Manhattan Buckeye;1320440 wrote: That was a terrible performance in the press conference and there is no indication that he's any closer to being a better executive than he has been the last 4 years. Terrible. Or per a certain ESPN reporter...Turrible.

I liked how he again harped on soaking the rich as if that is the source, and solution, of the deficit problems. I don't really even think $160B/yr ($1.6T) in tax increases on the rich is unreasonable, but the election is over and it's time to stop the bullshit rhetoric and pretend that the deficit isn't primarily a spending problem.

If Boehner is smart, he'll give Obama the $1.6T in tax increases and let the Repubs hammer Dems in 2014 for their failure to make a dent in the deficit.

gut;1320482 wrote:I liked how he again harped on soaking the rich as if that is the source, and solution, of the deficit problems. I don't really even think $160B/yr ($1.6T) in tax increases on the rich is unreasonable, but the election is over and it's time to stop the bull**** rhetoric and pretend that the deficit isn't primarily a spending problem.

If Boehner is smart, he'll give Obama the $1.6T in tax increases and let the Repubs hammer Dems in 2014 for their failure to make a dent in the deficit.

Was it me or did he (Obama) seem angry? I'm at Changhi (have to work in Sydney on Friday), but the last thing my wife mentioned to me when I left was that he seemed completely out of sorts. Talked to my mother in law in Virginia and she said the same thing. Didn't he win? Why is he so angry?

What! The repubs on the chatter being butt hurt and exaggerating? They would never do that! They've been right about everything! Oh wait a minute.......

Manhattan Buckeye;1320493 wrote:Was it me or did he (Obama) seem angry? I'm at Changhi (have to work in Sydney on Friday), but the last thing my wife mentioned to me when I left was that he seemed completely out of sorts. Talked to my mother in law in Virginia and she said the same thing. Didn't he win? Why is he so angry?

I don't know. He was definitely a little testy. I guess the softballs weren't big enough. But chalk it up to campaign withdrawl. He's been in campaign mode for 4+ years and probably woke up the day after the election wondering what he's going to do with himself now.

The best thing that the GOPcan do, short term, is to put a muzzle on Mitt.

His comments today about the "President's campaign focusing on giving targeted groups a big gift" are not going to do anything to dissuade the "47%" perception.

BoatShoes;1320390 wrote:Ok Fine. Don't try new tactics to persuade people about the supposed virtues of laissez-faire markets and social conservatism. Be my guest. Just contributing some thoughts in a thread devoted to the question of how Republicans can once again win the presidency

I have no reason to convince anyone. It's no bother to me what people's positions are.

I am simply doing the same thing you claim in your last sentence. Just posting my thoughts and opinions. That's all.

The man with no ideas.

http://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html

Well as someone who didn't vote for either Obama or Romney, I feel I can comment on the subject of what it would have taken for Romney or any Republican to get my vote.

1) You guys on both sides shaking your party pom poms are pretty pathetic.

2) I feel like the country is shifting to the left on social issues and conservatives would be better off taking the position of leaving the social issues up to the states, which is part of their ideals anyways. Older people are dying off and kids who were raised in the 21st century are coming around to voting age. I just don't see a majority of young voters voting for someone who opposes gay marriage, for instance. How Republicans even pretend to be about smaller government and yet support constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage is beyond me, and its insanely hypocritical.

3) The Republicans need to do a lot to fight the reputation as a bunch of old racist white men. I don't know how you do it, but honestly....88% of those who voted for Romney were white. With the way the demographics in this country are changing, the Republicans might never win a national election again if they don't shed that reputation.

4) The language needs to change. On both sides. I found the most effective Romney commercials were the ones with the message "you voted for Obama, he tried, he failed, let's try someone else". The hateful, vitriolic, hyperbolic "Obama is the worst President ever" or "Romney is an old racist white man" is just dumb and turns people off.

5) This is pretty far fetched but considering the Democrats are pretty much just as much the "party of war" as the Republicans are, or were, maybe moving towards a less imperialistic foreign policy would be more appealing to those on the fence.

Those were just a few thoughts I had. I highly doubt anything even close to any of these happens. I think part of the problem with the Republicans is I don't see the candidate who is most likely to win a national election surviving the primaries. Anyone who even attempts to move toward the center in the primaries will go down in flames. Mitt Romney specifically won the primaries by moving further to the right than pretty much every candidate. That specifically lost him the presidential election. The Republicans in the next election have a chance to lure voters who might share their values on states' rights, fiscal conservatism, and individual freedoms.....but not if they continue to espouse social viewpoints from the 19th century.

Mooney44Cards;1321156 wrote:2) I feel like the country is shifting to the left on social issues and conservatives would be better off taking the position of leaving the social issues up to the states, which is part of their ideals anyways. Older people are dying off and kids who were raised in the 21st century are coming around to voting age. I just don't see a majority of young voters voting for someone who opposes gay marriage, for instance. How Republicans even pretend to be about smaller government and yet support constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage is beyond me, and its insanely hypocritical.

1. "Smaller government" and constitutional amendments, which have to be approved by 3/4's of the states and 2/3's of both houses of Congress, don't have to be mutually exclusive.

2. The President has NOTHING to do with the Constitutional amendment process, no matter how much he does or does not support something.

3. Obama opposed gay marriage until the politicaly convenient time of a few months ago.

3) The Republicans need to do a lot to fight the reputation as a bunch of old racist white men. I don't know how you do it, but honestly....88% of those who voted for Romney were white. With the way the demographics in this country are changing, the Republicans might never win a national election again if they don't shed that reputation.

Short of a complete takeover of Hollywood, all mainstream media outlets (TV, print, etc.), and all university teaching positions, this is impossible. Everyone with an "R" next to their name is automatically a racist no matter what he or she does or says.

Those were just a few thoughts I had. I highly doubt anything even close to any of these happens. I think part of the problem with the Republicans is I don't see the candidate who is most likely to win a national election surviving the primaries. Anyone who even attempts to move toward the center in the primaries will go down in flames. Mitt Romney specifically won the primaries by moving further to the right than pretty much every candidate. That specifically lost him the presidential election. The Republicans in the next election have a chance to lure voters who might share their values on states' rights, fiscal conservatism, and individual freedoms.....but not if they continue to espouse social viewpoints from the 19th century

He learned the conservative talking points, but everyone knew he wasn't a true believer. So after Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney all lost, how many more moderates do we need to lose before we learn that that ain't the answer?

This "social issues" stuff is complete BS. Most candidates couldn't run away from it fast enough (with a few exceptions) and that's all the media wanted them to talk about. They do need to be more disciplined at how they explain such things, I agree, but those were not central issues to anyone's campaign. Of course a few messed up, but that's not even close to why Romney lost.

jhay78;1321507 wrote:1. "Smaller government" and constitutional amendments, which have to be approved by 3/4's of the states and 2/3's of both houses of Congress, don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Except "keep the government out of my life!" is totally a Republican/conservative ideal. And yet here we are.

jhay78;1321507 wrote: 2. The President has NOTHING to do with the Constitutional amendment process, no matter how much he does or does not support something.

The President has very little to do with a lot of things that candidates run on. The economy for instance.

jhay78;1321507 wrote: 3. Obama opposed gay marriage until the politicaly convenient time of a few months ago.

I'd rather have someone support what is right for their own personal/political gain than to not support what is right at all.

jhay78;1321507 wrote: Short of a complete takeover of Hollywood, all mainstream media outlets (TV, print, etc.), and all university teaching positions, this is impossible. Everyone with an "R" next to their name is automatically a racist no matter what he or she does or says.

This just screams of conservative "woe is me" talking points. There is not a vast conspiracy against the right or left wing in the media. The media does what gets ratings, they're not trying to force their own political ideals down people's throats. That includes Fox News.

jhay78;1321507 wrote: He learned the conservative talking points, but everyone knew he wasn't a true believer. So after Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney all lost, how many more moderates do we need to lose before we learn that that ain't the answer?

Except that George W. Bush ran as a moderate in 2000. He was a completely different president, but he certainly ran as a "compassionate conservative" whatever the hell that means.

jhay78;1321507 wrote: This "social issues" stuff is complete BS. Most candidates couldn't run away from it fast enough (with a few exceptions) and that's all the media wanted them to talk about. They do need to be more disciplined at how they explain such things, I agree, but those were not central issues to anyone's campaign. Of course a few messed up, but that's not even close to why Romney lost.

It may be BS for you, but then again you're obviously voting for a Republican no matter what, so your opinion on how to win swing voters is amazingly biased.

What can the Republican do? Send all the right wing loons to Texas after they secede from the union.

Mooney44Cards;1321535 wrote:Except "keep the government out of my life!" is totally a Republican/conservative ideal. And yet here we are.

You said "leave the social issues to the states", which I agree with, and then rail against a possible constitutional amendment, which requires approval from 3/4's of the states to be ratified. Very few things in government "leave it to the states" quite like a constitutional amendment.

jhay78;1321726 wrote:You said "leave the social issues to the states", which I agree with, and then rail against a possible constitutional amendment, which requires approval from 3/4's of the states to be ratified. Very few things in government "leave it to the states" quite like a constitutional amendment.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of wanting the government out of people's lives yet still supporting constitutional amendments that tell people how to live their life, nothing more.

I meant that WORST CASE SCENARIO a candidate (R) should say "leave it to the states", that doesn't mean that its still not ridiculous for Republicans (at any level) to support laws that increase the government's involvement in the daily lives of its citizens. It goes against one of the central ideals of conservatism. They should drop that shit completely, as a platform. Stop "defending traditional marriage". You're pandering to the people who will vote for you anyways with that shit.