mucalum49;1315115 wrote:But pick your battle Con, fiscal conservatism which I truly believe the majority of America is in or social conservatism which I no longer believe the majority of America fits in. I'm not saying move left of center but show some effort in moving towards the middle like Gov. Romney did at the end. And there in lies the problem, he was labeled a flip-flopper by the Dems because of what it took to gain Republican votes in the primary. Then he moved back to the middle for the general election but the sound bytes of him appealing to the far right were already out there...

If the GOP moves off its far right social views and realizes that this isn't the baby boomer America where everyone lives in the burbs, has 2.1 children and all sits around as a family at night for dinner then they'd be better off. Am I saying socially we're moving in the right direction, not entirely. But if we want any chance at maintaining a free market economy then the social issues that stigmatize the party with younger voters, single women and independents, have to change.

Reps. This couldn't have been more spot on. I just had this exact conversation with someone.

WebFire;1315048 wrote:You actually believe what you are typing? That is exactly what the non-partisans (or independents, 3rd parties) are trying to do. But the D and R won't have it. Instead we are given puppets that had the money behind them to get them on stage.

You really think we can do what you suggested with our current system?

I do not see where you think a 3rd party is the solution. Where is it working? They become career politicians focused on re-election just like the Dems and Repubs you are railing against.

And under no circumstances is throwing your vote away holding people accountable. You guys keep saying that and it's absolutely ridiculous. The Libertarian party really needs to re-think how it can have an actual impact. Funny thing is, if they were able to actually accomplish anything thru compromise and coalitions in Congress, they'd probably alienate their base in the process (small as it is).

mucalum49;1315115 wrote:But pick your battle Con, fiscal conservatism which I truly believe the majority of America is in or social conservatism which I no longer believe the majority of America fits in. I'm not saying move left of center but show some effort in moving towards the middle like Gov. Romney did at the end. And there in lies the problem, he was labeled a flip-flopper by the Dems because of what it took to gain Republican votes in the primary. Then he moved back to the middle for the general election but the sound bytes of him appealing to the far right were already out there...

If the GOP moves off its far right social views and realizes that this isn't the baby boomer America where everyone lives in the burbs, has 2.1 children and all sits around as a family at night for dinner then they'd be better off. Am I saying socially we're moving in the right direction, not entirely. But if we want any chance at maintaining a free market economy then the social issues that stigmatize the party with younger voters, single women and independents, have to change.

I was going to post on Ernest's "why'd the Repubs lose" thread, but you made what I'd say kind of obsolete by essentially saying it better than I would have. Pure truth, in my opinion. I'd be interested in seeing a demographic chart of conservative-belief voters, as from my experiences with people I know, it seems the educated, younger professional crowd is more in line with the Paul/Johnson thought process than the "old-guard" Republican one. If that's a true national trend and not just a fluke because I know guys like Justin and O-Trap from this site, Facebook, etc., that'd be a big thing to consider going forward.

2016 is going to be all about Hillary.

Slick Willy proved to be an incredibly effective campaigner and presence in American politics still, and the thought of having him back in the White House (albeit as the first spouse) will be incredibly hard to overcome.

She will be the same age Reagan was when he was elected, so it is not without precedent.

I thought her political career was over when she lost to BHO, but it turns out that having been humbled by him did wonders for her as she is now across parties one of the most popular politicians in America as far as favorability goes.

Bill Clinton was the first call Obama made after Romney's concession last night. Many expect that now you will start seeing the ground work laid for a Clinton/Obama alliance to get Hillary elected in 4 years. Biden will be cast aside, but that was the cost for getting Bill to go all in for him.

Heretic;1315210 wrote:I was going to post on Ernest's "why'd the Repubs lose" thread, but you made what I'd say kind of obsolete by essentially saying it better than I would have. Pure truth, in my opinion. I'd be interested in seeing a demographic chart of conservative-belief voters, as from my experiences with people I know, it seems the educated, younger professional crowd is more in line with the Paul/Johnson thought process than the "old-guard" Republican one. If that's a true national trend and not just a fluke because I know guys like Justin and O-Trap from this site, Facebook, etc., that'd be a big thing to consider going forward.

Agreed. The 3rd party solution isn't going to happen...the only way things change is if the GOP establishment gets their sht together and starts moving toward the Libertarian stance on social issues.

fish82;1315233 wrote:Agreed. The 3rd party solution isn't going to happen...the only way things change is if the GOP establishment gets their sht together and starts moving toward the Libertarian stance on social issues.

I do agree with this. Also to adopt a more libertarian Defense policy. I am not saying we HAVE to go to a total non intervention stance but their has to be a decrease in defense and a more calculated approach on who and when to attack if at all.

IggyPride00;1315219 wrote:2016 is going to be all about Hillary.

Slick Willy proved to be an incredibly effective campaigner and presence in American politics still, and the thought of having him back in the White House (albeit as the first spouse) will be incredibly hard to overcome.

She will be the same age Reagan was when he was elected, so it is not without precedent.

I thought her political career was over when she lost to BHO, but it turns out that having been humbled by him did wonders for her as she is now across parties one of the most popular politicians in America as far as favorability goes.

Bill Clinton was the first call Obama made after Romney's concession last night. Many expect that now you will start seeing the ground work laid for a Clinton/Obama alliance to get Hillary elected in 4 years. Biden will be cast aside, but that was the cost for getting Bill to go all in for him.

It will be interesting. Hilary will have to testify at the Benghazi hearings, but that will probably all be swept under the rug in 4 years.

gut;1315206 wrote:I do not see where you think a 3rd party is the solution. Where is it working? They become career politicians focused on re-election just like the Dems and Repubs you are railing against.

And under no circumstances is throwing your vote away holding people accountable. You guys keep saying that and it's absolutely ridiculous. The Libertarian party really needs to re-think how it can have an actual impact. Funny thing is, if they were able to actually accomplish anything thru compromise and coalitions in Congress, they'd probably alienate their base in the process (small as it is).

Read my lips: I think the party system is failing us. No number in that sentence if you notice. The 2 party system as it stand today is failing us, and it goes way beyond election day. Just look what happens in the House and Senate. I don't like any parties. I think there needs to be something else. I just don't know what it is yet.

se-alum;1315263 wrote:It will be interesting. Hilary will have to testify at the Benghazi hearings, but that will probably all be swept under the rug in 4 years.

Benghazi has proved to be a dud for the most part. It isn't going to be an issue 4 years from now.

If Hillary and Bill decide they want to be back in the White House, it is going to take a Herculian effort to stop them as they will have unreal fundraising power, the Obama machine, and the nostalgia for having the Clintons back in the White House at their back.

If Bill Clinton could have run yesterday he would have won by 20 points over Obama and Romney.

Just like last year, they will clear the field for Hillary so that she can spend 2 years after 2014 campaigning as a moderate while the Rubios/Jindals/Perry's of the world have to kill each other trying to "out conservative" the other trying to get the nomination. That period was crucial to Obama winning this time.

Not to mention, and this is the big one, Hillary and the Obama machine will be able to leverage the Democrat party strength with women into a crusade to get the first woman elected to the Presidency.

Forces were split in 08 between a first woman, or a first minority. Now that one has been accomplished, there will be total unity this time around.

It is still early, but I think it is going to be awful hard for Hillary to pass on running when it seems all laid out so well for her right now. She can take the next 2 years off to re-charge the batteries, and then hit the campaign trail to start accumulating a war chest the likes of which we haven't seen.

WebFire;1315264 wrote:Read my lips: I think the party system is failing us. No number in that sentence if you notice. The 2 party system as it stand today is failing us, and it goes way beyond election day. Just look what happens in the House and Senate. I don't like any parties. I think there needs to be something else. I just don't know what it is yet.

I CAN'T SEE YOUR LIPS THROUGH COMPUTER SCREENS!!!!!!

IggyPride00;1315273 wrote: It is still early, but I think it is going to be awful hard for Hillary to pass on running when it seems all laid out so well for her right now. She can take the next 2 years off to re-charge the batteries, and then hit the campaign trail to start accumulating a war chest the likes of which we haven't seen.

You are probably correct. Unless the next 4 years are like the last 4 and then I think you see a repeat of 2008 where a Dem has virtually no chance of winning. Although the demographics and culture are changing, so that may not be a slam dunk.

in 2016 after our President's policies have created the Pax Obama world wide, the continuing prosperity will produce a landslide victory for the Democratic party and our new President Hillary Clinton.

WebFire;1315264 wrote:Read my lips: I think the party system is failing us. No number in that sentence if you notice. The 2 party system as it stand today is failing us, and it goes way beyond election day. Just look what happens in the House and Senate. I don't like any parties. I think there needs to be something else. I just don't know what it is yet.

Your reps are failing you. It's not a flaw in the two-party system. Representatives who advocate the will of the majority of their constituents get re-elected. Your issue is not with the 2-party system but with the direction/culture of this country. It's all fine and dandy to want reps that will make the tough decisions, but they will never get elected, much less re-elected, in the first place.

Look at the riots in Greece and Italy - look at what happens when you start to take away from the takers. You cannot and will not change policy in Washington until you change the ideology of the electorate.

isadore;1315356 wrote:in 2016 after our President's policies have created the Pax Obama world wide, the continuing prosperity will produce a landslide victory for the Democratic party and our new President Hillary Clinton.

You know drugs are still illegal in most states, right?

ccrunner609;1315409 wrote:Hillary wont be president......the dems are gonna trash this country. Her taking blame for Lybia will be tough. Clintons have baggage that is too heavy to carry

4 years is forever and the Clintons are popular.

isadore;1315485 wrote:4 years is forever and the Clintons are popular.

Indeed. 4 years is forever and Obama is incompetent.

gut;1315612 wrote:Indeed. 4 years is forever and Obama is incompetent.

according to the majority of American voters in the greatest representative democracy in the world our African American President is competent, even though a minority of losers disagree.

fish82;1315233 wrote:the only way things change is if the GOP establishment gets their sht together and starts moving toward the Libertarian stance on social issues.

The GOP establishment panics every time a perceived social conservative runs for national office. They ring their hands in fear that it will drive off social liberals in the general election. The GOP held a primary. The candidate of choice of social conservatives and the religious right (Rick Santorum) lost. The candidate of choice of the GOP establishment won. The establishment fell all over themselves to embrace Willard. The moderate palatable republican.

Now that the presidential election is lost social conservatives and the religious right still get blamed for it even though their candidate of choice lost handily in the primary election. Yet the vast majority of them still voted for the establishment's chosen candidate. SMH.

isadore;1315619 wrote:according to the majority of American voters in the greatest representative democracy in the world our African American President is competent, even though a minority of losers disagree.

I think the majority of smart people would disagree with you. Fortunately for Obama the average person is stupid and the Dems are good at turning them out.

Just remember when your socialist utopia fails, we told you so. It's completely un-ironic that poor people continue to be poor because of consistently stupid decisions.

gut;1315623 wrote:I think the majority of smart people would disagree with you. Fortunately for Obama the average person is stupid and the Dems are good at turning them out.

Just remember when your socialist utopia fails, we told you so. It's completely un-ironic that poor people continue to be poor because of consistently stupid decisions.

gosh a ruddies we smart people knew our candidate, our first African American President, was going to win. The less smart, a euphemism for stupid, people thought their candidate Mitt Romney would win, you were wrong. Gosh it was a stupid decision to support him, a loser.

isadore;1315630 wrote:gosh a ruddies we smart people knew our candidate, our first African American President, was going to win. The less smart, a euphemism for stupid, people thought their candidate Mitt Romney would win, you were wrong. Gosh it was a stupid decision to support him, a loser.

Unlike you, I vote for the best candidate. I feel no compulsion to back a fool just to say I picked the winner. I was really struck last night by the wild enthusiasm for Obama. You would think they just elected 2008 Obama and the last 4 years never happened. In Vegas such people doubling down on a loser are referrred to as "suckers".

majorspark;1315621 wrote:The GOP establishment panics every time a perceived social conservative runs for national office. They ring their hands in fear that it will drive off social liberals in the general election. The GOP held a primary. The candidate of choice of social conservatives and the religious right (Rick Santorum) lost. The candidate of choice of the GOP establishment won. The establishment fell all over themselves to embrace Willard. The moderate palatable republican.

Now that the presidential election is lost social conservatives and the religious right still get blamed for it even though their candidate of choice lost handily in the primary election. Yet the vast majority of them still voted for the establishment's chosen candidate. SMH.

Gosh a ruddies those social conservatives did so well. Todd Akins and Richard Murdock both got beat in very red states. Thank you for building up the Democratic majority in the Senate. Michelle Bachman was barely reelected. Paul Ryan did noting for the Republican ticket, could not even help carry his home state. The fastest route to a permanent Democratic majority, keep trotting out those social conservatives, please.

gut;1315632 wrote:Unlike you, I vote for the best candidate. I feel no compulsion to back a fool just to say I picked the winner. I was really struck last night by the wild enthusiasm for Obama. You would think they just elected 2008 Obama and the last 4 years never happened. In Vegas such people doubling down on a loser are referrred to as "suckers".

Gosh a ruddies what did great candidates did the Republican party generate in 2012 Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. Now that is a pathetic group. The Democrats have produced a quality leader of proven competence who was returned to office by a majority of American voters. Losers are what we call the people that lose elections.

isadore;1315637 wrote:Gosh a ruddies what did great candidates did the Republican party generate in 2012 Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. Now that is a pathetic group. The Democrats have produced a quality leader of proven competence who was returned to office by a majority of American voters. Losers are what we call the people that lose elections.

So Gore and Kerry are losers? Well we agree on something then.

sleeper;1315639 wrote:So Gore and Kerry are losers? Well we agree on something then.

gosh a ruddies, kerry was a loser, gore had the most people voting for him. he got cheated.