December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 11/2005

« Its A Girl! | Main | Is Bob McDonnell Looking To Raise The Gas Tax? »

November 14, 2012

Comments

Sane Person

This is hilarious, thank you so much.
Palin-Perry 2016! They Speak Conservative! Yes!
Good one.

Chris

You COMPLETELY miss the point of this. I'm not saying Palin or Perry should be the nominee, I'm saying the way conservatives allowed them to be pushed aside in favor of a DUD like Romney is a reason why he lost so badly, especially compared to four years earlier.

Sane Person

Uh no, you missed the point COMPLETELY, which was that you are disconnected from reality. The ideas of Perry and Palin have been rejected, and are those of a rapidly shrinking minority "base." Most of America does not want to be dictated to by old white Christian men. They're no fun. They don't care about anyone who doesn't look like them. They are increasingly irrelevant. Moving Republicans further to the right ensures this.

Chris

If we aren't a conservative party we aren't anything at all. That is why libs and Dems always want us to move to the center, they know that is why we lose and that is why every time we lose we hear this nonsense. Remember after Obama won in 2008? There were books written about the death of the GOP, about how it was finished for a generation. Two years later, it was a conservative movement that demolished Pelosi's majority.

Mike

But how do we explain Romney doing better in many states than down-ticket Republican candidates? Rick Berg, Denny Rehberg, not to mention Akin and Mourdock -- the nomination of the latter of whom exemplified the victory of the grassroots over the "Establishment." No way we should have lost Senate seats, but we did. Romney may not have been perfect, but he did a decent job of talking about getting the government out of people's lives, cutting back regulation, etc. I do think he gave people a clear choice between free markets vs. statism. The people picked statism. We need to understand why.

Chris

To understand why is my point. We never gave a true alternative to that statist vision on all levels. Rick Berg, George Allen, Tommy Thompson, Denny Rehberg, even Todd Akin - all around during the Bush years (accept for Berg). None of these guys were new, fresh candidates - hell, Mourdock's been running for office in Indiana for 20 years. Look who did win - Deb Fischer and Ted Cruz are younger and fresher making their first statewide bids, and beat tired old candidates who have run for office after office. Jeff Flake, though an established officeholder, voted against every big government legislation in both the Bush and Obama years. A true conservative. We need candidates like that, not old retreads that DC insiders feel comfortable with. We were playing prevent defense from the beginning and the Dems nominated aggressive candidates like Tammy Baldwin and Heidi Heitkemp that weren't afraid to win.

NMM

so in order to win we need to become more conservative because conservative voters stayed home this time?????

Do you really think there is this magic army of conservative voters that is waiting to act until there is a more conservative candidate?

NMM

Hi Chris here is another case study for you;. California which is a very good predictor for where the rest of the country is headed.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/16/165216636/in-california-republican-is-becoming-a-toxic-label?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

The main point is less and less people are identifying as republicans as the number of minorities increases. Its not just minorities its the young educated and suburban/urban as well. If something isn't done Republican days are numbered.

Schnur says they face other demographic challenges: "an electorate that is younger, an electorate that is more single, an electorate that is more urban."

"Each of these constituencies have favored Democratic candidates in the past," he says.

So much so that in California, "Republican" is now a toxic label, Sonenshein says.

"Some Republicans are now re-registering as independents to run for office — simply not to have the word 'Republican' next to their name," he says.

Schnur believes the GOP will not allow this to a happen on a national level.

"If national Republicans begin to rethink their outreach to some of these voting communities, then maybe that drags California Republicans along with them as well," he says.

Preventing California from once again being a national trendsetter.

Mike

Excellent point. I absolutely agree that we need to give a good alternative to the statist vision, and we need great candidates to do that, and fresh faces. And I agree Perry (and Bush, for that matter) probably had a better approach on immigration. I suspect this election was a bit of a watershed and new candidates will be coming up through the ranks.

Robert Kenyon

This thread is ridiculous.

What is the point of the Republican party? To exist as an alternative to the Democrats?

Or do we actually have history and principles of our own, drawn from men like Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? Do we STAND for anything? If not, and we move to the center and/or alter our principles even more than we already have to suit whatever minority or other special interest group or voter bloc we're losing with, we should just hang it up.

Stand for principle, or sit down.

I agree with Chris, other than on immigration policy, essentially, BTW.

That is all.

The comments to this entry are closed.