How will republicans respond to this loss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will blame the candidate. I have argued on this board that Romney was the logical outcome of the primary process.

They HAD to have someone who would toe the line on every conservative litmus test. AND they needed someone who could be electable. What does that leave, who can survive that process? Only someone who is so full of contradictions that he looks flawed and weak.

Look at the fucking debates and the total freaks hey turned out. Romney was the only semi-normal candidate. Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain??!!?,! WTF has happened in the last 20 years to this party???

There are two factors that determine a party's votes: how broad your appeal, and how motivated are your people to actually show up on election day. (Remember that a fraction of the population actually votes.)

The problem is that for the Republican party, these two factors compete with each other. Every attack brings the hard core conservatives out to the polls, but it drives off hispanics.

The Republicans have been trying to motivate the base. It more or less works now, but in the long run it will fail.

[Anonymous]

...drives off hispanics or women or any number of other groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will blame the candidate. I have argued on this board that Romney was the logical outcome of the primary process.

They HAD to have someone who would toe the line on every conservative litmus test. AND they needed someone who could be electable. What does that leave, who can survive that process? Only someone who is so full of contradictions that he looks flawed and weak.

Look at the fucking debates and the total freaks hey turned out. Romney was the only semi-normal candidate. Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain??!!?,! WTF has happened in the last 20 years to this party???

No no no, remember Jon Huntsman? Their "normal" guy? He was the only one who could have beaten Obama, and they rejected him.

You did it to yourselves, Rs. You snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will blame the candidate. I have argued on this board that Romney was the logical outcome of the primary process.

They HAD to have someone who would toe the line on every conservative litmus test. AND they needed someone who could be electable. What does that leave, who can survive that process? Only someone who is so full of contradictions that he looks flawed and weak.

Look at the fucking debates and the total freaks hey turned out. Romney was the only semi-normal candidate. Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain??!!?,! WTF has happened in the last 20 years to this party???

There are two factors that determine a party's votes: how broad your appeal, and how motivated are your people to actually show up on election day. (Remember that a fraction of the population actually votes.)

The problem is that for the Republican party, these two factors compete with each other. Every attack brings the hard core conservatives out to the polls, but it drives off hispanics.

The Republicans have been trying to motivate the base. It more or less works now, but in the long run it will fail.

Umm it drives off women and independents and moderate Republicans too...

[Anonymous]

Recounts

[Anonymous]

I hope that the Rs will respond by getting off the sex/morality police band wagon. Mend fences with women. When your part contains the vaginal wanders and legitimate rapists of the election, you have a serious problem.

Rs should focus on their (purported) strengths. Tax fairness, balanced budgets, strong defense, capitalism, anti-welfare. Appeal to people's selfishness.

I'[m not asking them to be pro abortion. Just leave the abortion status quo alone. If they do that they are NOT gonna lose their red states. All they need is the NRA for red states. But they MIGHT pick up some battleground states if they don't go around pissing people off. Women are 50% of the people. Don't antagonize them. Throw them a bone (Like Obama did - free birth control?) instead of telling them they are sluts and whores for wanting to be on the pill while you bang prostitues in Brazil and have you staff say you are hiking the Appalachian Trail.

It's the women, stupid.

[Anonymous]

The thought of them spending the next 4 years trying o repeal social issues instead of focusing on the important things was enough to turn me to the blue side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope that the Rs will respond by getting off the sex/morality police band wagon. Mend fences with women. When your part contains the vaginal wanders and legitimate rapists of the election, you have a serious problem.

Rs should focus on their (purported) strengths. Tax fairness, balanced budgets, strong defense, capitalism, anti-welfare. Appeal to people's selfishness.

I'[m not asking them to be pro abortion. Just leave the abortion status quo alone. If they do that they are NOT gonna lose their red states. All they need is the NRA for red states. But they MIGHT pick up some battleground states if they don't go around pissing people off. Women are 50% of the people. Don't antagonize them. Throw them a bone (Like Obama did - free birth control?) instead of telling them they are sluts and whores for wanting to be on the pill while you bang prostitues in Brazil and have you staff say you are hiking the Appalachian Trail.

It's the women, stupid.

I don't know, I sort of disagree. I think you are under-estimating the degree to which pro-lifers care about this issue, and their numbers. This strategy worked for a long time, for a reason.

[Anonymous]

I don't know, I sort of disagree. I think you are under-estimating the degree to which pro-lifers care about this issue, and their numbers. This strategy worked for a long time, for a reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a pro lifer has to choose between a dem and a republican who refuses to engage in the abortion debate, who do you think they are going to vote for? Cause I don't see a pro lifer voting dem. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know, I sort of disagree. I think you are under-estimating the degree to which pro-lifers care about this issue, and their numbers. This strategy worked for a long time, for a reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a pro lifer has to choose between a dem and a republican who refuses to engage in the abortion debate, who do you think they are going to vote for? Cause I don't see a pro lifer voting dem. Ever.

I am Catholic and I am pro-life (for myself)--I don't project my religion or my views on any other woman. I am soundly pro-choice for America and believe it is a personal decision. I never understood why more people can't differentiate in this manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know, I sort of disagree. I think you are under-estimating the degree to which pro-lifers care about this issue, and their numbers. This strategy worked for a long time, for a reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a pro lifer has to choose between a dem and a republican who refuses to engage in the abortion debate, who do you think they are going to vote for? Cause I don't see a pro lifer voting dem. Ever.

I am Catholic and I am pro-life (for myself)--I don't project my religion or my views on any other woman. I am soundly pro-choice for America and believe it is a personal decision. I never understood why more people can't differentiate in this manner.

Amen to that!

[Anonymous]

It is a win for Obama, but it is certainly not a mandate.

[Anonymous]

Listen Rs... you need to learn ONE THING:

You mess with Big Bird...


YOU LOSE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know, I sort of disagree. I think you are under-estimating the degree to which pro-lifers care about this issue, and their numbers. This strategy worked for a long time, for a reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a pro lifer has to choose between a dem and a republican who refuses to engage in the abortion debate, who do you think they are going to vote for? Cause I don't see a pro lifer voting dem. Ever.

I am Catholic and I am pro-life (for myself)--I don't project my religion or my views on any other woman. I am soundly pro-choice for America and believe it is a personal decision. I never understood why more people can't differentiate in this manner.

You are pro life for YOURSELF. As am I. I'm a rabid dem, rabid pro choicer, and I am also pro life for MYSELF.

I am talking about the religious wing nut antiabortion, women are child eating sluts who should be smacked crowd. The your employer should decide about your birth control crowd. Sorry but they are NOT going dem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen Rs... you need to learn ONE THING:

You mess with Big Bird...


YOU LOSE!

agreed!