Not calling this a "referendum", but it makes me wonder what the right will/should do

[DominionSeraph]

Considering that the majority of Americans just re-elected Barack Hussein Obama and strengthened the Dems' grip on the Senate, this might be a good time to ask someone to explain irony to you.

Woosh, right over your head.

Voting liberal doesn't mean you are a liberal. Liberals just happen to be the only choice for those who would otherwise be disenfranchised.

If you were stuck in Afghanistan and your vote for governance was between the Taliban who wanted cut off your head or a enlightened, worldly, educated, rational person who was accommodating of your race/creed, would you stick to your conservatism and vote Taliban?
Somehow I doubt it.
This does not mean you are an enlightened, worldly, educated, rational person. It just means you know where your self-interest lies.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The Republicans will need to be a party of just more than angry white men. They need to re-integrate their constituency with American society. They need to re-assimilate into America.

 

[michal1980]

The Republicans will need to be a party of just more than angry white men. They need to re-integrate their constituency with American society. They need to re-assimilate into America.

what kind of fucking racists ass talk is that?

'angry white men'?

Might as well call the dems the party of ni**gers & wet backs since they get 99% of that vote.

 

[Mursilis]

The GOP should reach out to Latino voters plain and simple. Bush won because he grabbed about 60% of the latino vote.

It's going to be hard for the GOP, which already has a charisma gap anyway, to combat the "money for nothing" strategy of the Dems and appeal to Latino voters. They should've offered a Romneyphone!

 

[michal1980]

It's going to be hard for the GOP, which already has a charisma gap anyway, to combat the "money for nothing" strategy of the Dems and appeal to Latino voters. They should've offered a Romneyphone!

naw, they should have said that if the bring in one illegal they can have 2 for free.

 

[Mursilis]

Ultimately, the GOP is going to fall back on the one thing that reliably keeps them in office, despite their own hit parade of screw-ups - waiting for the Dems to screw up so badly that the GOP actually seems like a better alternative. Since the sheeple can't think outside the two-party box, they'll forget why they abandoned the GOP in droves four years ago, and flip back to whoever the Repubs run in 2016. The GOP, the party that brought us Newt Gingrich as a national leader, can't find charismatic candidates, but it sure can count on the Dems to give them back power every couple terms.

 

[zsdersw]

The socially conservative wing of the GOP will get smaller and smaller as the older generations die off. Then the GOP will be free to say "fuck off" to them and their demands on social issues in the primaries.

 

[rudder]

So, my question is: Which strategy do you think would have helped the GOP win the presidency?

1. Find a candidate that independent voters can get excited about. This election is the same as 2004 when the Dems were handed the white house... but they picked one of the most liberal members of congress to run. The GOP picked Romney this go around.... from a field of candidates who all would have had a tough time appealing to independents. The election should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. He couldn't even carry the state where he was governor.

2. Don't speak so openly about welfare reform and cutting entitlements. People are disconnected from the fact that the money is just not there.... but will have no talk of getting their entitlements cut.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Ah, the ol' Edward Longshanks plan.

So, what you're saying is, the only way Republicans can win is if they make sure the bulk of the country are drooling morons from the Heartland?

Huh.

Interesting theory.

I didn't say that. I said merely suggested that a policy to encourage long term restructuring of electoral college votes to increase the number of votes cast by the midwest would enhance the ability of a republican to win using the current republican current strategy.

And lets be civil, please. The mere fact that someone may have a differing opinion than you does not make them a "drooling moron." Some would say that folks who support a government that increasingly inserts itself into its citizens daily lives are unwittingly supporting a move towards socialistic ideals. China excepted (with many caveats), we all know where socialism leads.

I am honestly sick of the two party system. Why the hell is it so GD hard to have a third candidate that represents the middle ground?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

First off: Your opinions -- and, very likely, you -- are completely asinine, childish, and have no basis in reality. Having said that, it begs another, somewhat similar, interesting question:

Let's say things really do get worse, and the country has a choice (it obviously won't be this simple):

1). Raise taxes, the rich get poorer, the military shrinks, more schools, work programs etc

or

2). People starve in the streets. Mass deportations. Schools crumble, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is, sure, the right and the left each have their ways of "fixing" America, and we can argue until we're blue in the face about what works and what doesn't. But let's just say, hypothetically, we're just at this point -- and let's say who's "fault" it is doesn't really matter -- where it's a choice: Either everyone tightens their belts, or people die.

I wonder what this country would do?

Because the right likes to say that their policies prevent that from happening. And the left likes to say that that is the logical conclusion, if the right have their way, and wack-job libertarians say "Fuck 'em. If they can't hack it, they deserve to die", and frankly, it's a testament to the system of checks and balances that this hasn't happened already.

But what if it did?

You forgot the third option, which is:

3) Shrink government . . . reduce overhead . . . balance budget. . . everyone wins.

The solution to societal "problems" is usually not more government. Our forefathers rebelled against that ideal hundreds of years ago.

 

[sm625]

The republican party needs to define conservatism. It has nothing to do with gay marriage and prayer in schools. Being a Conservative means seeking to limit the size and scope of the federal government. That's all it is. They cannot frame that properly, and as a result we all continue to get crushed by the jackboot of giant unaccountable corporations pulling more and more levers of power to continually enrich the already rich. That's all its about. The side issues are a distraction. The media pushes the side issues because it is owned by the aforementioned jackbooted corporate monstrosity. A monstrosity which has so many tentacles in government that it is the de facto government. That's what fascism means. Death by lobbyist. And the dumbed down masses eat it up.

 

[zsdersw]

The republican party needs to define conservatism. It has nothing to do with gay marriage and prayer in schools. Being a Conservative means seeking to limit the size and scope of the federal government. That's all it is. They cannot frame that properly, and as a result we all continue to get crushed by the jackboot of giant unaccountable corporations pulling more and more levers of power to continually enrich the already rich. That's all its about. The side issues are a distraction. The media pushes the side issues because it is owned by the aforementioned jackbooted corporate monstrosity. A monstrosity which has so many tentacles in government that it is the de facto government. That's what fascism means. Death by lobbyist. And the dumbed down masses eat it up.

Indeed. When Barry Goldwater can seriously be called a "liberal" by the GOP, hope is lost.

 

[Northern Lawn]

They need to embrace the message of Ron Paul otherwise they will be gone

That's NOT going to happen. I'm in the Ron Paul camp and I heard the stories of how he is un-electable. But this was the first time I got to see it in real time.

He runs for office and then shoots himself in the foot with statements like "No more troops anywhere" or "No standing army like they had with George Washington".

I'm convinced now that he runs just to keep his name in the papers. He's not, nor does he want to be, a serious candidate. And the racist propaganda he's apart of seals the deal.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's NOT going to happen. I'm in the Ron Paul camp and I heard the stories of how he is un-electable. But this was the first time I got to see it in real time.

He runs for office and then shoots himself in the foot with statements like "No more troops anywhere" or "No standing army like they had with George Washington".

If you consider those comments "shooting himself in the foot", then you never were in the "Ron Paul camp". He's held those positions forever.

 

[shadow9d9]

If you look at the vote breakdowns, you will see that Romney lost big time when it comes to women voters and various minorities. I'm betting that loss is based on his social policies rather than his fiscal policies. This would suggest that republicans could do better by being more socially progressive, while remaining fiscally conservative. Problem is, if the Republicans become more socially progressive, they risk losing their voter base in the midwest, which eats up social conservative policies.

Meanwhile, democrats can play the trump card, which is essentially "vote for us, because we'll give you stuff. Don't vote for them, because they'll take stuff you already depend on (but were never entitled to) away."

Long term policy for the republicans, and I'm only half joking, would be to institute some form of incentive system for massive population growth in the midwest. This would result in long term restructuring of electoral college votes away from the coast to the heartland, making it easier for republicans to win based on their current platform. Plus everyone would be happy because they would scrumping so much. Problem with that plan, however, is that we may not have an "America" to speak of in 30+ years.

FWIW, I'm independent with strong leanings towards the libertarian party. I like my government small and my freedom unburdened.

Except, the Republicans have NEVER been "fiscally conservative." Claiming that you are something doesn't make you automatically so. They are for big government in both fiscal and WAY MORE socially. Vaginal probes, pro rape, etc.

 

[Northern Lawn]

If you consider those comments "shooting himself in the foot", then you never were in the "Ron Paul camp". He's held those positions forever.

If someone.. talks sense, talks sense, talks sense... THEN tells everyone he believes in Bigfoot. You gotta wonder about the guy. Does he seriously think that's a wise thing to say to become president? Can't he keep anything to himself plus, it's freaking retarded. You HAVE to have a standing army. You have to have income tax and what else?

 

[buckshot24]

First off: Your opinions -- and, very likely, you -- are completely asinine, childish, and have no basis in reality. Having said that, it begs another, somewhat similar, interesting question:

Well I guess that settles it. cootermaster says I'm asinine.:'(

Let's say things really do get worse, and the country has a choice (it obviously won't be this simple):

1). Raise taxes, the rich get poorer, the military shrinks, more schools, work programs etc

or

2). People starve in the streets. Mass deportations. Schools crumble, etc.

What I'm saying is the debt isn't "real" yet to most people. The effects of the debt could be attributed to other things until it becomes obvious to more people.

 

[nehalem256]

The republican party needs to define conservatism. It has nothing to do with gay marriage and prayer in schools. Being a Conservative means seeking to limit the size and scope of the federal government. That's all it is. They cannot frame that properly, and as a result we all continue to get crushed by the jackboot of giant unaccountable corporations pulling more and more levers of power to continually enrich the already rich. That's all its about. The side issues are a distraction. The media pushes the side issues because it is owned by the aforementioned jackbooted corporate monstrosity. A monstrosity which has so many tentacles in government that it is the de facto government. That's what fascism means. Death by lobbyist. And the dumbed down masses eat it up.

The Republican Party failed to frame any kind of message in 2012.

And on top of that ran a candidate who was not personally likable.

If you lack a message and a candidate with charisma that is a recipe for electoral failure.

 

[shadow9d9]

1. Find a candidate that independent voters can get excited about. This election is the same as 2004 when the Dems were handed the white house... but they picked one of the most liberal members of congress to run. The GOP picked Romney this go around.... from a field of candidates who all would have had a tough time appealing to independents. The election should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. He couldn't even carry the state where he was governor.

2. Don't speak so openly about welfare reform and cutting entitlements. People are disconnected from the fact that the money is just not there.... but will have no talk of getting their entitlements cut.

Give me a break. Democrats are not liberal. They are a middle/right party. To claim any of them are the most "liberal" is preposterous.

 

[Jadow]

what ticks me off is people who say the right needs to be more like democrats in order to get the latino / black vote.

If we just behave more like dems, what's the point of being a different party?

I don't know what the answer is, we are fighting a demographic tide of people who want as much free shlt as possible and don't want to pay for it. Maybe we just need to get on the bandwagon and let the country burn, when there eventually isn't enough wealthy people to pay off the horde. ala Greece.

 

[Jaskalas]

The GOP should reach out to Latino voters plain and simple. Bush won because he grabbed about 60% of the latino vote.

Amnesty! We can do it better than Dems? 😕

 

[Mursilis]

The Republican Party failed to frame any kind of message in 2012.

And on top of that ran a candidate who was not personally likable.

If you lack a message and a candidate with charisma that is a recipe for electoral failure.

QFT.

 

[quest55720]

what ticks me off is people who say the right needs to be more like democrats in order to get the latino / black vote.

If we just behave more like dems, what's the point of being a different party?

I don't know what the answer is, we are fighting a demographic tide of people who want as much free shlt as possible and don't want to pay for it. Maybe we just need to get on the bandwagon and let the country burn, when there eventually isn't enough wealthy people to pay off the horde. ala Greece.

No they do not. They just have to be truly small government not big spenders like the current GOP. The difference between the DEM and GOP right now is what they want to spend on. Neither are willing to make real spending cuts.

The far right social conservatives cost the GOP the election. You have idiot GOP candidates with their legit rape comments. The crazy social conservatives pushing Romney so far right on social issues he had no chance.

Instead of learning their lesson I am sure the GOP will put up a even more socially right candidate next time around and I will vote libertarian again.

 

[lupi]

This would be the farthest thing from a referendum. The vote result is to maintain the status quo. This after knowing that the last budget only got passed with a poison pill because both sides thought there would be a big change come the next election. Unless both sides somehow decide on a mutual "our bad" and scrape that language, its going to be aa lot of ugly coming.

 

[Pens1566]

They already started discussing it as soon as Karl Rove kinda gave up his "Ohio isn't finished" rant last night. Not conservative enough. Need moar crazy. I for one will enjoy watching that philosophy blow up in their faces for the next few election cycles.