Does the Republican Party need to GTFO??

[Jeffy25]

Will this thread still be relevant if Romney wins the popular vote?

[mightybosstone]

I think Republicans need to take a page out of the Libertarian playbook and stop being so incredibly conservative on social issues. That's what's killing them, because it's not their take on the economy. Look at the popularity of Ron Paul with younger voters and you'll see what I'm talking about. If they can shy away from the ultra conservative Christian side of their party, there's no reason they can't take over the Senate in 2014 and win the presidency in 2016.

[gcoll]

Thats what Repubs said 2 years ago. It aint happening bro. AS IT STANDS the conservative base has an absolutely REPULSIVE platform. They lost to a president that has a terrible record and they SPENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS getting him unelected.

Each party has sustained greater losses than this.

The Republicans still control the house. Which is more than they had 4 years ago.

And their 2016 group looks like it could be strong.

Your analysis is incredibly shortsighted.

[mightybosstone]

Will this thread still be relevant if Romney wins the popular vote?

Yes, because the popular vote means absolutely nothing. The country knows this, the Republican party knows this and Mitt Romney knows this. You don't get to spend the last year campaigning and get all the way to this point and go "Well we would have won if it was the popular vote!" Because that's not how the presidency has been determined for more than two centuries and that's a horrible argument. He got steamrolled no matter how you look at it.

[whitesoxfan83]

This is going to be an Obama landslide.

Like I said months ago... Romney couldn't win without the Libertarian vote... I cant wait to see what Johnson got in Ohio and Florida. He lost so much grassroots support, so much of the youth vote, so many latinos, all the diversity that came with the Ron Paul movement... he couldn't embrace ANY of it and neither did the party. In fact, they discouraged it and completely suppressed our movement at the primaries, conventions, and in Tampa. They blew it hardcore at thee convention and it absolutely will make the difference in the swing states.

The GOP lost this when they **** all over Ron Paul... they'll keep telling themselves they lost because Romney wasn't moderate enough but the truth is they lost because Romney wasn't nearly conservative enough.

This is over, and I couldn't be happier. Tomorrow, you should all go out and start buying Gold and Silver because Obama is going to melt this **** down like a mother ****er and it's going to open the floodgates for Rand Paul and the Republicans to win big in 2016.

See you all in 4 years...

Ill just keep posting this...

The fact is, as I said all the way back to August, if you're going to knock out a huge minority in your party out simply because you disagree with their foreign policy position then you can't expect to win... especially if you put your neocon drivel of a foreign policy front and center against Obama... it actually made Obama MORE ATTRACTIVE to the Libertarians.

Plus, if you nominate a universal healthcare passing, gun grabbing, flip flopping, empty suit of a moderate instead of a REAL CONSERVATIVE you can't expect to win.

The GOP made their bed with their terrible pick of a candidate... what it shows is that they are incredibly out of touch and have no idea what it takes to win... Ron Paul supporters would have made the difference in these swing states.

Had Ron Paul been the VP, he could have united the two factions together and won. Hell they didn't even have to make him VP they just had to not **** on him the way they did at the convention (they didn't even have the decency to give the man a speech or even say the man's NAME or acknowledge the nearly 200 delegates he had!)

They thought they could win without Libertarian support and they can't, not anymore, the minority is too big now. Tough lesson to learn this way but I hope they do learn it and don't give conservatives such a terrible candidate in 4 years...



PS: The Republicans aren't dead, they maintained control of the House and that's huge.

[gcoll]

Yes, because the popular vote means absolutely nothing. The country knows this, the Republican party knows this and Mitt Romney knows this. You don't get to spend the last year campaigning and get all the way to this point and go "Well we would have won if it was the popular vote!" Because that's not how the presidency has been determined for more than two centuries and that's a horrible argument. He got steamrolled no matter how you look at it.

Well, it would certainly counter the argument that the Republican party is irrelevant, would it not?

If the popular vote is pretty much 50/50....it's tough to declare either side "dead."

[flips333]

they are playing to a dwindling audience. They need to drop the immigration thing. Or they will cease to exist as we know them

[waveycrockett]

Will this thread still be relevant if Romney wins the popular vote?

1) He wont

2) I'm a registerd independent I have no dog in this fight. If thats the case then maybe they should over haul the electoral college?


But do you honestly see a person who wants to run the country on the grounds that they will eliminate medicare, medicaid, social-security, anti-union, anti-immigration, anti-pro choice, anti- federal student loans, anti-blue collar, pro-white collar, anti-middle class pro-bring jobs over seas, pro-militarism winning an election ever again? I dont

[flips333]

Ill just keep posting this...

The fact is, as I said all the way back to August, if you're going to knock out a huge minority in your party out simply because you disagree with their foreign policy position then you can't expect to win... especially if you put your neocon drivel of a foreign policy front and center against Obama... it actually made Obama MORE ATTRACTIVE to the Libertarians.

Plus, if you nominate a universal healthcare passing, gun grabbing, flip flopping, empty suit of a moderate instead of a REAL CONSERVATIVE you can't expect to win.

The GOP made their bed with their terrible pick of a candidate... what it shows is that they are incredibly out of touch and have no idea what it takes to win... Ron Paul supporters would have made the difference in these swing states.

Had Ron Paul been the VP, he could have united the two factions together and won. Hell they didn't even have to make him VP they just had to not **** on him the way they did at the convention (they didn't even have the decency to give the man a speech or even say the man's NAME or acknowledge the nearly 200 delegates he had!)

They thought they could win without Libertarian support and they can't, not anymore, the minority is too big now. Tough lesson to learn this way but I hope they do learn it and don't give conservatives such a terrible candidate in 4 years...



PS: The Republicans aren't dead, they maintained control of the House and that's huge.

because it went so much better for them when they pushed out moderates (Missouri, Indiana) and put up extreeme conservatives.

[gcoll]

But do you honestly see a person who wants to run the country on the grounds that they will eliminate medicare, medicaid, social-security, anti-union, anti-immigration, anti- federal student loans, anti-blue collar, pro-white collar, anti-middle class pro-bring jobs over seas winning an election ever again? I dont

Are you sure you're an independent?

I mean, if you're asking whether you can win an election with a right wing economic policy, I would say "yes." I think you can.

But I don't know of anyone who has proposed eliminating medicare, medicaid, and social security. I have; but I'm not winning any election ever.

As far as being anti blue collar.....the Republican Party does quite well with blue collar voters.

[waveycrockett]

Are you sure you're an independent?

I was -- close to voting romney what I care most about is my wallet bottom line and every week I get my pay check I die a little inside but jesus that platform was just brutal. If Obama doesn't deliever on that across the board middle class tax cut I will pissed.

[whitesoxfan83]

because it went so much better for them when they pushed out moderates (Missouri, Indiana) and put up extreeme conservatives.

There were extreme candidates that won in other places and Akin is a hard case to make because he's just a retard.

The truth is there was no excitement, not grassroots support, no nothing for Mitt.

The NRA was reluctant to back him, Libertarians did not back him in any real way, Christians did not back him in any real way.

GColl is right it will end most likely in a 50/50 split... the support is there they just picked a **** candidate.

You can't run Romney against Obamacare, you can't run Romney against gun-grabbing, you can't call Romney a conservative when he's not.

And worst yet you can't even spin those lies to people when he had such an immense track record of flip flopping.

Ron Paul had more latino support than all the other candidates combined, Ron Paul had the anti-war support, he had the civil libertarian support, he had the grassroots/volunteerism support, he had the difference between winning and losing these swing states in his supporters and they stupidly believed they could get by without all of that.

It was straight hubris on their part and it's why they lost...

There's also a big difference between someone who is extreme and actually a conservative.

[jayjay33]

Yes the GOP is in serious minorities over whelming go with dems and now that brown and black are both together and going by + 75% dem it is looking bad for the GOP.


The thing is "THE BASE". You need them to win the primary's but catering to then those mean *** mo fo's. KILL you with the minorities it's a catch 22. An as long as those old hateful people in the base are still alive and the brown and black keep growing it's going to get further and further away.

[gcoll]

Ron Paul had more latino support than all the other candidates combined, Ron Paul had the anti-war support, he had the civil libertarian support, he had the grassroots/volunteerism support, he had the difference between winning and losing these swing states in his supporters and they stupidly believed they could get by without all of that.

Ron Paul would not have won.

[waveycrockett]

There were extreme candidates that won in other places and Akin is a hard case to make because he's just a retard.

The truth is there was no excitement, not grassroots support, no nothing for Mitt.

The NRA was reluctant to back him, Libertarians did not back him in any real way, Christians did not back him in any real way.

GColl is right it will end most likely in a 50/50 split... the support is there they just picked a **** candidate.

You can't run Romney against Obamacare, you can't run Romney against gun-grabbing, you can't call Romney a conservative when he's not.

And worst yet you can't even spin those lies to people when he had such an immense track record of flip flopping.

Ron Paul had more latino support than all the other candidates combined, Ron Paul had the anti-war support, he had the civil libertarian support, he had the grassroots/volunteerism support, he had the difference between winning and losing these swing states in his supporters and they stupidly believed they could get by without all of that.

It was straight hubris on their part and it's why they lost...

There's also a big difference between someone who is extreme and actually a conservative.

All I heard all week is how great a ground game Romney had going and had invigorated the Repub base like never before and how BAD a job the Obama campaign was doing invigorating their own base. Yet Romney is suddenly out of touch with his own base??

And You label Romney a fake-conservative. You really think a true conservative like Rick Santorum or Bachmann would have run a tighter race??? I think they would have been slaughtered even worse. Social Conservatism is a nightmare of a platform for any Presidential candidate bottom line.