tk421;1314658 wrote:wanting smaller government and voting for Democrats is like a gun owner voting for Democrats. It just doesn't compute.

gut;1314661 wrote:It's Rubio in 2016. No one else has a chance.

Find a way to change the culture of the electorate, otherwise to be relevant the Repubs are going to have to sell their own brand of socialism. Capitalism, self-reliance and individualism are dead.

gut;1314650 wrote:This election is about socialism and govt dependence. People want to be like Europe. I really think everything else is noise - the changing demographics are such that they think the European model works. How do you combat that with the media and our universities mostly in the bag for it? You can't, we will have to go down that path and fail for ourselves.

derek bomar;1314663 wrote:it's because Mitt Romney is Barrack Obama, he's just more black (bigger family - h/t Chris Rock). If you want small gov't but have two big gov't candidates, why not go for the one who is at least socially accepting of all people (Obama)? If the Rs would have nominated an actual small gov't candidate, maybe things would have been different

derek bomar;1314666 wrote:Chris Christie?

Cleveland Buck;1314654 wrote:In exit polls a large majority, I think around 60% believed the government does too much and wanted smaller government. Many of them voted for Obama.

gut;1314661 wrote:It's Rubio in 2016. No one else has a chance.

Find a way to change the culture of the electorate, otherwise to be relevant the Repubs are going to have to sell their own brand of socialism. Capitalism, self-reliance and individualism are dead.

se-alum;1314662 wrote:Mitt within 1 point now in Ohio.

ts1227;1314671 wrote:If he runs with a more level headed attitude as he has with this Sandy thing, he'll do great. Very straightforward, but not sticking his foot in his mouth like he has done in the past.

gut;1314675 wrote:He's toast, unless he switches parties. Right or wrong, he's going to be blamed (between the RNC speech and Sandy). And unless he pegs Jenny Craig as his VP that's another factor working against him.

tk421;1314673 wrote:So, what other GOP candidate would have won this election?

QuakerOats;1314674 wrote:And Romney now back on top in FL by 35,000

Ty Webb;1314676 wrote:Obama winning 55-44 in Hamilton County per MSNBC

tk421;1314673 wrote:So, what other GOP candidate would have won this election?

tk421;1314685 wrote:more of the same, no budgets passed, Democrats screaming about the House not working with them when the Senate won't do anything, etc. etc.

derek bomar;1314686 wrote:side bar - why didn't we have to show ID at the polls in Ohio to vote?

believer;1314683 wrote: The "bright" side is Obama is an automatic lame duck with Benghazi looming large. He still faces a Repub House and a a Reid Senate.

gut;1314689 wrote:Romney was absolutely the right candidate for an election on the economy. If he wasn't rich, he was about perfect. No one else - Repub, Libertarian, Green or Fruity, carried the qualification, expertise or track record. He made the case, and did it quite well.

The campaign honestly went about as well for the Repubs as could have been expected. Romney had a good run, but he couldn't overcome the shifting demographics or the tanking media. And I don't see anyone out there (other than maybe Rubio, but this was too soon) that could have done better.

The Repubs better shift their sights to a latino and/or woman candidate in 2016.