since the parties are so close to being identical that it's a joke.

As neither side is going to get everything it wants, it just makes sense to aim for the middle, wouldn't you say?

 

[mjmsprt40]

You still fail to explain why you need two Democratic Parties, one with the familiar (D) and the other with the (R).

You fail to explain why it's up to me to explain something I never contended to begin with.

You fail utterly to explain why people who believe in conservative values don't have any right to expect to have a candidate who expresses their--our-- values.

People who believe in conservative values have every right to expect their candidate to express their ---your---values. Where did I say they don't? What I said is the majority of American citizens don't share many of those values, which means conservative candidates don't win a majority of elections, federal or state.
That's where the 'demographics' are right now - in years to come, that could change.

As it is now, the two-party system is largely sham, since the parties are so close to being identical that it's a joke.

As neither side is going to get everything it wants, it just makes sense to aim for the middle, wouldn't you say?

Answering underlined section: Nope. I wouldn't say that at all. At least, not anymore. Being asked to give up most of what I believe to back a candidate that won't be elected anyway only goes so far. After that, if I'm going to lose it's going to be for a reason that makes sense. Voting for Romney "because he's the lesser of two evils" ends now. I back the conservative candidate, the guy who actually represents what I and people who believe as I do believe . If you want two leftist parties, be my guest. I'm done with the nonsense.

 

[BobWolf]

Just read my signature at the bottom. It spells it out clearly.

Bob Wolf.

 

[LDB]

Here's the big picture. Those who voted Obama, either directly or indirectly, and make no mistake that there were both, also voted for the next 2 and possibly up to 4 SC justices. Big talk about building third parties etc. aside, and it's nothing but big talk to justify wasting a vote, it's also a BIG vote for a far left stacked SC which is reason enough to have voted for the better of the two choices even if better wasn't all that great.

 

[AMonger]

Here's the big picture. Those who voted Obama, either directly or indirectly, and make no mistake that there were both, also voted for the next 2 and possibly up to 4 SC justices. Big talk about building third parties etc. aside, and it's nothing but big talk to justify wasting a vote, it's also a BIG vote for a far left stacked SC which is reason enough to have voted for the better of the two choices even if better wasn't all that great.

And 4 years from now, it'll be the same thing. Either more court justices or the economy or there'll be a war or the threat of war or terrorism or Klingons or a tiger escaped from the zoo or the Black Plague or Global Warming or or or or or, and that election will be labeled the most important ever in history and the fate of the country depends on it, so you'd better hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils AGAIN. The one party that masquerades as two has your number and they play you like a fiddle every four years because they know you'll fall for the same old lies AGAIN and AGAIN. Why shouldn't they? They've been doing it since the second term of Bush the Elder and you and people like you have fallen for it every time--and you'll fall for it again in four years.
Oh, and btw, let me save you some trouble and make your next post for you, because I already know what it's going to be.
LDB: "You don't understand. I'm done with you."

 

[RLENT]

Republican chances I think will come about when things just get bad enough that people will be looking for anything. May be the next election, maybe not.

That you personally are of this opinion is probably of little (negative) consequence, since AFAIK you don't hold public office.

The problem with the viewpoint however is when it becomes widespread amongst the elected political opposition - which right at the moment is the Republicans.

At that point, it then becomes in their vested interest to see/ensure that things actually become worse and not better ... since by their own calculation that is the only way they can obtain power.

Consequently, you get things like continual obstructionism ... and failure to work together for a mutual benefit, a common cause ...

BTW ... "things getting bad enough that people will be looking for anything" is how dictators rise to power ...

 

[RLENT]

Funny how the Politico article, along with most others fails to mention that due to the 2010 Census West's district was re-drawn to make it much more democrat leaning.

Yeah well ... who did that exactly ?

Oh yeah ... that's right ... it was the Republican Party ...

Combine that situation with the fact that the Romney campaign made it a point to eschew Tea Party candidates and even conservative commentators (I don't believe he appeared as a guest on Limbaugh's show even once). That being said, he was being true to his core beliefs - those of a moderate.

Gee - I thought he was "severely conservative"

You are half correct on one thing though ... he was true to his core beliefs - which mostly consisted of ... (wait for it) ... having no real core beliefs ... and doing and saying anything - whatever was necessary in his own mind to obtain the Presidency.

Y'all might as well have just run Joe Izuzu as the candidate:

However, the Republican brand - not the Rockefeller Republicans - is doing fine. The GOP maintained control of the House and there are 30 Republican governors among the 50 states.

Something no doubt clearly evidenced by the fact that Republicans failed to obtain the Presidency - in opposition to a candidate with a record that should have made it a no-brainer, lost the 8 seats in the House of Representatives (with two races still pending), and had a net loss of 2 seats in the Senate.

Yeah ... I'd say the Republican "brand" is doing ... just splendiferously ...

In the final analysis the Romney staff simply didn't run a good campaign - it's simple as that.

In the final analysis, the Republican Party didn't nominate and run a good candidate - it's as simple as that.

The rather naive idea that you posit to the contrary is simply just ... whistling past the graveyard ...

 

[AMonger]

In the final analysis, the Republican Party didn't nominate and run a good candidate - it's as simple as that.

When's the last time they did? Any party that nominates Romney, McCain, and Dole doesn't really want the presidency.

 

[mjmsprt40]

AMonger, I have just one question, based on one of your previous posts. That question is, when did Bush the Elder have his second term???

Bush the Younger had two terms, but the Elder had only one that I remember. "Read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by---- new taxes. Clinton won the next election, though in truth you could say Bush was fired.

Nominating Dole in '96 was tragic. If Dole had somehow managed to win, he couldn't have served effectively. His train had already left the station and even his best friends had to have known that. We would have had a "regency" term where-- if he lived-- Dole would be the figurehead but the real power would be in the veep, or even somewhere in the cabinet.

 

[AMonger]

AMonger, I have just one question, based on one of your previous posts. That question is, when did Bush the Elder have his second term???

Bush the Younger had two terms, but the Elder had only one that I remember. "Read my lips, no new taxes" was followed by---- new taxes. Clinton won the next election, though in truth you could say Bush was fired.

Nominating Dole in '96 was tragic. If Dole had somehow managed to win, he couldn't have served effectively. His train had already left the station and even his best friends had to have known that. We would have had a "regency" term where-- if he lived-- Dole would be the figurehead but the real power would be in the veep, or even somewhere in the cabinet.

Yes, one term. I was talking about his re-election campaign; we should have changed horses rather than nominate him again.
Dole was unacceptable because he wasn't a conservative. He was a compromiser. Not acceptable.

 

[davekc]

Yeah well ... who did that exactly ?

Oh yeah ... that's right ... it was the Republican Party ...


Gee - I thought he was "severely conservative"

You are half correct on one thing though ... he was true to his core beliefs - which mostly consisted of ... (wait for it) ... having no real core beliefs ... and doing and saying anything - whatever was necessary in his own mind to obtain the Presidency.

Y'all might as well have just run Joe Izuzu as the candidate:

Something no doubt clearly evidenced by the fact that Republicans failed to obtain the Presidency - in opposition to a candidate with a record that should have made it a no-brainer, lost the 8 seats in the House of Representatives (with two races still pending), and had a net loss of 2 seats in the Senate.

Yeah ... I'd say the Republican "brand" is doing ... just splendiferously ...


In the final analysis, the Republican Party didn't nominate and run a good candidate - it's as simple as that.

The rather naive idea that you posit to the contrary is simply just ... whistling past the graveyard ...

I would have to agree in that they didn't run a good candidate. Didn't offer any freebies either.

BTW ... "things getting bad enough that people will be looking for anything" is how dictators rise to power ...

I guess Obama fits that.

 

[aquitted]

Now if we can hear from the AFLAC duck!

 

[LDB]

As far as presidential impact, there is little if anything that equals SC nomination. There will be something in 4 years and every 4 years after that. There will be primaries each of those times as well as interim elections to support, promote and attempt to elect good third party candidates. Getting enough of them elected in the states will normalize them and help bring about a mindset to elect them on the national level. Until we build that foundation and bring about the needed change some will try to minimize the damage and some will continue to care nothing about the nation and do nothing to improve it even if only marginally. It's too bad some don't care. We can only feel sorry for them.

 

[RLENT]

Consequently we find out that a lot of the GOP base stayed home on election day and he becomes another in a list of moderate Republican losers.

Hopefully the following will do something to frame the matter in a more accurate light than the above quoted passage does:

The GOP Turnout Myth
To win future elections, Republicans will need more than better get-out-the-vote software.

To win the next presidential race, the GOP will have to understand what went wrong in 2012. To do that, they've got to come to grips with what did, and did not, happen with turnout.

Even as Republicans have engaged in some agonizing over their candidate and agenda, many have sought comfort in the notion that a big part of the loss came down to simple mechanics. President Obama had a stunning Election Day operation, which turned out his base. Mitt Romney's shop, by contrast, failed to get people to the polls. That explanation is soothing because it suggests that, in the future, all the GOP needs is a slicker piece of get-out-the-vote software.

It's also broadly wrong.

The turnout myth comes from a statistic that has been endlessly repeated: Mitt Romney got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008. This isn't quite true (Mr. Romney this week eked past the McCain totals), and in any event it is somewhat irrelevant. The Romney vote count reflects a nationwide voter turnout that was down nearly five percentage points from 2008. What matters is how the GOP did in the battleground states.

And there? Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain's numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.

By contrast, Mr. Obama's turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.

The temptation here is to conclude that Mr. Romney did better than Mr. McCain, just not well enough, while Mr. Obama did worse, just not badly enough. Yes, there is no question the GOP turnout effort could have been improved. Project ORCA, developed and run by the Romney campaign to refine its turnout efforts, was a dismal failure. And the GOP lagged behind the Obama campaign's sophisticated use of technology, in particular social media.

Could better use of these tools have added enough to the Romney totals to eke out victories in key states? Maybe. In the end, it was 334,000 votes—in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire—that separated Mr. Romney from the presidency. Then again, had Mr. Romney succeeded in grinding out a narrow victory, it might also have masked the party's bigger problems.

Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney's better turnout.

In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama's margin of victory there was 103,000.

This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won't equal Mr. Obama's magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.

And that, for the record, was the GOP's real 2012 turnout disaster. Elections are about the candidate and the message, yes, but also about the ground game. Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney's failures and the party's immigration platform—that's fair enough. But equally important has been the party's mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn't campaign in those communities, doesn't register voters there, doesn't knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president's.

Often missed in talk of the GOP's "demographics problem" is that it would take relatively modest minority-voter shifts toward Republicans to return the party to a dominating force. The GOP might see that as the enormous opportunity it is, rather than a problem. The key to winning turnout is having more people to turn out in the first place.

Strassel: The GOP Turnout Myth - WSJ.com

 

[EASYTRADER]

That and hal the military absebtee ballats got dropped in the ocean while the other half showed up too late to be counted.

 

[muttly]

I would have to agree in that they didn't run a good candidate. Didn't offer any freebies either.



I guess Obama fits that.

Your right they didn't offer the feebies and lost some of the elections. The election was also not as bad as some in here would like you to believe. Of the House republicans that won their races, 85% of them outperformed Obama's number in their district. They lost a few net house races overall, but they still retained the house by a good number. Consider also the affect the billion dollar campaign that was waged against Romney and the republicans. Regarding the senate races. If somone were to examine them, they would find that the republicans threw away one maybe two total seats. The two being the Indiana and Missouri seat. Mourdock and Akin specifically. Akins comments drew the wrath of most republicans so he wasn't going to get support from them,so that seat was a lost cause. The Mourdock seat was one they should have won ,but the left demagogued his comment and took it out of context. They were also candidates from red states so they were the best chances at winning their races,but were tarnished beyond repair. Of the other senate races available to win,most if not all, were in blue states and most of them were running against incumbents. Of the one senate race where the Republican was the incumbent , it was in the bluest of states, Taxachussetts. Scott Brown lost to the ding bat Elizabeth Warren mainly because the New England Democrat constituency is brain dead enough, that in their recent past, voted decades continuesly for Chapaquidic Ted.
So the results weren't really that bad.

 

[xiggi]

When's the last time they did? Any party that nominates Romney, McCain, and Dole doesn't really want the presidency.

Romney was the best candidate with a chance of winning plain and simple. Maybe not the best candidate but if you don't have a shot it just doesn't matter if your nominated.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[davekc]

Out of who they had in the primary, he was basically it. There either were issues with the others or they lacked the finances for a full campaign. That is something that the republican party is going to have to do some soul searching on.
Who would be the next person that would give them a fair shot at winning? I certainly don't have an answer at this point.

 

[layoutshooter]

Romney was the best candidate with a chance of winning plain and simple. Maybe not the best candidate but if you don't have a shot it just doesn't matter if your nominated.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

If Romney, or Obama, are the best we have to offer in this country we are in REAL trouble. O'Romney and Rombama are BOTH losers. The only only ones who are worse losers are the American People. Putting candidates like these two on a national level ballot is a disgrace to the Nation.