PDA

View Full Version : Does the GOP have to change?


Vis
11-09-2012, 11:30 AM
If so, how?

tony hipchest
11-09-2012, 11:49 AM
they should allow rush limbaugh be their most popular national spokesman and champion of their platform and beliefs.

oh, thats already the case?

in that case maybe they can figure out more forcible measures to take preventing single women, young people, latinos, and gays from voting. :hunch:

Fire Arians
11-09-2012, 12:58 PM
fox news either needs to be taken off air, or all the chicken little anchors need to be replaced. no the sky wasn't falling 12 years ago, and it isn't now. they are constantly trying to scare the american public with bullshit, when will it end?

i personally can't watch more than 5 minutes of it, I don't know how anyone else can either.

Atlanta Dan
11-09-2012, 01:48 PM
The base will not change - how to go forward without the base will be tricky

I was driving back to the office around noon and was listening to right wing talk radio in Atlanta for schadenfreude - let's just say there is not a lot of soul searching going on

Neal Boortz ended his show today by not just articulating the usual talking points about cut spending/lower taxes but kept referring to Obama as "Dear Leader" - for those keeping score at home that is the term by which the head of North Korea is described

After 12 noon El Rushbo appeared - after opening his show by mocking Boehner's comment yesterday that the GOP needs to reach out to all Americans and that the GOP position on immigration needs to evolve (which I heard as a shot by Rush at dangerous leftist Sean Hannity), Rush said he had an idea how to do outreach to Latinos and then cued up Jose Feliciano singing Feliz Navidad.

Since 1968 the GOP electoral stategy was based upon outreach to white men - the numbers for that strategy are not going to work anymore, especially when you kiss off New York and California every election cycle.

Atlanta Dan
11-09-2012, 01:54 PM
fox news either needs to be taken off air, or all the chicken little anchors need to be replaced. no the sky wasn't falling 12 years ago, and it isn't now. they are constantly trying to scare the american public with bullshit, when will it end?

i personally can't watch more than 5 minutes of it, I don't know how anyone else can either.

There still are some smart folks over there - Shep Smith is sane and Megyn Kelly was fairly disdainful of Karl Rove's contentions Tuesday night that Ohio was too close to call as well his follow-up that Obama had engaged in "voter suppression" by running a negative campaign against Romney.

SsqYFNsP2U8&feature=player_detailpage

OTOH Sean Hannity needs to go.

From a $$$ standpoint the question is whether Fox's ratings will tank if it becomes more based in reality

silver & black
11-09-2012, 02:16 PM
MSNBC is no better than Fox.... just the other side of the coin.

Atlanta Dan
11-09-2012, 02:43 PM
MSNBC is no better than Fox.... just the other side of the coin.

True that but Fox has a lot more control over driving the GOP agenda than MSNBC does over the Dems

Nobody on the MSNBC desk was on the phone with Obama HQ Tuesday night and being asked to hold off calling states like the situation where the Romney camapign and Rove agreed Rove would go on camera and say it was too early to call Ohio

Fire Arians
11-09-2012, 02:57 PM
There still are some smart folks over there - Shep Smith is sane and Megyn Kelly was fairly disdainful of Karl Rove's contentions Tuesday night that Ohio was too close to call as well his follow-up that Obama had engaged in "voter suppression" by running a negative campaign against Romney.

SsqYFNsP2U8&feature=player_detailpage

OTOH Sean Hannity needs to go.

From a $$$ standpoint the question is whether Fox's ratings will tank if it becomes more based in reality

I agree, not all of them are bad, but they need to get rid of those guys like o'reily, i honestly think he's only there for the 'wtf?' factor

Vis
11-09-2012, 03:33 PM
I'm watching the finder pointing and second guessing. The social conservatives are claining they would have won if Romney would have concentrated on anti-abortion and anti gay marriage messages. the fiscal conservative and libertarian side is saying they would have won if Romney would have moderated his social message on marriage said governent shouldn't care.

Will the GOP split along those lines or will they try to keep those different bases together again in 2016?

Atlanta Dan
11-09-2012, 05:01 PM
I'm watching the finder pointing and second guessing. The social conservatives are claining they would have won if Romney would have concentrated on anti-abortion and anti gay marriage messages. the fiscal conservative and libertarian side is saying they would have won if Romney would have moderated his social message on marriage said governent shouldn't care.

Will the GOP split along those lines or will they try to keep those different bases together again in 2016?

The current taking point is the "deep bench" of young non-Anglo GOP talent such as Marco Rubio will cure any problems with the Latino vote - I guess the theory is that old white voters who will not be pleased with a GOP shift on immigration are not going to vote for Hillary in 2016 under any circumstances

I am for anything that avoids the rest of us being dependent on Florida needing to run a competent statewide election

Vis
11-09-2012, 05:11 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/552381_4419138669951_955262954_n.jpg

cubanstogie
11-09-2012, 08:09 PM
I agree, not all of them are bad, but they need to get rid of those guys like o'reily, i honestly think he's only there for the 'wtf?' factor

I watch O'reilly 3 times a week or so. Must be doing something right he pretty much doubles the viewers of all other networks shows in the same time slot. I guess another option would be watch Chris Matthews slobber, lisp and blow Obama for an hour. I see things on Oreilly I would never hear on another show. I admit he can be a self righteous arse sometimes but he holds judges acountable. He is the only guy I know who stays on these idiot judges who give probation to pedophiles or lets 2 time offenders of for minimum sentences. Its all about perspective I think, If you believe in gay marriage, legalizing drugs, abortion, and socialism then Oreilly would probably not be enjoyable to watch.

cubanstogie
11-09-2012, 08:20 PM
If so, how?

they do if they want to win future elections. Although people are so mesmerized by Obama I don't see a future candidate being as hard to beat. The problem is they are going to have to pick and choose their battles. I have no idea how to get the black vote probably not possible. Hispanic vote could be doable but Romney screwed that up with his comments about self policing or whatever he said. Woman vote could be had, married women actually vote republican , so if you had a republican who could bend on social issues like abortion the single woman might be swayed. I don't know how they compromise on taxes though, two total different philosophies. When taxing the rich doesn't touch the deficit even if they taxed them 100 percent yet they do it anyway there seems to be a problem. It appears more like a penalty for making a lot of money. The wealthy for the most part are job creators, you can't have jobs without the creators. I don't see the GOP changing their philosophy on that.

SteelCityMom
11-10-2012, 07:06 AM
they do if they want to win future elections. Although people are so mesmerized by Obama I don't see a future candidate being as hard to beat. The problem is they are going to have to pick and choose their battles. I have no idea how to get the black vote probably not possible. Hispanic vote could be doable but Romney screwed that up with his comments about self policing or whatever he said. Woman vote could be had, married women actually vote republican , so if you had a republican who could bend on social issues like abortion the single woman might be swayed. I don't know how they compromise on taxes though, two total different philosophies. When taxing the rich doesn't touch the deficit even if they taxed them 100 percent yet they do it anyway there seems to be a problem. It appears more like a penalty for making a lot of money. The wealthy for the most part are job creators, you can't have jobs without the creators. I don't see the GOP changing their philosophy on that.

What would probably work better would be for the GOP to quit grandstanding on social issues (on a national level), and leave those issues, such as abortion and drug legalization, to the states. They should stay out of gay marriage completely...in fact, the entire government should just stay out of marriage all together and leave it to the churches. All the government needs to do is honor contracts. Simple.

If the GOP, and its loudest, most evangelical voting bloc, would just realize that this isn't the 1950's anymore, and somehow get it through their heads that not everyone who voted Democrat is a welfare baby, then maybe they can make some progress. At this moment, they are archaic and broken. And I'm pretty sure they pick mainstream candidates by getting drunk and playing pin the tail on the douchebag.

Vis
11-10-2012, 07:27 AM
Exit Polls Show Republicans Hurt By Things That Make Them Look Like Dickheads
November 9, 2012
By Eric Hetvile



2012 Presidential exit polls across the United States convincingly show that the country overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in large part due to their vocal positions which make them look like dickheads.

From unbending positions on abortions for rape and incest, to forced trans-vaginal sonograms, generally insensitive talk about rape, blatant denial of rights for gay citizens, denigration of the poor and needy, complete disregard for science, marginalization of women, thinly veiled racist talk, and their constant stream of lies about pretty much everything – Americans cited these as a pretty good reasons to vote against Republicans.




“Yeah, I kind of don’t like when people are dickheads. I don’t really like dickheads representing me. I like people who are not dickheads,” said Richard Crane, N.M.

“These have usually been good issues for us. People used to like this crazy shit we’d say, ” said Todd Akin. “I mean, ‘legitimate rape’ was my nickname in college, for God’s sake. What has gotten into people?”

“Trans-vaginal sonograms? I thought this was gold! I used to bring them on dates” added a Virginia Republican operative who chose to remain anonymous.

“Rapes by God’s will has pretty much been my go-to thing, ” interjected Richard Mourdock. “People are very sensitive all of a sudden. I think this must have started since we started letting women vote. Boy, that was a mistake.”

This reporter abruptly halted the interviews for the Republicans’ own good.

ricardisimo
11-10-2012, 09:21 AM
http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-whitehot-sphere-of-p,30284/

Vincent
11-10-2012, 12:06 PM
In my lifetime, when the GOP fielded a conservative they won. When they fielded a moderate they lost. It isn't a mystery. The possible exception would be Nixon, and it can be argued whether he was or wasn't a conservative, and to what degree. Dutch was the template. Bush II, albeit a "compassionate conservative" whatever that means, was a lesser example. Ford, Bush I (he was elected on Dutch's legacy and wasn't reelected because he is really a liberal), Bobdole, Crazy John, and now Romney are the template for the GOP to avoid.

The left, intoxicated by their recent win, are predictably "counseling" the GOP to move in their direction if they want to continue to be a party. History counsels otherwise. When the GOP moves right they win because the white conservatives show up. When they move to the center, white conservatives tend to stay home. Thats a nice way of reaffirming that we are a center right country (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx).

What this election just showed us is that 7 million fewer white people showed up than in 08. Had those 7 million voted, we'd be discussing the demise of the pos (http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/09/09/satan_finally_found_his_political_partythe_democra ts) as we were the day after the 04 election.

For the Republicans to win an election, any election, they need to energize conservatives, many of whom happen to be white people. When they have done so, they have won. When they have not, they have lost. They nominated moderates in the last two cycles and got dey asses, (am I allowed to say that?) handed to them. The last thing they should do now, and that's why the pos and their shills are admonishing them to do so, it pander to the pos' clients.

There will be a little war within the Republican party now, and despite all the acrimony toward conservatism, the conservatives will wrest control or go elsewhere. If they succeed, you'll see both houses solidly in GOP control in 14, and a GOP president to boot in 16. If they fail, you will see the demise of the Republic and the reality of what your support of the pos has bought you.

08 was because white people didn't show up. They did in 10. They didn't in 12. They will in 14 and 16.

If I were counseling the GOP, I would tell them to build around Romney's "47%" comment, which was a correct observation - 53% are productive. 47% are not for reasons that include youth, old age, infirmity, and indolence. That which makes the 53% who they are needs to be cultivated. Put forth policies favorable to job growth and reduce tax pressure on business and the productive. Manage costs committed to the 47%. Simple strategery. Easy to build messages to support it. It resonates with the 53%.

Romney's problem was that he couldn't follow through on that message because he is moderate. Oh well.

Find the ticket that can carry that message and the roles of winner / loser will be reversed until the next cycle of weak mindedness.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
The Case of the Missing White Voters
By Sean Trende - November 8, 2012

One of the more intriguing narratives for election 2012 was proposed by political scientist Brendan Nyhan fairly early on: that it was "Bizarro 2004." The parallels to that year certainly were eerie: An incumbent adored by his base but with middling approval ratings nationally faces off against an uncharismatic, wishy-washy official from Massachusetts. The race is tight during the summer until the president breaks open a significant lead after his convention. Then, after a tepid first debate for the incumbent, the contest tightens, bringing the opposition tantalizingly close to a win, but not quite close enough.

The Election Day returns actually continued the similarities. George W. Bush won by 2.4 percent of the popular vote, which is probably about what Obama’s victory margin will be once all the ballots are counted. Republicans in 2004 won some surprising Senate seats, and picked up a handful of House seats as well. The GOP was cheered, claiming a broad mandate as a result of voters’ decision to ratify clear, unified Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since 1928. As Bush famously put it, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Democrats, like Republicans today, were despondent. Aside from having a president they loathed in the White House for four more years, they were terrified by what seemed to be an emerging Republican majority. John Kerry had, after all, hit all of his turnout targets, only to be swamped by the Republican re-election effort. “Values voters” was the catchphrase, and an inordinate number of keystrokes were expended trying to figure out how, as Howard Dean had memorably put it before the election, Democrats could reconnect with “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

For Republicans, that despair now comes from an electorate that seems to have undergone a sea change. In the 2008 final exit polls (unavailable online), the electorate was 75 percent white, 12.2 percent African-American, 8.4 percent Latino, with 4.5 percent distributed to other ethnicities. We’ll have to wait for this year’s absolute final exit polls to come in to know the exact estimate of the composition this time, but right now it appears to be pegged at about 72 percent white, 13 percent black, 10 percent Latino and 5 percent “other.”

Obviously, this surge in the non-white vote is troubling to Republicans, who are increasingly almost as reliant upon the white vote to win as Democrats are on the non-white vote. With the white vote decreasing as a share of the electorate over time, it becomes harder and harder for Republicans to prevail.

This supposed surge in minority voting has sparked discussions about the GOP’s renewed need to draw in minority voters, especially Latinos, usually by agreeing to comprehensive immigration reform. Continuing the “Bizarro 2004” theme, Democrats are encouraging the GOP to move leftward, just as the 2004 GOP insisted that Democrats needed to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War, adopt less liberal economics, and shift more to the right on social issues in order to win.

Setting aside completely the sometimes-considerable merits of various immigration reform measures, I think these analyses are off base. First, there are real questions about the degree to which immigration policies -- rather than deeper issues such as income and ideology -- drive the rift between the GOP and Latinos. Remember, passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 was actually followed two years later by one of the worst GOP showings among Latinos in recent history.

Moreover, the simple fact is that the Democrats aren’t going to readily let Republicans get to their left on the issue in an attempt to poach an increasing portion of the Democratic base. If the GOP embraces things such as the DREAM Act, the Democrats can always up the ante. There are plenty of other issues on which Latinos agree with the GOP, but at a bare minimum the party will have to learn to sharply change its rhetoric on immigration before it can credibly make the case for these policies.

But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.

As of this writing, Barack Obama has received a bit more than 60 million votes. Mitt Romney has received 57 million votes. Although the gap between Republicans and Democrats has closed considerably since 2008, Romney is still running about 2.5 million votes behind John McCain; the gap has closed simply because Obama is running about 9 million votes behind his 2008 totals.

Of course, there are an unknown number of ballots outstanding. If we guesstimate the total at 7 million (3 million in California, 1.5 million or so in Oregon and Washington, and another 2.5 million or so spread throughout the country), that would bring the total number of votes cast in 2012 to about 125 million: 5 million votes shy of the number cast four years ago.

With this base line, and armed with the exit-poll data, we can get a pretty good estimate of how many whites, blacks, and Latinos cast ballots in both 2008 and 2012. Assuming the 72/13/10/5 percentage split described above for 2012, that would equate to about 91.6 million votes cast by whites, 16.6 million by blacks, 12.7 million by Latinos, with the balance of 6.3 million votes spread among other groups.

Compare this with 2008, when the numbers were 98.6 million whites, 16.3 million blacks, 11 million Latinos, and 5.9 million from other groups.

In other words, if our underlying assumption -- that there are 7 million votes outstanding -- is correct, then the African-American vote only increased by about 300,000 votes, or 0.2 percent, from 2008 to 2012. The Latino vote increased by a healthier 1.7 million votes, while the “other” category increased by about 470,000 votes.

This is nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of the effect on the electorate, it is dwarfed by the decline in the number of whites. Again, if our assumption about the total number of votes cast is correct, almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. This isn’t readily explainable by demographic shifts either; although whites are declining as a share of the voting-age population, their raw numbers are not.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/chart11-8.gif

Moreover, we should have expected these populations to increase on their own, as a result of overall population growth. If we build in an estimate for the growth of the various voting-age populations over the past four years and assume 55 percent voter turnout, we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth.

Had the same number of white voters cast ballots in 2012 as did in 2008, the 2012 electorate would have been about 74 percent white, 12 percent black, and 9 percent Latino (the same result occurs if you build in expectations for population growth among all these groups). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home. The other groups increased their vote, but by less than we would have expected simply from population growth.

Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.

So who were these whites and why did they stay home? My first instinct was that they might be conservative evangelicals turned off by Romney’s Mormonism or moderate past. But the decline didn’t seem to be concentrated in Southern states with high evangelical populations.

So instead, I looked at my current home state of Ohio, which has counted almost all of its votes (absentees are counted first here). The following map shows how turnout presently stands relative to 2008. The brightest red counties met or exceeded 2008 turnout. Each gradation of lighter red represents a 1 percent drop in the percentage of votes cast from 2008. Blue counties are at less than 90 percent of the 2008 vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/image11-8.gif

We can see that the counties clustered around Columbus in the center of the state turned out in full force, as did the suburban counties near Cincinnati in the southwest. These heavily Republican counties are the growing areas of the state, filled with white-collar workers.

Where things drop off are in the rural portions of Ohio, especially in the southeast. These represent areas still hard-hit by the recession. Unemployment is high there, and the area has seen almost no growth in recent years.

My sense is these voters were unhappy with Obama. But his negative ad campaign relentlessly emphasizing Romney’s wealth and tenure at Bain Capital may have turned them off to the Republican nominee as well. The Romney campaign exacerbated this through the challenger’s failure to articulate a clear, positive agenda to address these voters’ fears, and self-inflicted wounds like the “47 percent” gaffe. Given a choice between two unpalatable options, these voters simply stayed home.

We’ll have a better sense of how this holds up when the final exit-poll data is released, and we can generate some very detailed crosstabs. And it may be that my estimate of the number of votes outstanding is low, though I think it is more likely to be high.

Of course, none of this is intended to place any sort of asterisk on Obama’s win: Some of these missing voters might well have voted for him had they opted to participate in the election. Moreover, there are still huge reservoirs of African-Americans and Latinos who don’t register and vote every election.

Elections are decided on who shows up, not on who might have shown up.

But in terms of interpreting elections, and analyzing the future, the substantial drop-off in the white vote is a significant data point. Had Latino and African-American voters turned out in massive numbers, we might really be talking about a realignment of sorts, although we would have to see if the Democrats could sustain it with someone other than Obama atop the ticket (they could not do so in 2010). As it stands, the bigger puzzle for figuring out the path of American politics is who these non-voters are, why they stayed home, and whether they might be reactivated in 2016 (by either party).

Fire Arians
11-10-2012, 12:15 PM
if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.

Vincent
11-10-2012, 12:50 PM
if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.

That is one of the take aways from the election.

MasterOfPuppets
11-10-2012, 02:01 PM
if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.
blame that on the out dated 2 party system. the entire election process is so tainted its no wonder people don't bother to vote.
"every vote counts".... really ? i seem to recall guys winning the majority and still losing...:doh:... whats the point in a a person like me , who lives in maryland , going out to vote ? i already know maryland is voting democrat , so why play the game when i know the cards are already stacked ?
why go out and vote when you have a loathing for both candidates and don't feel one will be any better than the other ?
i did go out and vote , but i didn't go out to vote for either one of those scumbags , i went out to vote hoping to put an end to this two party bullshit.
your right , people shouldn't complain who don't exercise their right to vote...
the ones who DID vote shouldn't complain either. the only ones who have a right to complain are the few who tried to put an end to the repub / demo stranglehold on this country.
http://rockettshirts.com/Images/icons/NR5/Defofinsanity_5.jpg

tony hipchest
11-10-2012, 02:29 PM
That is one of the take aways from the election.another thing to take from it is the 7 million white people you speak of is either dead or has one foot in the grave. and in 2016, when the "greatest generation" and baby boomers further drain the medicaire system, 7 million more will kick the bucket. in the meantime all their children have been procreating with blacks and hispanics. when those children are able to vote, they wont be able to claim white ethnicity.

the remainding homogeneous bunch in the back woods and deep south are either to inbred to know how to use a pencil, or too disenfranchised to even give a shit.

while i think its cute to see you blame white people, but its really all about changing demographics.

america advertizes its existance as built on the backs of immigrants. that admittedly had backfired and exploded in the face of the GOP. the party might as well continue to try and close its boarders (i can see why they desperately want to), but the "damage" has already been done.

oh, and for cubanstogie, it is false to believe all married women vote republican. get the regurgitated a million X stats straight, and nancy grace would be the 1st to pimpslap both you and oreilly for suggesting you, him, and republicans are the only ones who care about pedophiles (90% white?) being freed to prey on children again.

i find it disgusting and twisted that people even believe such nonsense. :doh:

Buddha Bus
11-10-2012, 03:19 PM
it is false to believe all married women vote republican.

My wife voted for Obama. Of course, she has a history of dubious choices at best considering she married me. :chuckle:

It's almost as ridiculous as conservatives trying to assert that women who support having their birth control covered by their insurance are wh0res and women of loose morals. Asinine. :doh:

Fire Arians
11-10-2012, 10:09 PM
blame that on the out dated 2 party system. the entire election process is so tainted its no wonder people don't bother to vote.
"every vote counts".... really ? i seem to recall guys winning the majority and still losing...:doh:... whats the point in a a person like me , who lives in maryland , going out to vote ? i already know maryland is voting democrat , so why play the game when i know the cards are already stacked ?
why go out and vote when you have a loathing for both candidates and don't feel one will be any better than the other ?
i did go out and vote , but i didn't go out to vote for either one of those scumbags , i went out to vote hoping to put an end to this two party bullshit.
your right , people shouldn't complain who don't exercise their right to vote...
the ones who DID vote shouldn't complain either. the only ones who have a right to complain are the few who tried to put an end to the repub / demo stranglehold on this country.
http://rockettshirts.com/Images/icons/NR5/Defofinsanity_5.jpg

I agree, the 2 party system is flawed, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. He had no chance of winning the presidency, but if a 3rd party manages to win even a small percentage of votes, they will become a force in the next election cycles. I was thinking my vote could make a difference 8 or 12 years down the line.

also even if your state is going to vote 1 way for president, on a state level, your vote is equal to everyone else when it comes to voting congressmen and senators who ultimately decide what gets passed and what doesn't. It could make a difference, everyone's vote does count.

Vis
11-11-2012, 08:58 PM
"It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, just don't reload the gun," Graham said, referring to Republicans declining support among Hispanics. "So I intend not to reload this gun when it comes to Hispanics. I intend to tear this wall down and pass an immigration reform bill that's an American solution to an American problem. But we have nobody to blame but ourselves when it comes to losing Hispanics. And we can get them back with some effort on our part."

Lindsey Graham


"Don't scream and yell when one person says, 'you know what, it won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.' It really won't, I don't think,"

Bill Kristol


"Listen, Speaker Boehner said it, I think, very well -- I thought he showed great leadership by saying revenues need to be on the table,"

Saxby Chambliss

Vis
11-11-2012, 09:06 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/189627_10151135425756275_1130717667_n.jpg

Atlanta Dan
11-12-2012, 08:32 AM
It is just a matter of outmarketing those hucksters from Chicago:chuckle:

This today from the home office of denial - the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal

Advice From a Lonely College Republican
The GOP is like a supermodel who's been doing photo shoots under fluorescent bulbs without any makeup.

The Chicago machine and the Democratic National Committee as a whole have perfected the art of marketing, even when they've got nothing to sell. They're like a used-car salesman who pushes lemons on unsuspecting drivers and never gets caught. Democrats can home in on Latinos, blacks, single women, young voters—and have them chanting "Four more years!" before they know what hit them...

Republicans truly are the party of a less intrusive ruling class. Frame the Republican fundamentals—tax less, spend less—as a fresh populist approach instead of Grandpa's adage, and the party is back in business.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578107410973408952.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

You betcha - let's cut taxes - that will work

Vis
11-12-2012, 03:46 PM
When Common Sense Takes a Personal Day
Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car





Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.

In an e-mail to media, Gilbert police Sergeant Jesse Sanger says the argument started in a parking lot Saturday morning over Daniel Solomon's lack of voter participation.

"According to Daniel, Holly believed her family was going to face hardship as a result of President Obama's re-election," Sanger says.

Witnesses told police that there was a lot of yelling before Holly Solomon hopped in her Jeep, and started chasing her husband around the parking lot.

Her husband tried to use a light pole to shield himself, and Solomon drove around the light pole several times as she continued to yell at him.

Eventually, her husband made a run for it, but Solomon hit him, pinning him under the car and on a curb, according to police.

Daniel Solomon's currently in critical condition at a hospital.

Holly Solomon was booked into jail on charges of domestic violence and aggravated assault, and there are no indications she was impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time, according to Sanger.

It should be noted that President Obama won a grand total of zero of Arizona's 11 electoral votes, so it wouldn't have helped if Daniel Solomon had voted for Romney 1,000 times.

SteelerEmpire
11-14-2012, 03:02 PM
If so, how?

Many, many years ago the Republican Party was supposed to go out and fashion the party to get a large percentage of the African American vote (when they were the #1 minority group)... it didn't happen.
Many, many years ago the Republican Party was supposed to go out and fashion the party to get a large percentage of the Hispanic vote (their talking about doing this again)... it didn't happen.

The Moderate Republicans will HAVE TO break association with the far right before they will be able to gain a large percentage of any of these minority groups. Those minority groups "believe" the far right has a "fundamental" disdain for them based on race. And as long as that ONE belief is there... the repubs can kiss the minorities good bye.

MasterOfPuppets
11-14-2012, 03:20 PM
My wife voted for Obama. Of course, she has a history of dubious choices at best considering she married me. :chuckle:

It's almost as ridiculous as conservatives trying to assert that women who support having their birth control covered by their insurance are wh0res and women of loose morals. Asinine. :doh:
just be glad you didn't marry the ...."right" one...:toofunny:

Police: Woman runs over husband for not voting

Police in Arizona say a Mesa woman injured her husband by running over him with an SUV because he didn't vote in last week's presidential election.
The Associated Press







GILBERT, Ariz. — Police in Arizona say a Mesa woman injured her husband by running over him with an SUV because he didn't vote in last week's presidential election.
Authorities say Holly Solomon opposed President Barack Obama and was upset her husband didn't go to the polls.
The husband told investigators Solomon believed her family was going to face hardship if Obama were re-elected.
Police say Solomon chased her husband through a Gilbert parking lot, circled him as hid behind a light pole, struck him and pinned him under the vehicle as he tried to flee.
Solomon told police she was just trying to scare him but accidentally stepped on the accelerator.
She was booked on an aggravated assault count and it wasn't clear whether she has a lawyer

tony hipchest
11-15-2012, 11:08 PM
..

Why Mitt Romney will regret blaming his loss on Obama's 'gifts' to minorities

The defeated GOP candidate faces a backlash after he points the finger at young and minority voters in the wake of his landslide defeat
Mitt Romney is taking fire from both the left and the right after telling donors on Wednesday that he lost last week's election because President Obama had showered young voters, minorities, and other key liberal constituencies with "big gifts." "With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift," Romney said on a conference call with his national finance committee. "Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women." He also said that Obama's health care reform was a "huge" gift for Latinos and blacks. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, among other GOP leaders hoping to reach out to Latinos and other groups that spurned Romney, quickly denounced Romney's comments. "We have got to stop dividing American voters," Jindal said. "We're fighting for 100 percent of the vote." Here, four reasons why critics say Romney was wrong to place the blame where he did:

1. First, he's simply incorrect
Romney's analysis is somewhere on the spectrum from "incomplete to inaccurate," says Mike Allen at Politico. "Obama didn't win Janesville, Iowa or New Hampshire because of gifts to minorities." Those places are overwhelmingly white. Indeed, says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, Obama didn't somehow buy votes by showering Americans with "free stuff." He convinced people "he actually cared about the problems they were dealing with," which "is something that Romney never seemed to be able to do." Still, it's silly to deny that Obama made several major gestures to his liberal base — from imposing a safe harbor for young illegal immigrants to "evolving" on gay marriage — during the campaign, says Allahpundit at Hot Air. So the question "isn't whether O is guilty of 'clientelism'" — "it's whether clientelism was decisive."

SEE MORE: http://news.yahoo.com/why-mitt-romney-regret-blaming-loss-obamas-gifts-110500013--election.html

2. Romney is hurting the GOP effort to broaden its appeal
It's hardly a surprise that Romney's fellow Republicans, including Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, are upset, says Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. They're obviously "ready for the Romney chapter to be over."

3. Republican constituencies get plenty of loot, too


4. This just shines a light on Romney's other failures

do i really have to dig up exactly how many romney rubbers were handed out to the athletes in the 2002 winter fuckfest in utah?

speaking of free gifts, has romneys 2 shopping carts of wal mart goods arrived to greif stricken frankenstorm sandy victims.

hows that relief aid effort, that stretches blocks across a random city in ohio, going?

i dont know if ive ever seen more of a pathetic farce (besides 8 years of that texan in the white house and an organ grinding chimp, in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier, of course.) :smile:

BrandonCarr39
12-10-2012, 05:30 PM
If so, how?

Change? Nope - the GOP and Dems have been one and the same for quite some time now. They're just merely 2 different sides of the same coin.

FYI - Roe V Wade was upheld in 1992 by GOP-appointed justices, ALL 5 of them. 3 of whom were appointed by Reagan/Bush Sr(Sandra Day O'Conner, Kennedy, and David Souter). Obamacare was upheld thanks to the "swing vote" for a Bush II appointee(John Roberts).

SteelerEmpire
12-11-2012, 12:08 AM
The GOP won't change. It's a dead idea...