This election was laid out on a silver platter for the GOP yet they blew it. What can the GOP do to secure the Presidency in future elections?

The first thing is drop the religious right. Any other ideas to improve the standing of the GOP?

Zombaypirate;1315434 wrote:This election was laid out on a silver platter for the GOP yet they blew it. What can the GOP do to secure the Presidency in future elections?

The first thing is drop the religious right. Any other ideas to improve the standing of the GOP?

That's really all they need to do.

They need to recognize that the demographics of the country are moving away from their base constituencies. Groups that they have allowed to belong to the other side will be a must to reach in the future (hispanics in particular).

With no significant change, the Democrats are in far better shape down the road.

Reagan is the only guy, I think, in the past 100 years to beat an incumbent of a party not in control for more than 8 years. Pretty lousy sample size, but it distinguishes between Bush Sr. and Obama.

I thought a trained circus monkey should have been able to beat Obama, but apparently he would have been dead in the water if he can't explain his policies in excruciating detail.

But it begs the question why, if we rarely fire an incumbent, we even bother to have an election every 4 years. Real leaders would be unaffected by the politics of re-election, but politicians are not.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi not only get re-elected, they are LEADERS of that party. Liberals are fucking stupid, and Amerika becomes more liberal every day.

In a way the party should be thanking the Tea Party because their efforts in 2010 were all that saved this country from total Democrat party rule.

They won so many state governments in 2010 (a census year) that they were able to Gerrymander the hell out of much of the electorate and guarantee a Republican house of Reps for at least the next decade guaranteed. Last night saw almost no House turnover in the face of the President almost running the table in the swing states and the Dems way over performing in Senate races. That means the 2010 redistricting was wildly successful for Republicans and has created a major buffer against being over-run by Democrats anyime soon.

That buys the party breathing room to get its act together without fear of losing total control of the government. For the forseeable future, the Presidency and the Senate is the best the Democrats will be able to do.

The ever-upbeat Ms. Malkin had some good stuff yesterday. http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/07/20-things-that-went-right-on-election-day/

Most interesting to me was that the GOP regained total control of the WI state gubmint.

It's not all about the Presidency...and while the Pubs need some soul searching on the national level, It's not exactly time for mass hysteria or anything.

The Senate is the most depressing. Putting Akin and Murdouck aside, many decent Republican candidates in swing states lost to pretty hard-core leftists who voted for Obamacare. I agree the House is the proverbial firewall, but we'll see if they stand up for anything or continue to be afraid of their own shadows.

gut;1315605 wrote:Reagan is the only guy, I think, in the past 100 years to beat an incumbent of a party not in control for more than 8 years. Pretty lousy sample size, but it distinguishes between Bush Sr. and Obama.

.

Read my lips, Bush Sr. was fired after one term.

Footwedge;1315715 wrote:Read my lips, Bush Sr. was fired after one term.

Read my lips, Reagan was the only republican to unseat an incumbent democrat. That is what he was saying.

The first thing to do is maintain your core principles and values. Never surrender your most basic beliefs just to buy votes. Beyond that, we need to do a better job of educating the masses on how economics works and tie the teachings to specific real-life examples. Further, educate the masses on how the appointment by a president of radicals to powerful bureaucratic agencies can have major implications on their job security and economic growth, again with specific examples of its negative impacts. Most manufacturers and energy producers have to live with these largely illogical and now highly leftist agencies that have the power to run carte blanche over their businesses. This, perhaps even more than onerous taxation, is among the 3 primary reasons why capital is sent overseas. Lastly educate the masses on capital formation, how government policy directly affects capital investment, and how capital will always flow to where it is treated best.

And oh yeah, hand out free cell phones to those who will listen.

QuakerOats;1315806 wrote:The first thing to do is maintain your core principles and values. Never surrender your most basic beliefs just to buy votes.

Too late.

The GOP needs to go back to being truly small government/fiscally conservative.

QuakerOats;1315799 wrote:Read my lips, Reagan was the only republican to unseat an incumbent democrat. That is what he was saying.

QuakerOats;1315806 wrote:The first thing to do is maintain your core principles and values. Never surrender your most basic beliefs just to buy votes. Beyond that, we need to do a better job of educating the masses on how economics works and tie the teachings to specific real-life examples. Further, educate the masses on how the appointment by a president of radicals to powerful bureaucratic agencies can have major implications on their job security and economic growth, again with specific examples of its negative impacts. Most manufacturers and energy producers have to live with these largely illogical and now highly leftist agencies that have the power to run carte blanche over their businesses. This, perhaps even more than onerous taxation, is among the 3 primary reasons why capital is sent overseas. Lastly educate the masses on capital formation, how government policy directly affects capital investment, and how capital will always flow to where it is treated best.

And oh yeah, hand out free cell phones to those who will listen.

"the masses" "the masses" lol, the frame of mind that will keep the Republican Party a diminishing minority. keep it up.

QuakerOats;1315799 wrote:Read my lips, Reagan was the only republican to unseat an incumbent democrat. That is what he was saying.

Only reason he won was because of the failed hostage rescue mission.

QuakerOats;1315799 wrote:Read my lips, Reagan was the only republican to unseat an incumbent democrat. That is what he was saying.

I should have said Carter is the only instance (the past 100 years or so) of a party losing the WH after just 4 years. Bush Sr was 12 years since he followed Reagan. Otherwise I haven't bothered to verify the veracity of the claim.

Might be the case for a single 6-8yr term and just eliminate the silly business and concerns of re-election.

The masses lol

justincredible;1315815 wrote:Too late.

The GOP needs to go back to being truly small government/fiscally conservative.

True, which is why Tea Party conservatives won handily in '10, and why new ones like Cruz in Texas won a Senate seat and why Bachman in Minnesota won again even in a liberal state like Minn.

Bigdogg;1315819 wrote:Only reason he won was because of the failed hostage rescue mission.

Yeah, double digit unemployment and inflation, plus 21% prime interest rates had nothing to do with it.

Got any more zingers today?

justincredible;1315815 wrote:Too late.

The GOP needs to go back to being truly small government/fiscally conservative.

It's an interesting theory. I'm not sure Romney would have won running as more fiscally conservative. I think as it was it could be argued he lost the margin on Obamakare (only about half the people are against that), SS/Medicare reform, and the fact other cuts make people nervous about their gubmit checks. Certainly people who would support a fiscal conservative would have, under virtually no circumstance, voted for Obama. So it would be a question of people who stayed home because Gary Johnson only got @ 1%.

We could debate all day on why Romney got less votes than McCain. But I tend to think when the average voter appears to believe the solution to the deficit problem is just to raise taxes on the rich that there's no way a truly fiscal conservative wins a general election. Like it or not, the reality of the electorate today is the blank-check socialism of the liberals vs. some degree of more restrained socialism under the Repubs.

QuakerOats;1315822 wrote:True, which is why Tea Party conservatives won handily in '10, and why new ones like Cruz in Texas won a Senate seat and why Bachman in Minnesota won again even in a liberal state like Minn.

You can pick-up some districts, even a few states but that really doesn't tell me anything about the viability in a national general election.

I'd be interested to see the stats because I'd be shocked if Tea Party voters didn't choose Romney 99 out of 100 times.

jhay78;1315710 wrote:The Senate is the most depressing. Putting Akin and Murdouck aside, many decent Republican candidates in swing states lost to pretty hard-core leftists who voted for Obamacare. I agree the House is the proverbial firewall, but we'll see if they stand up for anything or continue to be afraid of their own shadows.

Josh Mandel wasn't exactly a home run either.

The Pubs really need to do a better job vetting some of these Senate candidates. Between 2010/2012, There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be sitting on a 53-47 majority right now.

fish82;1315868 wrote: The Pubs really need to do a better job vetting some of these Senate candidates. Between 2010/2012, There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be sitting on a 53-47 majority right now.

But what's the test or qualification to call yourself a Republican? I guess the solution is if you don't like who is winning the primaries, then register as a Republican. I'm not sure of all the rules, but I'm pretty sure independents can vote in primaries in at least some states.

I still think Ron Paul takes this election against Obama. He'd get the obligatory "I will vote for Ron because he has an R next to his name" which is probably like 80% of Republican voters. And he'd nab basically all the independents since they are tired of the supposed two party system and like Paul's consistency and outsider advantage. He would also grab a big chunk of Democrats who want someone with socially liberal agendas and are tired of the worst POTUS in history.

But no, we went with Mitt and he lost.

The "funny looking man that wants to go back to the gold standard" would have done horrible with independents. And look at his brilliant economic plan that a talk show host and a dentist came up with! LMAO you can't make this shit up.