Cain Calls For Third Party

You know, I think this loss was bad enough that this might happen.

Of course it will be politically disastrous, but the point isn't to win elections; it's something else.

Honestly, I'm not so into politics that I give a rat's ass about these games. I don't care about being Head of the Conservative Club. I don't care much who is. Politics don't so dominate my life that I care about these things.

What I want from government is to be ignored by government, to not be burdened by government, to be free as possible from government. And that requires having people in office -- not in grandstanding, personally-benefiting clubs -- who will advance that notion.

There is a real cleavage between those who are just fascinated by political philosophy -- and who want, like the Libertarian Party, to have a little club where they can discuss how awesome their political philosophy is -- and those who are much less interested in political philosophy and really only care about political action, where the actual rubber meets the tangible road.

Herman Cain can do what he wants.

I would say this though: Some of us only push certain issues because we're in a coalition with people who care about those issues. if we're not in a coalition any longer, we no longer carry that burden.

We'll both lose, but perhaps we'll both be happier, apart, pursuing only our own narrowed agendas, living under one-party socialist rule.

We'll have lost everything in terms of actual real-world impact, but we'll each have our own no-account little clubs where we can draw up fantasy plans for a fantasy politics.

Honestly, though, I am too wondering if this marriage can be saved, and wondering if we simply need to lose for 12-16 years with third parties, until some new viable coalition forms.

It's a difficult question. I don't have a real answer. I think the uncomfortable suspicion is that we can win apart, but we also can't win together.

I'm not sure what to do about that.

I do know that any third party will hand one-party rule to the Democrats for at least 8-12 years, until a new coalition forms. As the Republicans ultimately replaced the Whigs.

It would be tough.

But who knows. Maybe we just all hate each other too much.

But I don't get this idea. We just lost with 49%; we're going to try again with 24-25%?


Posted by: Ace at 05:55 PM



Comments

1 first

Posted by: mallfly at November 07, 2012 05:56 PM (bJm7W)

2 two outta three ain't bad.

and yes, let's split the vote even more

Posted by: mallfly at November 07, 2012 05:57 PM (bJm7W)

3 Third

Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 05:57 PM (LwGY+)

4 If we lost it anyway who gives a shit.

Posted by: Mr Pink at November 07, 2012 05:57 PM (++kZl)

5 It's his 9-9-9 plan. 9% of the popular vote, 9 electoral votes and 9 hot ass big titty interns on the campaign bus.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 07, 2012 05:57 PM (+lsX1)

6 Awwww. No more happy fun thread? How bout a gun thread?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (GEICT)

7 Is there anyone out there who will take Herman Cain seriously?

We lost, but not so badly that we need to go into suicide pact territory.

Posted by: Kronos at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (6EFOB)

8 . I don't care much who is. Politics don't so dominate my life that I care about these things.

__________

If you are in and around the military--

]FUCK--no gawd damn escape.

Posted by: tasker at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (r2PLg)

9 I don't think it much matters anymore, as the US electorate has shifted too far to the left for canservatives to ever get elected to the WH ever again, 3rd party or not.

Posted by: holygoat at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (IGIFh)

10 Third party? When did we even have the first?


Here's a thought. How about we scrap all the idiots that have brought us low and find somebody who knows what in hell he is doing to run things for a change?


Oh. I guess that wouldn't be government anymore, would it?

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (VLG62)

11 yea, well Herman Cain is all about third parties. Ask his wife

Posted by: Thunderb at November 07, 2012 05:58 PM (Dnbau)

12 *conservatives* But you all knew that.

Posted by: holygoat at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (IGIFh)

13 FUCK FUCK

FUCK

I WASTED MY LIFE

GAWD DAMN IT

Posted by: tasker at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (r2PLg)

14 Make the GOP a third party.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (dZ756)

15 I think the Republican Party would become the third party. And then the whole coalition building would begin.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (/1U3u)

16 and 9 hot ass big titty interns on the campaign bus.


He'd have Bill Clinton's support. Hell, maybe Hillary's too.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (GEICT)

17 unfortunately for us, Dems like Greg understand that they are to swallow and do what the party demands. Mindless unity will defeat thoughtful diversity every time.

Posted by: mallfly at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (bJm7W)

18 Can we have somebody besides Herman Cain call for one?

Posted by: AD at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (prJbE)

19 I'm still waiting for Cain's report about his bitches.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (BuSM8)

20 So...what do these geniuses think this 3rd party will do that existing ones don't? They'll somehow draw from the legions of eligible voters that supposedly just decided to sit out this election because of "Purity!" issues and that it will somehow outpoll both the existing GOP and Dems?

Or that somehow all the GOP will magically migrate to this new party and accept the mantra of Purity!


Posted by: Coldstream at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (qrCKL)

21 "We'll have lost everything in terms of actual real-world impact, but we'll each have our own no-account little clubs where we can draw up fantasy plans for a fantasy politics."

And thus the GOP was formed.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (Td9D+)

22 You gawd damn fuckers

Left some good men behind

Posted by: tasker at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (r2PLg)

23 Michael Savage was going to do a similar thing 4 years ago.

Now he's off the air.

(admittedly for a completely different reason)

Posted by: Dave C at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (dEHHB)

24

secession first

third party after

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (ovpNn)

25 For quite a while, I advocated for a viable third party. But hell, there's third, fourth and fifth parties out there. I mean, WTF Roseanne Barr got almost 50,000 votes?

I think we need to do some serious house cleaning in the GOP, then we won't have to worry about the two sides of the same coin argument.

Posted by: Got A Redhot Poker Up My Ass at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (t2z5E)

26
When the system crashes, and the Article V everyone keeps talking about happens, I hope we reset as a more British style Represenation Government. The the Libertarians can vote their party in (the guys at Volokh estimate 15%) the conservatives, the liberals, the socialists, etc. Everyone would have their ideological purity at the voting both and it would be up to the representitives to form coaltions to make a government.
I think we'd get more people who kinda side with us off the bench (but won't now because they're of some delusion that Romney was basically Obama with Lower taxes.)
The democrats have already pulled in the far left socialist types better than we've pulled in the far right libertarian types, so I think this benefits us more than them.

Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 06:00 PM (GaqMa)

27 "Of course it will be politically disastrous, but the point isn't to win elections; it's something else."

Ah yes, just like how sticking to the formula worked out so well this time Ace!
I'm not seeing how a third party could be any worse, then you know, losing twice with the current party you have.

Posted by: Radius at November 07, 2012 06:01 PM (nL5y5)

28

Given that Tea Party and Establishment candidates both took it in the ass yesterday, I'd say we're all in the same boat.

Posted by: imp at November 07, 2012 06:01 PM (UaxA0)

29 13 FUCK FUCK

FUCK

I WASTED MY LIFE

GAWD DAMN IT
Posted by: tasker at November 07, 2012 05:59 PM (r2PLg)


stop that. You did not. You gave your life meaning and purpose. You lived with values and integrity. You will pass those traits on to your friends and family.

And this will not last forever, nothing ever does. After FDR was President 3 times and tried to pack the SCOTUS, should we have packed up and lived in a hole? There was also a Reagan after that.

Your life is not meaningless

Posted by: Thunderb at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (Dnbau)

30 So we are Whigs now?

Posted by: Infidel at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (Vk6ZI)

31 Nor'easter forcast : Heavy snow now in NYC! Up to 5 inches in parts of Connecticut. Could get much more snow in Manhattan and even Long Island areas as it looks like cold air is winning the battle. Also, an unconfirmed report of a 70 mph wind gust on Nantucket.

Thank goodness they have Obama to take care of them.

Posted by: Stormy at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (1f2Z2)

32 Weed, abortions, and gay marriage. You can offer all those without busting the budget.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (dZ756)

33 The USA--not republicans.

Except maybe some of the Republican base.

FUCK you--for not giving a damn anymore,

Civilians comfortably NUMB

Posted by: tasker at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (r2PLg)

34
12-16 years?

Try 40. Minimum.

The reality is the electorate wanted free stuff, and there's no winning coalition that can be formed by denying them freebies. We made the argument and we lost.

What's that saying...experience is a harsh teacher, but some men will have no other? That's where we are. It's going to take a crash now and a hella lot of people to see the light before any conservative governing coalition can form.

Posted by: JohnTant at November 07, 2012 06:03 PM (kAfbq)

35 D+6 is why we lost. D+3 or better we win. We won independents. Work on turning out our vote. Work oncleaning up voter roles. Work on voter ID. Restrict early voting. We don't need a 3rd party.

Posted by: SAZMD at November 07, 2012 06:03 PM (Mv+3/)

36 Didn't Herman Cain also want to add Autoerotic Asphyxiation to the Olympic games?

Posted by: Dang at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (R18D0)

37 @28
Yep and libertarians too.

Bad news for those guys, if they wouldnt take a dance with Mitt and Paul, they sure aren't gonna except your invitation for anal. (Shamelessly stolen from ace)

Maybe Fluke, but that bitch is crazy.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (t06LC)

38 If we don't get rid of Reps that vote for more spending, taxes, and gov intrusion into our life, then why vote anyway?

Its going from one party that wants to hit the wall at FULL speed to one that only wants to hit it at HALF..

Thats selling crazy, and I'm all stocked up!

Ace, I, like you, want less Gov and less taxes that go with that.. How can you get that backing So-Cons and Spenders??

FECK EM ALL

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (E7Iyp)

39 Seeing how this is a smart military blog and all, I'm sure that we all understand the wisdom of dividing our forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy. I mean, it's just common sense, people.

Posted by: pep at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (6TB1Z)

40
Well, would it be racist to refuse his idea?

Isn't this what got Republicans "into trouble" in this race?

We're dissing the black man?

Since it's Herman Cain, can we call it "The Pizza Party" ?

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (RFeQD)

41 We can win together. We did. Only a few years ago.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (aSf5o)

42 I will say this, had the same demoralized Republicans that showed up in 2008 showed up in 2012, we'd be talking about the conservative era of domination.

A 3rd Party would probably some sort of populist Huckabee SoCon nonsense that's more about making a point that our culture is corroding than actually in the business of governing.

My advice is. let's just try a GOP that's agnostic on social issues and see and see what happens. Somehow Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were able to win in the bluest parts of our country once those issues were set aside.

Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (ZI/Cb)

43 >>>>>Given that Tea Party and Establishment candidates both took it in the ass yesterday, I'd say we're all in the same boat.


Any incriminates of Akin and Mourdock need to include Scott Brown and George Allen also.


Posted by: Dave C at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (dEHHB)

44 The bad thing about a third party is, we would be handing the election to the Dems.

At least now there is a fight.

Posted by: WoosterOh at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (TbM8N)

45 24. You are correct sir. Why not just secede with a conservative republic. that welcomes all that want to be free. Let the Blue States run into the ground.

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (dTGdl)

46 36
Didn't Herman Cain also want to add Autoerotic Asphyxiation to the Olympic games?


Posted by: Dang at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (R18D0)

Nah, that was David Carradine. Something happened to him before he could follow through on it, though.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (BuSM8)

47 I thought this fortune cookie from about a month ago was totally odd. Now I wonder if it was Delphic.

"Don't worry about losing. If it is right, it happens."

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (SkUim)

48 On the hurricane... My daughter has a friend who has been volunteering in NJ and she said it is a disaster. No Fema trucks to be found. Wonders why this information isn't out there. I said the media is hiding it to protect obama and to make sure he was elected...

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (9+ccr)

49 What about Texas seceding? Why is that not something to talk about?

Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (I4NNt)

50 If the Republicans don't change their primary rules and schedule I will go 3rd Party next time.


Republicans have already made themselves permanent losers.

Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (YdQQY)

51 Nevermind a third party. We need a second party!!!

Posted by: PUON RAUL!!!!!! at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (6JMZR)

52 Weed, abortions, and gay marriage. You can offer all those without busting the budget.


Posted by: SFGoth


Get high, kill a baby and get fucked in the ass. The new democrats.

Posted by: Dang at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (R18D0)

53 @32

Maybe Rand Paul is the way forward. Maybe Rubio. I know this crazy third party thing is complete disaster.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (t06LC)

54 Hate to say it, but Va, FL, and Ohio are now Blue States

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (dTGdl)

55 Won't work a lot of states only get two people on the ballot, that's what the primaries are for. It would work on a congressional level, but Senate or Presidential no way its not 1906 anymore. I'm sure dems were saying this back in 2004 and they didn't control anything, republicans have the house. Third parties always disappear, reform party, green party where are they now.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (NzBQO)

56 "My advice is. let's just try a GOP that's agnostic on social issues and
see and see what happens. Somehow Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were
able to win in the bluest parts of our country once those issues were
set aside."

That's kind of the Libertarian model.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (dZ756)

57 "We'll have lost everything in terms of actual real-world impact, but we'll each have our own no-account little clubs where we can draw up fantasy plans for a fantasy politics."

And thus the GOP was formed.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (Td9D+)

58 So, let's try to avoid forming circular firing squads.



Might be a good idea.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (aSf5o)

59 You could be right about a 3rd party coming about.

But honestly, Ace, how what William Jacobson predicted would happen in the first place -- Romney can't win because, unfortunately, enough Christians won't turn out for him -- not even make your top-10 list?

I am surprised you overlooked that. I think it was the single biggest factor. Obama was down 10 million votes!

And yet, despite the GOP base hating Obama, the 4 years of Obama failure, Benghazi (GOP voters at least watch Fox) and Romney's much better campaign, he still got less voters than either McCain or both.

You're underestimating how big of an issue this was. Hell I, who was one of the people warning about it (using my prior nickname before I got this better one), went on to underestimate how big of an issue it was.
http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=324619#c16710867

But it WAS a big issue.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (SKX2R)

60 @32.. I was thinking the SAME thing!

Posted by: Yip at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (Mrdk1)

61 Um, in case you haven't noticed, we've been under one party socialist rule for quite some time. One side is just more sinister about it, says all the things you want to hear, and continues the slide while in power.

Posted by: teej says go K-State at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (tWrwm)

62 @49
Its not realistic. It involves warfare, death, and once again is not realistic.

Until it is.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (t06LC)

63 43. Scott Brown was the deciding vote on Dodd/Frank. Good riddance

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:06 PM (dTGdl)

64
Anything that excludes Paulbots! Fuck them!! Let them worry about 9/11 stuff alone.

Posted by: Urban Achiever at November 07, 2012 06:07 PM (sd73r)

65 52
Weed, abortions, and gay marriage. You can offer all those without busting the budget.



Posted by: SFGoth

Get high, kill a baby and get fucked in the ass. The new democrats.


Posted by: Dang

Who's now in power and about to cement their status for a long time?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 06:07 PM (dZ756)

66 If the reason we lost this election is because Republicans/ conservatives just didn't show up to vote for Romney, in maybe the most important election of our lifetimes...

Then you know what I just realized?

The fucking concern trolls won.

Posted by: lael at November 07, 2012 06:07 PM (tUcg9)

67 59

Fuck off.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:07 PM (aSf5o)

68 #62 No way. You think some NE liberal is going to want to fight Texas? They will say good riddance.

Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 06:08 PM (I4NNt)

69 I say the Libertarians merge with the GOP and toss out the bulk of the social issues. Become almost solely focused on Liberty and Small Government, principles that the majority of Americans agree on. In other words, commandeer the Republican name as if it were a corporate takeover, and keep its current customers.

Social issues are moot if the country goes bankrupt and the dollar/economy collapse. Hopefully even the Huckabees of the party understand that.

Posted by: Swanz at November 07, 2012 06:08 PM (XzlBE)

70 Except that the loss wasn't that bad. A loss for sure, but the Dems didn't give up when Bush won 51%, why should we in the face of 50%? The Dems successfully scuttled SS reform a obstructed their way to a wave election. This was not a wave election. Young people are still fickle, unreliable, and easily bored. Certainly they wont pay attention in 2014, and can u imagine Andrew Cuomo slow rapping with Fallon?

Posted by: Xuyee at November 07, 2012 06:08 PM (OYe5i)

71 There are so many brilliant and wise people in the Conservative ranks, we can a real solution if we just listened to our hearts

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:08 PM (dTGdl)

72 35 D+6 is why we lost. D+3 or better we win. We won independents. Work on
turning out our vote. Work oncleaning up voter roles. Work on voter ID.
Restrict early voting. We don't need a 3rd party.


In spite of their turnout advantage, we lost VA+OH+FL+CO+NV by a total of 433,068 votes. We came so close...

Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 06:08 PM (YjDyJ)

73 Well go figure, we have weak leadership in the GOP and they are dug in like ticks. We take a loser's advice George Bush Sr who picked our next loser Mitt Romney. We just need ot find a way of ousting Boehner and Mitchy. That should scare the shit out of the rest!

Posted by: Africanus at November 07, 2012 06:09 PM (Tcf77)

74 D+6 is why we lost. D+3 or better we win. We won independents. Work on turning out our vote. Work oncleaning up voter roles. Work on voter ID. Restrict early voting. We don't need a 3rd party.
Posted by: SAZMD at November 07, 2012 06:03 PM (Mv+3/)


--------------------------------------------


The delay of four more years with Baraka will more than likely drive everyone into desparate submission or civil war. Third party talk is too little too late. The shit has already hit the fan and has splattered us good.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:09 PM (EUJBD)

75 I don'tcare about being Head of the Conservative Club.

I would do it. Aa long as I have carte blanche to run it like Ghengis Khan.

Posted by: rickb223 (I am John Galt) at November 07, 2012 06:09 PM (d0Dmj)

76
This is just a stupid idea.

The first order of business is to determine whether yesterday's vote was legitimate, because there are a lot of things about it that don't add up.

If it's legitimate, we're screwed no matter what. As Ann Coulter is saying, "the tipping point has been reached." It's over.

If it's not legitimate, well the fox is guarding the henhouse anyway.

The first thing he said in his victoryspeech was, "Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward."

He put his anti-colonialism on display, and told us that he's made a lot of progress in turning the US into a socialist state, and not there is noting in his way to keep him from accelerating the process.

Posted by: Optimizer at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (Mxt9o)

77 *less votes than either McCain or Bush

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (SKX2R)

78
--AHEM--
I think I might have the answer for 2016

--AHEM--

Posted by: Jeb Bush at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (F6KtL)

79 How are you going to get the government to leave you alone unless you replace those who control government with people who WILL leave you alone?

Posted by: MadisonConservative at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (sb+ta)

80 70. Valid points, and unlike 2008, we have the House. But the real problem is Socialized medicine

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (dTGdl)

81 No one is seceding. Pointless to waste precious pixels talking about it.


Posted by: Coldstream at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (qrCKL)

82
You miss understood him Ace, he wants a 3rd Partaaaay! with those chicks form the cab.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (PHb2k)

83 Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (t06LC)
__
I like Rand Paul.

Posted by: kallisto at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (jm/9g)

84 How about the realization that nothing since Eisenhower over the last 60 years matters. Reagan, JFK, their tax cuts, welfare reform with Gingrich, W's compassionate conservatism (whatever that was)...all gone.

we are back to FDR.

Just like that.

because the kids like porn and gays. and rapebortions.

Apparently, there were -again- no wedge issues for Romney to push aside from himself being awesome.

The left says we help the poor, you say, welfare kills the soul.

The left says free healthcare, you say how about tort reform or learn lessons from Europe

the left says GM bailout you say they're still in hack, look at BMW plants in SC.

And then you add in some cutthroat political genius like Atwater or Rove to make it stick.

but nope. I don't even think Romney mentioned O-care as anything other than a job killer.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (QxSug)

85 Thinking especially of the Hot Air concern trolls.

The purported "true cons" who wouldn't vote for Romney because of their "principles."

Or the Cloward-Piven conservatives, who wanted Obama to win so they could see the world burn.

Posted by: lael at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (tUcg9)

86 Is is possible that there was monumental fraud nationwide yesterday? Because from what I've read, millions of votes seemed to just vanish. Someone said Texas was down 10%, despite packed polling places and healthy early voting. All reports during the day yesterday seemed to indicate heavy participation in R areas and light traffic in D areas. Romney was so certain of a win he didn't write a concession speech and if we learned anything about him, he prepares well for all known possibilities.

On another blog I even read a theory that if there was massive fraud, Rs could have been in on it too. Sounds tin foil hat and I won't get in to the reasons for possible R involvement here, but I wonder if it's possible. The numbers do seem very strange, and we all expected the left to cheat.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (F3s39)

87 I'm all in. The republican party left me yesterday and they will not win the White House for some time. I was going to remove myself from the voter roles tomorrow but Cain was my pick and I am sick of the bullshit that goes with social issues after this election.

Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (i7KmQ)

88 79. Yep

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (dTGdl)

89 I want an explantion for the lower voting totals. I still don't see how he got lower numbers in Ohio than McCain with all the stories yesterday of long lines and record turn out.

Posted by: jbw at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (BZcMK)

90 Ace, what kills me is that you think somehow, someway, the party is the way out of this. Whether it is through reformation, leadership change, or coopting of the platform--it ain't gonna happen.

This isn't end game, but it is a signal. Half of you guys are still clinging to the Party, hoping that if you form some new Coalition you can begin your ascendancy again in 2-4 years. I hate to tell you, it ain't happening. This is not a political problem. This is a demographic, cultural, and financial problem that is about to eat us alive.

Posted by: Graves of Carolina at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (+xjLy)

91 They're going to pass a mega illegal immigrant amnesty and that will lock up the elections for a strongarm 1 party state for decades.

Posted by: Village Idiot at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (utXSy)

92
miss understood, ugh, did I really do that?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (PHb2k)

93
Man, how was I a Senator of THAT state???

Posted by: Sweatervest Rick at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (F6KtL)

94 I think this Third Party plan by Herman Cain, right now, is a Very Good Thing. I hope he gets some traction, right now.

Sequestration, The Fiscal Cliff, The Debt Ceiling and Benghazi, for a start, need to be dealt with in the next few days/weeks ...

... they are all BO's fault, and they need to be hung upon him ... and the House 'R's need to force this to happen. We can't let a Boehner give a Reach Across. But How?

Herman Cain, with enough support for a new party, right now, seems like a very good answer. If that party is the Tea Party, so much the better.

More than a few R Congressmen and Senators have to be worried about 2014; it's 18 months off, but a screw-up by them now will likely be irrecoverable, no matter what else yeoman service they perform subsequently.

A fire, their feet ... Herman Cain, right now, looks like the solution.

Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (rlWf0)

95 Screw third party. Destroy GOP and rebuild from the ground up. Kick all those establishment douches out to pasture for good and shit back on conservative track.

Posted by: mnm at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (6mijs)

96 Herman Cain's other call:

"Hello, ladies!"

Posted by: Lou at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (xp1pq)

97 keep calm and finish them all

Posted by: custardbutt at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (SIhMZ)

98 The Democratic Party is the anti-White party. It is for privileges for anyone who is non-White, and it strives to increase their numbers through mass immigration, legal and illegal.

The Republican Party is the White Party. It's supporters are 90% White, and they are under attack, both moral and demographic. (And physical, e.g. "beat Whitey night.) It does nothing to fight affirmative action, it does nothing to end mass immigration, it betrays and abandons its supporters in every way, and as a result its supporters are not numerous enough any more. We have hit the demographic wall.

I am against third parties in principle, but the Republican Party as an institution that does not preserve and empower its supporters is an institution with no point and no future. It has to wake up and start doing its job, or it has to be replaced.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (BuRsu)

99 "I do know that any third party will hand one-party rule to the Democrats
for at least 8-12 years, until a new coalition forms. As the
Republicans ultimately replaced the Whigs."....

I think that this is what will happen naturally, Ace. And it will be painful- and after the Republican Party was formed, there still was a Civil War. Maybe lots of bad, difficult shit must occur before the Republic is restored.
These eggs are too scrambled now, it appears.

Posted by: tubal at November 07, 2012 06:11 PM (BoE3Z)

100 oh boy, I mean, "get shit back on conservative track."

Posted by: mnm at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (6mijs)

101 over 50 million voted for Romney. How hard would it be to get 1 or 2 million to march on washington to repeal Obamacare

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (dTGdl)

102 don't need a third party, this is what party primary elections are for

Posted by: Jose/ningrim at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (srIqv)

103 "There is a real cleavage between those who are just fascinated by political philosophy -- and who want, like the Libertarian Party, to have a little club where they can discuss how awesome their political philosophy is -- and those who are much less interested in political philosophy and really only care about political action, where the actual rubber meets the tangible road."


And that cleavage has a name--Beyonce!

Posted by: Cricket at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (2ArJQ)

104 Cain struck me as an idiot early on. This just confirms it.

Posted by: Hepcat at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (frbyY)

105 Maybe we do. It's too early to say.

In the past two elections, we were told we needed to be moderate. We ran a senator who gave Obama tongue baths on a regular basis, then we ran a guy who 1) created a socialized medicine system, 2) managed to get elected governor in a deep-blue state, 3) was very likely pro-choice and 4) was in favor of gun control. Both got their asses whipped.

They nominated a Marxist professor with no experience, and elected him in a landslide twice.

Seriously--3 years ago, if you would have said "The President is going to force the Catholic Church to buy birth control and abortifacients for its employees," the dems would have told you to put down the crackpipe. Then they did it.

They have huge successes nominating the most extreme candidates. We fail when we nominate nice honorable men who fight fair and reach toward the middle.

There _is_ a lesson in that. Better hot or cold than lukewarm.

Posted by: Palandine at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (g7D8V)

106 There has to be party discipline around a set of issues that can create a national majority. Ace described in great detail why the current foreign policies, social issue policies, and economic policies won't cut it.

I would move to the middle on the first two (particularly social policies) to keep economic policies the core of the party. Others might not want this. This discussion is just part of restructuring.

We have spent too much time suffering fools who think that polls are 'skewed' and empirical reality is a trick. They don't understand that there is no 'silent majority'. What you see is what you get, and if you cared to see, it was obvious before November 6th.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (UOC+H)

107 we are back to FDR. ___
At least FDR loved America and prayed with people during the war. The current donk crowd hates everything we stand for, intends to fundamentally transform us, and prays to the Goddess Superstorm Sandy.

Posted by: kallisto at November 07, 2012 06:12 PM (jm/9g)

108 GOOD BYE

Posted by: Infidel at November 07, 2012 06:13 PM (Vk6ZI)

109 Every Christian I know voted for Romney, they were excited to vote. all the churches in my area were pro romney, I don't buy the argument that Christians didn't show up. I don't have the answer, but the conservative Christian voter is not the problem in my opinion.

Posted by: Spypeach at November 07, 2012 06:13 PM (pwTow)

110 Jesus Fuck, it was a two-point loss.

Communication. That's how Ronnie won.

And stay the fuck away from social issues.

Posted by: Taro Tsujimoto at November 07, 2012 06:13 PM (celt+)

111 The Republican Party is the best vessel we have. The problem is, we keep letting the wrong people steer it.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at November 07, 2012 06:13 PM (Cl95C)

112 89. The million dollar ?

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:13 PM (dTGdl)

113 " This is not a political problem. This is a demographic, cultural, and financial problem that is about to eat us alive."

Don't bother. They're not listening. They still think Romney lost because of "communication" problems.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (Td9D+)

114 Herman Cain--always looking for a party!

Posted by: Parting Gift at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (2ArJQ)

115 The GOP on a presidential level is dead.

They've won the popular vote ONCE since 1988 and it took the worst terrorist attack in American history to bring 90% of the country together 3 years prior, and even then, that lead went from over 90% to 50.7%. And even then, they were greatly aided by against John F'n Kerry and John Edwards.

Posted by: The Q at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (IgwTl)

116 I reckon I'll wait until I hear what Trump has to say, afore I make any rash decisions.

Posted by: Fritz at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (vm7ot)

117 Hey Righties?

Just ran across something you people need. And it's only 99 cents through Thursday. 12 buck savings.

Go to FCTRY.com and pick yourself up a little piece of the President.

Of course, if you really buy in to that "Country First" stuff you'll pose it presidentially. But in reading through the comments I think the better odds are for:
- Putting horns on it and mailing it to your Socialist/Communist/Marxist cousin.
- Teaching your dog to pee on it
- Throwing beers cans at it in the garage

It's your buck. Capitalism and Freedom all rolled in to one, right?

And don't forget Righties..."Yes We Can!" (Nuts. Sorry. Force of habit.)

Posted by: TJ at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (0FtaC)

118 it looks like the same fucking clowns will remain in GOP leadership roles

Posted by: Jose/ningrim at November 07, 2012 06:14 PM (srIqv)

119 Here's the thing: we've already lost the Supreme Court for 30 years, so it really doesn't matter.

I'm voting Libertarian Party from now on. It might take 20 years to win a national election, but maybe by that time one of the SCOTUS leftists will have died.

Posted by: Mr. Estrada at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (4BHuc)

120 Have we completely counted out SMOD yet? I mean, we still have at least ONE dog in this fight.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (VLG62)

121 81
No one is seceding. Pointless to waste precious pixels talking about it.




Posted by: Coldstream at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (qrCKL)

Well, except for the individual, and group secessions, that is probably true. Hell, I'm seceding already, I started this afternoon.

Posted by: tubal at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (BoE3Z)

122 Count me in. I'm done with the Republican Party.

Posted by: rickl at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (sdi6R)

123 111

Hey.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (aSf5o)

124 I'm beginning to see some light; some resolve.

"At the very moment when some of them seem plunged in unfathomable abysses of disgrace and disaster, they have begun a new course, and opened a new reckoning, and even in the depths of their calamity, and on the very ruins of their country, have laid the foundations of a towering and durable greatness. All this happened without any apparent previous change in the general circumstances which had brought on their distress. The death of a man at a critical juncture, his retreat, have brought innumerable calamities on a whole nation. A common soldier, a child, a girl at the door of an inn, have changed the face of fortune, and almost of Nature."

That was Burke. There's always hope.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (Cl95C)

125 NRA did not help that much this time either?

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (dTGdl)

126 He put his anti-colonialism on display, and told us that he's made a lot of progress in turning the US into a socialist state, and not there is noting in his way to keep him from accelerating the process.
Posted by: Optimizer at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (Mxt9o)


------------------------------------------


He's flexible now. I'm not convinced we'll have another traditional election. He's a tyrant. And tyrants don't like depending on votes to keep them in power.

We've seemed to have forgotten the billions of rounds of ammo that was bought for the IRS, Homeland Security, etc. There's other ways to convince us of his mandate.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (EUJBD)

127 "Hey, now that Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, Rand, Christie, Haley, Martinez, Walker, and Sandoval will all be seasoned enough to actually run for president in 2016, let's start a third party, because I won't even be allowed on the stage next time if we don't."

-Herb

Posted by: Carl at November 07, 2012 06:15 PM (OeUnr)

128 70

The Dems didn't give up after losing to Bush because Kerry had a markedly larger turnout than Gore.

We LOST votes from McCain, the most useless presidential candidate of modern times

Posted by: The Q at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (IgwTl)

129 i'm still puzzled about the GOTV effort did it suck or was Mitt a bridge too far after McCain? I swore early on i'd never vote for the guy but it i had no problem pulling the lever for him and trying to get people I knew out there to beat Barry. A new purer party is a nice concept but who's going to run and staff it? oh yeah all those same ivy league asshole consultants that fuck up the GOP... i need a drink

Posted by: bannor at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (BjJOB)

130 I understand this was a bitter loss but you do understand this was one of the closest elections in history (only 1 point) and Obama lost 10 million people?

The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up.

Who was that? And why?

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (LCRYB)

131 Would Herman Cain be in a party that was explicitly about defending White people against anti-White legislation? No. Nor would Colin Powell etc..

Allowing Whites to be driven down and down and down, by mass immigration and in other ways, so that the electoral playing field tips another percent or two Democratic in every electoral cycle, is too high a price to pay for keeping on board all the people who are part of the present, losing, Republican coalition.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (BuRsu)

132 Great. Check out the headline at Drudge. Weeping Boner is reaching out to King Baraka.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (UOM48)

133 9 hot ass big titty interns on the campaign bus.

So THAT's what they meant by "human trafficking" in the Prop 35 vote in California.

Posted by: wooga at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (vjyZP)

134 119. We lost the Court in June with Roberts anyways. do you think that bastard has any remorse today? Probably at a bath house

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (dTGdl)

135 Again, the hip, cool, abortion friendly Obama only got a million more votes than Kerry did in 2004.

And W got 62M then.

yeah, I'll say no message was a problem. Remember, we were ahead ahead until Sandy. Or something.

And we didn't get less votes than McCain 2008 because our old voters are dying.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (QxSug)

136 Take one slice of baloney, one slice of bread and put them in your Herman Cain grill until they start to smoke. Remove and cheese to taste. Serves one.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (rzTDZ)

137 There are still a couple million votes to be counted. Turnout will be lower than 2008, but these aren't final tallies yet.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (UOC+H)

138 The purported "true cons" who wouldn't vote for Romney because of their "principles."

Posted by: lael at November 07, 2012 06:10 PM (tUcg9)

Yeah. They totally lost us the election. There's just got to be tons of "true cons" in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, etc...

Posted by: MadisonConservative at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (sb+ta)

139 There's cleavage?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (QKKT0)

140 >>>i'm still puzzled about the GOTV effort did it suck

This is just what I'm hearing from a single reporter-- and this might be due to the natural recriminations that follow a loss-- but I hear it sucked, at least in Ohio.

Remember the party is fratricidal (as any party is in a loss) but I hear that Portman and Kevin DeWine simply did not do much outreach and GOTV.

And if that's the case in Ohio... I don't know

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:17 PM (LCRYB)

141 Here is a note of OPTIMISM which I don't think anyone is considering today -- and a strong note actually.

If, what I and William Jacobson and others predicted would happen is why Romney list, then this is what it means:

1. Identity politics is a factor in the GOP and at this moment in history, a Mormon won't get as much support as a non-Mormon (Mitt might have won had Sandy not struck or had he attacked harder on Benghazi, but the own-goal suppression was enough that he didn't win)

2. With Obama being down SO many votes, if Romney had just held on to the votes McCain gleaned during his crappy President, he'd have been the next President

3. If a nominally mainstream Christian Candidate, running a good campaign, had been nominated, we'd be happy and it would be President Republican right now.

IN OTHER WORDS, the Republic itself may not be broken and the people may not be more for socialism than they were 3 years ago. This is why Obama had such drastically less votes.

I realize it's very painful to look at, even more so than blaming leftists for taking over the country, but the reason the GOP loss is the candidate didn't attract enough GOP votes -- it had little to do with Obama, who lost his votes in droves.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:18 PM (SKX2R)

142 I very much doubt social libs will ever jump on the free market bandwagon, most of them feel the govt. can be active as long as it leaves them alone. Ask any social lib if they don't mind people eating unhealthy food? Or smoking?

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 06:18 PM (NzBQO)

143 Boehner does not have the votes to go native. He is no Sam rayburn

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:18 PM (dTGdl)

144 Dims say they want less gov interference into their life too.. Only they vote the other way, RE: Porn Condoms (but Ca did vote down the sugar laws) if they could see that THEIR pols are restricting their own rights, maybe a group that supports getting gov outta their life would be appealing.. (it WAS Tripper Gore that wanted to Ban and Label music at Gov whims remember)

Libertarians and Dims have more in common than Dims think.. Stay outta the bedroom and medical choices, and stay out of wars (I disagree with the hardcores on this, we need the ability to trike and leave as Ace put earlier)

But they don't even know what their platform really is, and same with many repubs too.. If more higher profile pols joined the LibTs MAYBE they would be more popular by pulling from BOTH sides..

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... All I know is I'm not supporting ANYONE until they fill at least 75% of those, and NO SO-CONs EVER!

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 06:18 PM (E7Iyp)

145 Third parties have no future.

Posted by: The Whigs at November 07, 2012 06:18 PM (QKKT0)

146 *lost

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (SKX2R)

147 Hey, why don't we run a basically libertarian candidate who's a socon heroine?

Naah, couldn't do that. Mustn't upset the Palace Guard Media.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (oDtYC)

148 Hate to say it, but Va, FL, and Ohio are now Blue States
Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (dTGdl)

That's the problem in a nut shell. Due to that fact there is now no path to victory for any candidate to the right of Fidel Castro.

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (n1x7a)

149 Fuck the Giants, Redskins and effin' Eagles! ... GO COWBOYS!!!

Posted by: Urban Achiever at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (sd73r)

150 The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up.



Who was that? And why?
--

It just doesn't make sense. This was a broken glass election. I don't know a single person who did not vote. Reports nationwide indicated heavy voting in red areas. Romney was a much superior candidate and the enthusiasm for him blew away anything McCain ever had. The venues with tens of thousands of people. I'm suspicious. And I'm even more suspicious because no one in the GOP seems to be raising any questions. I have an uneasy feeling.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (F3s39)

151 The Whig party was replaced by the Republican party, in 2 election cycles... with 1850's technology.

One problem is that we are trying to fit a multi dimensional Political Philosophy scale, into a binary decision set....

But the biggest is that America has already tipped the balance where People are willing, nay eager, to have their votes bought. Their platform exists on a Lower level of Lazlo's Hierarchy of Need, than a Conservative philosophy... They promise Free Shit... Republicans cannot...

I have a business associate... pretty smart guy... who voted for Obama so his sick wife would conitnue to get US to pay for her healthcare... Lazlo's Hierarchy of Needs made him a ONE issue voter...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 07, 2012 06:19 PM (lZBBB)

152 **Who was that? And why?**

good question, this was a broken glass election, right?

Mitt said nothing about SoCon issues. It was an economy election, even Barack started walking back on gay marriage before the election.

Or is 57.2M Mitt's and the GOP's ceiling?

BTW, on topic, 3rd party is stupid.

Since there are no Romney Democrats, what can we offer the persuadable that DNC can't?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (QxSug)

153 Romney probably was not the 'perfect' candidate, but Obama was weakened as well. An incumbent shouldn't win 300 electoral votes given this mess.

This is evidence that this isn't working, not that one or two things can be tweaked to 'frame' our way to a different result.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (UOC+H)

154 Third parties work as well as 2 guys in a threesome.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (4cRnj)

155 I still think systemic fraud played a role here.

There's just too much that doesn't make sense.

What's horrible is this feeling of powerlessness. If this election actually *was* stolen-- and I think there's a good chance that it was-- to say so just makes you sound like the crazy Dems of 2000. How can such a thing be proven, now? Most Americans don't give a shit. They're sick of the election already, and want to move on. Don't blame them.

So then we're stuck with massive Dem fraud, just like we're stuck massive MSM bias/ collusion, as facts of life, now?

So, so, so depressing.

Posted by: lael at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (tUcg9)

156 I'm guessing the low blue-collar white Ohio turnout was basically a class-based "one of us" issue. Seeing anecdotes about that elsewhere.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (oDtYC)

157 Hey--Mitt lost because...1. He got really timid at the end; 2, Obama is really good at class warfare; 3. the media was on the Obama team; 4. Sandy.

Sorry, a third party won't solve any of those things.

Posted by: Cricket at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (2ArJQ)

158 >>>No one is seceding. Pointless to waste precious pixels talking about it.


I'm interested.

I actually think the model of large pluralistic states just encourages one coalition to punish the losing coalition. I'm frankly in favor of smaller nations. Every time there's an ethnic problem in another country, my first thought is "break it up into component states."

I don't see the problem with discussing secession.

I don't have any particular problem with it. Sure, I like the general idea of the USA, but the USA is going a route I don't like.

Things change. Nations change. Boundaries change.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)

159 The Republican Party isn't vigorous and that's a big part of its problem. It's chosen to cede debate after debate to the left, adopt it's rhetoric and it's PC positions, and it just seems to exist to tepidly obstruct further inroads by the left. I haven't seen the Republican Party really talk about shaking up the federal government in some time. Where's the enthusiasm for getting the government off people's backs or devolving power back to states? We've gotten polite rather than get in the fight. It's become all about preventing the other guy from doing this or that rather than telling the voter what Republicans intend to do. When you refuse to take the offense in politics, you're forced to constantly take the defense.

Posted by: tommy at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (Ufxn1)

160 144

Ok.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (aSf5o)

161 In 2016, it would be nice to have one big swing state off the table with a nominee. Fl, Ohio etc.....

I fear that Mark warner is next in line for Dems

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (dTGdl)

162 My advice is. let's just try a GOP that's agnostic on social issues and see and see what happens. Somehow Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were able to win in the bluest parts of our country once those issues were set aside.
Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 06:04 PM (ZI/Cb)

Scott Brown lost, face it, he lost.

This Socon even wanted him for our Senate Majority but the fact is he lost bucking his party on Social issues.

All social issues are to these moderates are rationalizations for their already held beliefs on Fiscal issues.

Posted by: Nate at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (BBlzg)

163 Ask any social lib if they don't mind people eating unhealthy food? Or smoking?

Or reading under a 100W bulb. Or hunting, or letting a kid read a Bible quietly to himself at recess.

The only thing "social liberals" are liberal about is non-procreative sex, and making sure there are no financial or emotional consequences for anyone's sexual choices.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ loves sausage at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (/kI1Q)

164
Taking a few LLM courses. Remembering how much I love reading dissent opinions.
"I dissent and lament the wound inflicted by the majority upon a venerable but endangered friend: The Rule of Law" Justice Caporale,Supreme Court of Nebraska 1986.

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 06:21 PM (icSBv)

165 There is no way a third party is going to come in and win the big prize. None. If it were to work (and that's a Krispie Kreme Christie size if) it would have to start at the lowest partisan level you could find - Town Council, School Board, Hobo Eradication Technician, whatever. Only after winning at that level could you move up to the AA level - County Counsel or the like. Lather, rinse and repeat at the state level, and do it in at least 26 or 27 states out of the soon-to-be 51. (Are there morons in Puerto Rico?)

If you can do all that you might be able to take a run at the big prize. Problem is, I'm going to be 60 when the 2016 election rolls around, and Solyent Green by the time you can pull this off.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it is not a quick fix in any way.

Posted by: bRight&Early at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (1GRX7)

166 30 So we are Whigs now?
Posted by: Infidel at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (Vk6ZI)

More like people browsing at the hair club for Men.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (3Y7RV)

167 "The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up.



Who was that? And why?"

They weren't as excited about Romney as we were?

I dunno, ace, but it is a good question, and you have a great point.
Third party is not the way to go.
I doubt the coalition hates each other.

But then, I thought we had this.

I didn't sleep last night. I am thinking, perhaps, this is all eating up too much of my life.

Can't we all just chill for a while?
If we knew the answers, we would have won last night.
Maybe next time we will get someone who excites our team more.
Maybe next time there won't be a storm
Maybe next time our guy will have a more "mainstream" religion.
In a race as close as last night, anyone of a dozen things would have tipped the scales.

Really, let's just chill before making dire predictions of destroying the party.

Posted by: MrShad at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (Xqfwb)

168 The country needs a divorce, not a third party.

Posted by: cool breeze at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (hx/td)

169 45 Amen.

Step 1: Secede.
Step 2: Form a Republic of America or some such thing.
Step 3: Adopt the original US Constitution minus the shitty amendments.
Step 4: Watch the leeches deport themselves for sweet USA entitlements.
Step 5: Profit!

Posted by: holygoat at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (IGIFh)

170 I love this blog! I read it all the time you guys are all the real deal.
I believe in the radical idea of self government.

When I listen to the Obama media I feel like Winston Smith with the production quotas droning away in the background

We need to crawl off to the den and lick wounds

They want us to be demoralized and give up the fight
And to me it is demoralizing

But deep down we all know that is not an option we would ever choose

57.4 million! agreed he needs to go

It was done in 2010 it will happen again.

Live free or die

Posted by: BFD at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (3T7jO)

171 Perhaps this is the reason the Herman Cain is already talking about a Third Party:

Boehner Extends Olive Branch on 'Fiscal Cliff'

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49731550

"House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order."

Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (rlWf0)

172 "I hear lots of people saying they’re done with politics. I understand the impulse. But that way lies ruin. Despair is the gateway drug to cynicism and Nockian indifference. Our problems are too great and our cause too just for that. There is time to take a timeout and have a drink (or 50). But it’s worth remembering that the cause is lost onlyif you leave it and choose to never find it again. “Never despair,” Edmund Burke allegedly said, “but if you do, work in despair.” I don’t know that Burke actually said that, but whoever did was right."

Jonah Goldberg

Posted by: Icedog at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (PTS+l)

173 I voted a straight republican ticket. You know what I got?

A republican state attorney general.

The
electorate is brain-dead, - too busy, with their nose buried in a
fucking Chinese-made communication/entertainment gadget, to realize that
life is about to bitch-slap them into middle-aged poverty.

Posted by: Fritz at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (vm7ot)

174 *during McCain's crappy Presidential campaign

I made some typos. But my point is this:

The country did NOT swing toward Obama. The GOP swung against Romney.

Despite most of us thinking he ran a great campaign, and coming to like him, even love him, as it went on.

This time in '08, everyone was blaming McCain. Few are blaming Romney. Why?

Romney fought.

He worked his butt off. He clobbered Obama in the first debate.

Yet the GOP didn't show up for him.

So don't think "the Republic is lost". Because, while my first impression, these vote totals don't indicate that. Obama was repudiated by shedding so many damn votes.

Unfortunately, though, the GOP has issues with getting its vote out, when a Mormon is the top of the ticket.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (SKX2R)

175 I actually think the model of large pluralistic states just encourages
one coalition to punish the losing coalition. I'm frankly in favor of
smaller nations. Every time there's an ethnic problem in another
country, my first thought is "break it up into component states."


Fuck yeah.

Posted by: Bosnia Herzegovina at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (QKKT0)

176 Third party is stupid.

We are only a few % away from a majority.

Here are 2 simple ways to get there:

1) Boost the white vote. Many think this is unseemly. But we won 60% of the white vote. Obama won 95% of black, 70% of asians, and 70% of hispanics. If we win 65% of the whites we win.

2) Boos the hispanic vote. Find a Mexican (not a Cuban!) American and make him the candidate. Bribe somebody. At least 20-30% of Mex-Americans already support us. There are millions of Republican Mex-Americans. Find one -- put him through candidate boot camp and make him the nominee. Spanish fluency is a must.


There is no point in chasing the black vote. The asian vote perhaps, but that is fragmented among many national groups and the East Asian vs South Asian divide.

Mexicans are the obvious group to target. Find one, train him, run him

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 06:22 PM (ZPrif)

177 **140 >>>i'm still puzzled about the GOTV effort did it suck

This is just what I'm hearing from a single reporter-- and this might be due to the natural recriminations that follow a loss-- but I hear it sucked, at least in Ohio.

Remember the party is fratricidal (as any party is in a loss) but I hear that Portman and Kevin DeWine simply did not do much outreach and GOTV.

And if that's the case in Ohio... I don't know **

I was impressed with the ORCA project, but Reince is no Rove.

I read the fraud comments, did millions of votes disappear?

How can we even tell if there was a grand conpsiracy and now Diebold or whatever is dumping GOP votes.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:23 PM (QxSug)

178 The Republican party lost a gimme election because of terrible strategy and a terrible candidate.

If the Republican party is to remain relevant, there has to be enormous consequences - including the removal of the old guard from power.

We've now run very similar "mainstream moderate Republicans" in two straight elections and lost both times - with negative coat tails from each candidate for the congressional races.

If the Republican party things it can continue in this regard then it is time to go the third party route because they aren't going to win national elections anymore anyway.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 06:23 PM (AUeaU)

179 Samwise,

I'm curious to know if the Mormon thing hurt Romney.

But... bear in mind, a LOT of Republicans lost, ones you wouldn't expect to lose.

Why did that happen?

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:23 PM (LCRYB)

180 Herman Cain (to quote one of my favorite morons) should go eat a bag of dicks.

Posted by: Peaches at November 07, 2012 06:23 PM (VISKy)

181 130 The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up.

Who was that? And why?
-
A purely economic message is boring and does not motivate people. Liberal but economically conservative Republicans like to talk as though the platform has a popular part, fiscal wonkery, and an unpopular part, social conservative issues. That is bogus. If people wanted what fiscal cons say they way, they would have showed up and voted for it.

Also, people like to be on a side. They be part of a team, a gang. They want somebody to have theor back, and they're prepared to reciprocate. The Goldberg line - liberals are for specific groups of people but conservatuves are not - is a permanent loser.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (BuRsu)

182
I want an explantion for the lower voting totals. I still don't see how he got lower numbers in Ohio than McCain with all the stories yesterday of long lines and record turn out.

Posted by: jbwWhen I voted in my precinct in Ohio yesterday, I actually thought the turnout was a little low. There was not that long a line. Later in the day when my wife and son voted, they walked right in. And I live in a suburb of Columbus that is probably a strong majority Republican area..I chalked it up to "early voting" at the time. Especially with all the talk of "record turnouts" on the radio.But it was not a record turnout. Not even close. I liked Mitt, I thought he ran a good campaign.But he OBVIOUSLY did not arouse enough enthusiasm to get out the vote. The vote totals were lower than 2004 and 2008. I don't know why, and I think this will be a question for years to come.Just about everyone I know loathes Obama, even some Democrats I know. I just can't figure out what happened.So we either re-build or burn it all down or spit on each other and hand the next election to the Dems. I hate those guys. After the 1964 drubbing of Goldwater (a "principled conservative") by LBJ, all the know-it-alls were ready to write off the Republicans for good.Four years later, Richard Nixon was elected, and he was written off for "dead" after losing the 1962 California governors race. Don't underestimate just how screwed up and incompetent Obama and his regime can be, even more so than now. Eventually there will be a tipping point and people really WILL get upset and vote against this stuff.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (RFeQD)

183 The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up. Who was that? And why?
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:16 PM (LCRYB)


--------------------------------------------


I remember the repub convention where NV gave all but three of their delegate votes to Luap Nor.

I don't think conservatives (religious or otherwise) stayed home. The libertarians did.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (EUJBD)

184 Things change. Nations change. Boundaries change.





Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)

Secession is a definite possibility in the future if things really go to hell. Socialism would not mind that too much, I'm thinking. When Great Britain became not so great, then her opposition lost interest and sought a new boogieman.

Posted by: tubal at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (BoE3Z)

185
Things change. Nations change. Boundaries change.





Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)

There are folks in AK who parade this idea around every so often, and they are completely serious about it. Not nutjobs, folks who get so damned sick of the Feds interfering in every damned thing. If you think Texans are individualists, you haven't met any Alaskans. And it might be workable, considering the price of oil and the infrastructure already in place. AK has only been a state for 54 years and lots of people remember when it wasn't.
These are the same folks who put out the bumper stickers during the early days of the Feds trying to hold up building the pipeline: Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark.
They are for real. Just not a majority.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (VLG62)

186 Fuck the NFC North! .... Cowboys, Aints, Falcons and Rams, I think thats it, only teams worth rooting for now. I haven't checked the AFC lineup yet.

Posted by: Urban Achiever at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (sd73r)

187 132 Great. Check out the headline at Drudge. Weeping Boner is reaching out to King Baraka

Take heart. This COULD be a great gambit on The Weeper's part. Taking the initiative makes the GOP look like they are not sore losers and puts Obama in a bit of a spot. Because the reality is he doesn't want to compromise.

Posted by: Cricket at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (2ArJQ)

188 "I fear that Mark warner is next in line for Dems"

I suspect both Warner and Cuomo will get zapped in the primaries by the progs.

Because, let's face it, they've discovered they can literally run a commie and win.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:24 PM (oDtYC)

189 Even here most people are quick to cast blame on Romney or the GOP or R voters or independents or Christie or abortion or whatever...all the while accepting that the results are legit without question. When they are clearly out of whack and we know the left cheats.

It bothers me that Romney conceded before counts of provisional, absentee, early, etc ballots were counted, the military ballot problem was resolved, and reports of cheating and other irregularities were investigated.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:25 PM (F3s39)

190 Do we have data yet -- did the evangelicals stay home?

I'm still baffled as to which part of the Republican coalition was willing to vote for McCain but not Romney.

Was it the war hero thing? I would have though Romney being about 1,000x more handsome than McCain would have helped.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 06:25 PM (ZPrif)

191
the dems are trench fighters and one day after getting our throats slit we are crafting some elegant stratergy to defeat them next time,ain't going to work guys

Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 06:25 PM (AW9md)

192 173. What state?

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:25 PM (dTGdl)

193 Obama won with 18% of the country. What's wrong with 25%?

Posted by: SmokyBourbon at November 07, 2012 06:26 PM (2i6Vi)

194 Depending on how the next 4 years goes down, perhaps the pain on the masses will be enough to effect change. People haven't been hurt enough. I guess we need 25% unemployment, higher taxation, food prices that rise by 30%, and we are miserable and cold because we can't afford to turn on the heat.

Posted by: Cheri at November 07, 2012 06:26 PM (G+Wff)

195 lolz, maybe alaska will secede after all or Texas.

I said a while ago, just give me a few square miles of swamp and desert and just laws (i.e., reagan rules) and we'd beat anyone. Like Hong Kong or Singapore, I guess.

We don't need to carry California on our backs, paying for Obamaphones and public sector union thugs.

Oh god, PSU's!

another wedge for Romney!

Why did he not use that?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:26 PM (QxSug)

196 re: "Maybe Rand Paul is the way forward. Maybe Rubio."

Thomas Massie is the only non-incumbent I know of who *smoked* the Democrat he was up against. His was a Rand Paul "coattail" win, of a sort—a proxy vote for Paul in a race he wasn't running in. Paul seems to be developing a habit of winning elections (and Republican primaries the GOP doesn't want him or his favored candidate to win) by massive margins.

On the other hand, Rubio could net the GOP as much as 1% more of the Hispanic vote. In Florida. Once. In a loss.

Place your bets!

Posted by: oblig. at November 07, 2012 06:26 PM (cePv8)

197 Texas can guard its borders better than the fed. Suceed

Posted by: thunderb at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (wD4+h)

198 I wish Boehner would grow a pair and just we will compromise, after you dump the mandate

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (dTGdl)

199 Oh, and I call bullshit on the low turnout. Voting was brisk. So was malfeasance, and not on our part. Time for the House to propose serious measures to clean up elections. I'm not adverse to having a purple finger for a few days.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (VLG62)

200 31 Nor'easter forcast : Heavy snow now in NYC! Up to 5 inches in parts of Connecticut. Could get much more snow in Manhattan and even Long Island areas as it looks like cold air is winning the battle. Also, an unconfirmed report of a 70 mph wind gust on Nantucket.

Thank goodness they have Obama to take care of them.
Posted by: Stormy at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (1f2Z2)

Good - freeze to death, you fuckers. I couldn't care less about any of those northern states or the blue states. You want big Government? Fine. You can die waiting for it. It won't bother me at all.

Posted by: blindside at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (x7g7t)

201 Forgot the Panthers .... AFC is easy. Chiefs, Colts and TEXANS. Thats about it.

Posted by: Urban Achiever at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (sd73r)

202 "Unfortunately, though, the GOP has issues with getting its vote out, when a Mormon is the top of the ticket."

Mormon, shmormon. Mitt Romney is a sincere, devout, caring, righteous family man who thinks he has every right to ignore that and do the wrong thing to win elections.

For each sincere, earnest, forceful, competent speech he gave on the issues in 2012 there was a contemporary article, video, speech, or op-ed where he earnestly, sincerely and forcefully took the opposite position.

You remember Kerry's "I was for that, before I was against it" gaffe? Romney had too many to count.

But I'm sure you'll stick with the Myth of Mitt, the 60% Victor whittled down to 48% by bigotry, sloth, greed, envy, stupidity, and calumny.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (3GtyG)

203 "We've now run very similar "mainstream moderate Republicans" in two straight elections and lost both times - with negative coat tails from each candidate for the congressional races."

I agree with this. And it's *not* about issue purity. It's about, as they say in Chicago, Who Sent You.

No one sent by the same Beltway coterie. They don't have the balls -- never did.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (oDtYC)

204 I guess we need 25% unemployment, higher taxation, food prices that
rise by 30%, and we are miserable and cold because we can't afford to
turn on the heat.


We'll be freezing to death in the dark, but the Democrat core consituency will get "heat assistance."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ loves sausage at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (/kI1Q)

205 Mark Warner is an ugly man. Pock-marked face. And geeky looking. He's an ugly, geeky rich guy.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (ZPrif)

206 I don't want a right-wing party that preserves the culture while bankrupting the nation. I also don't want a right-wing party that keeps the financial house in order while racing the dems to debase the culture.Both are indespensable to our long term survival and freedom. (I think the military is a bloated, bueurocratic mess that is nonetheless the one functional and one of the few legitimatefederal programof government, yet badly used on fools errands of late. But nevermind now, the Hawks are usually ignored in the circular firing squad). Unfortunately I think that as things stand, both those positions are losing positions in the broader electorate and the most likely third party we see is a (slightly less) soft left part that wedges in between R D, competing for votes of hipsters minorities, etc.

Posted by: Randy M at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (vI8R6)

207 If people wanted what economic conservatives say they want, they would have showed up and voted for it.

The pure economic message, and a party that is for "everybody" but really nobody, is a loser.

It may have been possible to win like that once, but no more. Mass immigration has changed America's demographics and what issues are relevant.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (BuRsu)

208
Let me ask a serious question. If there was a way to do a coordinated producer strike (unlikely I know), what would be the most effective?

Pilots. Cabbies. General transportation. Maybe just a two week shutdown of small businesses.

I think it will probably happen, but 1 at a time until its huge, but I would like to see one where a message is sent.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (PHb2k)

209 Cain isn't going to be leading shit. I was never impressed by the guy.m

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (x0g8a)

210 #141 Well, when need to compare vote totals and % margins for each state in 2008 and compare it to 2012, and we'd be able to determine if you're right, I think.

Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (I4NNt)

211 The Republican Party isn't the problem. It's the messaging. And it's easy to blame the candidate, but Romney ran a great campaign. Republicans stayed home... again. Last time, it was Romney supporters, this time we know Evangelicals stayed home by 7% in Virginia. Need to find someone with true value and reach out to more than just white voters and return to the Party of Civil Rights that the Republican Party was founded on. And inform people of what the Republican Party stands for.

Posted by: MrX at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (PxmNZ)

212 http://tinyurl.com/budow6p

Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (+paCV)

213 "What I want from government is to be ignored by government, to not be
burdened by government, to be free as possible from government. And
that requires having people in office -- not in grandstanding, personally-benefiting clubs -- who will advance that notion."

Ace, that's because you seem to take seriously George Washington's notion that government is like fire and needs to be feared like fire. It is a hard thing to get people to agree to unless they've been burned, also just like fire. Too many people think that in today's "enlightened" age, government is a warm fuzzy teddy bear with nothing but good intentions for you. Ask the guy who made the Mohammed film about that. Government will turn on you, create a law justifying turning on you and then enforce that law scrupulously, regardless of how unjust you, as an individual, may think that law is. We can never forget that everything the Nazis, Fascists and Communists did to their citizens was legal.

Everything we know about collectivism shows that the benefits flow to a smaller proportion of the population than they do in more "free association" type societies, so it's abundantly clear that the average Obama voter, who has no particular quality or skill to enable herself to enter the "inner Party", to borrow Orwell's term, would be better off in a society with less, rather than more, collectivism.

Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 06:28 PM (P2Ufm)

214 This is a demographic, cultural, and financial problem that is about to eat us alive.
Posted by: Graves of Carolina

THIS

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (GOJp0)

215 I am hatin' politics right now. Just saying. I am in recovery mode right. It may go to the rage phase of grief tomorrow.

Think about this, morons (don't know if it has been discussed as I am avoiding the Internet like the plague as when I click on jug-ear's face and/or stories about his wife or daughters are everywhere, causing projectile vomiting of Milk Duds and Kit Kat Halloween candy. Yes, my fast and sugar deprivation is over. On the bright side I have lost weight but allowed myself chocolate today).

Anyway:
1) The scandals will not go away. Someone is going to pay. The media cannot ignore these forever. They may try, but they will not succeed. I want The Won to go down in flames and to suffer indignities prior to his crash and burn. It is going to happen. Hurricane Sandy's looting and messes are also on the back burner of the news cycle.

2) The economy will continue to stink, unless Stinky Bohener does some shifty crap, which has been implied by headlines on Drudge. It will still probably stink. I am not reading stuff today. I am going to be a stupid voter from now on.

3) The Dem brand will, hopefully, be as seriously damaged by #1 and 2 as Bush damaged the GOP.

I am going to get stuff done around here. Have devoted way too much time to my politics addiction. For nothing. I am a walking Benghazi wikipedia, which may not be for nothing, depending on how things go. However, I really need to devote my time to other endeavors, mainly life. I will still read here, however. So shine, Morons, shine. And make me laugh---that is what I have needed for four years and will need going into the future.

All we have is today. Make good use of it. Do not worry about tomorrow.
Proclamaition by Dame Christy, Queen of Rednecks, Bad Day, November 2012

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, raving lunatic about Benghazi at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (baL2B)

216 To those not happy with a 3rd party movement,

I'm not exactly sold on the idea either, but what exactly would have to happen for that to be a good idea?

What, in your estimation, would be required for it to be plausible?

Posted by: burned cut-loop at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (jo069)

217 I know this is fever swamp stuff, so don't jump in. But I've been really bothered by both that D+6 and the 3 million undervote.

The D+6 is completely out of sync with party ID polls. We would need to believe that so many people told the pollsters "I'm a Rep" then didn't bother to vote. Also the 3 million undervote is very weird, since we picked up 2.5 million in Ind votes. That is a 5 million vote switch. Total missing votes is 8 million. I can't see how we could have that many evangelicals be so mad about a Mormon that they would sit home. Especially since they weren't that thrilled to vote for McCain in the first place. We would have picked up on the sentiment during the GOTV work.

I'm catching wind of some folks looking closely at some of the Florida counties. The red counties came in huge like expected. But the swing and blue counties have numbers that don't add up. Early votes and same day strike lists are much higher than votes reported.

If this is true, it will have no impact on the election. Chicago will have stolen it. But if it is true, we have a bigger problem. We are Venezuela. Romney internals had VA up over 3 points, but some key counties came in "odd" and swung the final tally.

For this to be true, it would require a lot of coordination, and probably assistance from some Republicans.

You can call me a truther now, but it might not be that our coalition is fractured. The finger pointing would be for nothing. We actually won yesterday, but lost the equivalent of the 1960 massive fraud in Illinois.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (dX4hn)

218 I think the US will grow. We'll add Puerto Rico. Then why not more.

Obama hasn't been shy about playing the patriotism card.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (ZPrif)

219 Stupid idea, and it will pass.

What the GOP needs to do is put up a little fight against TFG's fiscal cliff solution, then "relucantly" give in and raise taxes on the top earners. Boehner then makes a speech to the effect of, we don't think this will work, but he we hope and pray it does, and we are bowing to the powerful preezy and his mandate.

Then let him reap the whirlwind.

Any other stand will result in Repubs being the bad guys, again.

Let the people out there see what the connection between their president and their misery. Let them taste it. Because right now they don't. They got the food stamps, the Obamaphone, medical, you name it. And a cool guy on TV every once in a while.

Posted by: PJ at November 07, 2012 06:30 PM (DQHjw)

220
Don't make the Democrats ten feet tall and covered with hair.

Most of them are bumbling jerks. Really. We lost to a gang of bumbling jerks, who promised all the little factions everything they wanted, and got away with telling all kinds of lies about the Republicans.

They are still doing it tonight. They did it last night .I watched it.

And they will do it next week and forever until Hell freezes over. Breitbart was right - it's the culture and the Media that sells it. That's what we are up against. So let's just STOP tearing ourselves apart over this and realize just how small our opposition really is. Small, smelly and poorly dressed.

If you want truth, you're not going to find it anywhere on the TV. There is precious little of it there.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at November 07, 2012 06:30 PM (RFeQD)

221 I still think its really hard to win a national election with a guy from Massachusetts if the person isn't a Kennedy. It didn't work for the dems in 04, and it didn't work for republicans in 2012. What it takes to govern in Mass is considerably different then the rest of the nation. After a few trips to Boston and the surrounding areas I could see why they would like Romney, and even Kerry. I just don't think that correlates well to the national stage.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 06:30 PM (NzBQO)

222 Mayday, please. For the love of God, think.

You, and most, keep on saying this, but you put it as concisely as anybody I've seen:

"It just doesn't make sense. This was a broken glass election."

It WAS a broken glass election. The majority of the GOP base was motivated as hell, and Romney fought a great campaign.

But it *does* make sense, Mayday and others, if only you will open your mind to see it.

The GOP didn't turn out. Despite Obama's failure, scandal, and a much better GOP campaign than in '08.

Why?

This is why.

Some Christians -- not you -- not you -- couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon and stayed home.

It's at least a strong possibility. So don't say, "It just doesn't make sense," when you haven't examined the possibilities, I implore you.

Also, take SOME cheer. If Obama lost 10,000,000 votes, the Republic didn't endorse him, it somewhat repudiated him. The problem, the election loss, is on the GOP side.

I realize that's painful, but there's no other conclusion you can draw from the vote totals.

Perhaps it will turn out not to be caused by a segment of Christians with anti-Mormon bias. Perhaps I and Jacobson and others were wrong in our predictions.

But it's still on the GOP side. You can't say the leftists gained in mindshare with the people when Obama lost 10 million votes.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:30 PM (SKX2R)

223 Did not realize that. Reagan won 45 states and 13 senate seats in 1980, but still could not take the House.

Pete sessions of TX has done a great job i 2010 and 2012. He needs to run the Senate Elections next time

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:31 PM (dTGdl)

224 Hate to say it, but Va, FL, and Ohio are now Blue States

Now?

I thought they went for Obama the first time too.

Posted by: Decaf at November 07, 2012 06:31 PM (+Bpfx)

225
We'll be freezing to death in the dark, but the Democrat core consituency will get "heat assistance."


Posted by: HeatherRadish™ loves sausage at November 07, 2012 06:27 PM (/kI1Q)

You might be, but I have a fireplace and a camper, and I can go just about anywhere at any time if need be. The Democrat core constituency is dependent--we don't need to be so. And once off the grid, we won't be paying for their heat, either.

Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:31 PM (VLG62)

226 We already have a one-party system. There's a far-left wing (D) and another wing that is mostly the far-left wing's bitch, depending on which way the wind's blowing.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 06:31 PM (zpqa2)

227 NRA did not help that much this time either?

--------------------

Dems were smart enough to learn gun control was poison and they dropped it. Meanwhile, we've got the Social Con Campaign Strategery:

1) Talk about abortion
2) Lose election
3) ???????????
4) No more abortions!!!

Posted by: Taro Tsujimoto at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (celt+)

228 cut-loop,

A third party is a bid to rejigger the coalition. You understand that, right? A third party that takes 1/3rd of the vote loses. Right?

To be a viable third party-- one that wins -- you have to figure out how it could plausibly either,

1) Get rid of an unpopular part of your current coalition in order to attract a larger, more popular part currently in coalition with the Democrats; or,

2) Draw so many Democrats generally that you divide the nation 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd, and so can occasionally win just by having a good year.

Please explain to me which Democrats you think you can draw with this New Party. Or which part of your current coalition you'll get rid of in favor of some other larger cohort of voters currently in the Democrats' coalition.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (LCRYB)

229 7% of the electorate representing evangelical Christians stayed home again yesterday - so on top of all the Christians that wouldn't vote for McCain, 7% wouldn't vote for Romney. And, of course, Catholics actually voted in large numbers for Obama. I don't think Herm's haram can help here.

Posted by: Steven W. at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (R9C6I)

230 Texas should ask to leave the Union and let Puerto Rico replace them.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (4cRnj)

231 fine, you figure out how to prove any sort of undercounting. Or get Reince to do so. He has the data.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (QxSug)

232 The scandals will not go away. Someone is going to pay. The media cannot ignore these forever.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, raving lunatic about Benghazi at November 07, 2012 06:29 PM (baL2B)


Oh. Really?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (QKKT0)

233 The Whigs went down because they refused to squarely face the greatestissue their day, the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, the import of which being that slavery would not 'wither away' as had been hoped (a wish held even by slave-owning Founders such as Jefferson and Washington). The Whigs essentially did nothing, fearful of upsetting the status quo and bringing about the conflict many could foresee even then, and in the end causing itsown dissolution.

So what's the biggest issue of our day? I'd say the biggest issue facing us as a countryis the stealth socialist takeover of the federal government by hardcore Marxists wearing the Democratic brand. So we have to ask: Is the Republican Party confronting this issue at any level or--like the Whigs--refusing to face it head-on, fearful of the risks and possible ramifications? I'd say the GOP has been treading too carefully, again like the Whigs. The refusal by Romney even to call Obama a liberal, for example, is a case in point.

The Party of Lincoln needs to stand up for first principles. Screw the status quo. As Lincoln said in his Cooper Union address, "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

We'll know if the GOP remains a viable political party when the Democrats actively attempt to infringe on the 1st Amendment. The Democrats were talking about restricting free speech immediately following the Benghazi attack, when the attack was blamed on Islamic outrage over acheesy YouTube video. When they follow through--and they will--and if the GOP does nothing, then we'll know it's time for the Republican Party to go the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: troyriser at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (vtiE6)

234
But it's still on the GOP side. You can't say the leftists gained in mindshare with the people when Obama lost 10 million votes.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:30 PM (SKX2R)

Bullshit.
The fault is with stuffed ballot boxes and dead people voting.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (VLG62)

235 Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:26 PM (QxSug)


-------------------------------------------


It's because, if you remember, the last two or three elections the repubs have run the "compassionate uniters" meme. Reach-across-the-aisleism. We have to get over that and become as partisan as the communists.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (EUJBD)

236 222. Good point. I was warned last year about that with the Mormon issue, did not want to believe it. Last night was awful, but I will always give Mitt props for saving the House.

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (dTGdl)

237
This COULD be a great gambit on The Weeper's part. Taking the initiative makes the GOP look like they are not sore losers and puts Obama in a bit of a spot. Because the reality is he doesn't want to compromise.

Posted by: Cricket





Yeah, that's probably it. It's a ploy. Beohner is after all known for his steely-eyed determination and his inability to be outmaneuvered politically .

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (kdS6q)

238 All I know is I'm voting Rand Paul next nomination.

No more pussyfooting.

I want someone who will stand up to the alphabet soup and their cronies in govt.

I'm ok with him failing to do so. This is a hill to die on.

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (fCMdQ)

239 "government is like fire and needs to be feared like fire. It is a hard thing to get people to agree to unless they've been burned, also just like fire. "

Even those memories don't last long. You would think Jews, having seen and lived through what government will do, would be MOST protective of their right to defend themselves and MOST for small government with limited power.

Posted by: blindside at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (x7g7t)

240 and I can go just about anywhere at any time if need be.

Independently wealthy, good for you.

The rest of us will freeze to death in the dark.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ loves sausage at November 07, 2012 06:34 PM (/kI1Q)

241 **Please explain to me which Democrats you think you can draw with this New Party.**

yes, what would make a romney-democrat?

What did Reagan democrats like about reagan. You know?

Are there any values left in America aside from gays on Bravo, abortions, and sluts?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:34 PM (QxSug)

242 Third party, GOP, whatever. I feel like this was not just an election we lost. It was the country. I guess there are more Obama phone ladies than there are of us. God help us all.

Posted by: OCD con at November 07, 2012 06:34 PM (uUlWl)

243 Rush and everyone else's exhortations that a third party is a fast-track to losing is kinda moot, huh?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 06:34 PM (zpqa2)

244
But it's still on the GOP side. You can't say the leftists gained in mindshare with the people when Obama lost 10 million votes.

--------------

THANK YOU.

I agree, I think the Mormon thing was unvoiced but extant.

Posted by: Taro Tsujimoto at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (celt+)

245

I'm still baffled as to which part of the Republican coalition was willing to vote for McCain but not Romney.





Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 06:25 PM (ZPrif)

There are millions of votes yet to be counted. Romney will probably end up with about the same or a little more than McCain's total.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (2ihLK)

246 I'd love to see Mitt go on to do something really outstanding, like build the world's largest business empire, or something along those lines. I'd love for the world to have to point to him as the world's most successful business leader. Maybe a few dumbasses might even stop and wonder why we didn't elect him as our president.

Posted by: Havedash at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (ToMJU)

247 I wonder if those machines switching votes to the 0 ALSO decided to FORGET R Votes??

I mean, its just one or two lines of code that would say "if 10 votes are Rs then drop one, and continue" That would drop turnout 10% and would make up the difference in all the nation!

Maybe not, but I'm a true Cynic

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (E7Iyp)

248 227. Agreed, I hope Holder goes after guns. The masses will then rise

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (dTGdl)

249 Dave, that's an even worse outcome, but one we'd REALLY need to know about. However, all the close Senate races breaking wrong suggests just a bad overall turnout... (yeah, or even more widespread fraud).

When you get over the hangover and feel like looking at numbers again, please do so.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (oDtYC)

250 Texas should ask to leave the Union and let Puerto Rico replace them.
Posted by: Dr Spank at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (4cRnj)


-------------------------------------------


Which country is going to replace OK? Because if TX goes, we'll go with them.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (EUJBD)

251 Independently wealthy, good for you.

The rest of us will freeze to death in the dark.


Posted by: HeatherRadish™ loves sausage at November 07, 2012 06:34 PM (/kI1Q)

Not even close to wealthy. Just mobile in case of need. We can live on very little and will do so to avoid hot death at the hands of extremists like the communists in power.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (VLG62)

252 if your idea is to just form a More Pure conservative party, all you're doing is splintering the conservative party. You're cutting a 49% minority party into two 24.5% parties.

how does that work to your benefit?

I suppose you might think you'll finally be free to give America a strong dose of the hard stuff, full on real True Con Conservatism. Apparently our embrace of unpopular positions (refusing tax hikes on the rich, no abortions for rape, etc.) isn't what's holding us back; it's our unwillingness to really forefront them and "win" on them.

All I can say is: Good Luck with that.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (LCRYB)

253 Newt, you go first.

What a fuckingclown. I never understood his alleged appeal.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 06:35 PM (Rn7r2)

254 178 The Republican party lost a gimme election because of terrible strategy and a terrible candidate.
-
No.

The electoral playing field has been tilting to the Democrats due to mass immigration and other policies, by a percent or two per electoral cycle for a long time. This did not start with Mitt Romney being a Mormon or a "boring White guy". It started with allowing the Democrats to import a voting population for whom "boring White guy" is a negative.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:36 PM (BuRsu)

255 I see no problem with romney as a candidate. His strategy may have sucked because there's no wedge issue.

he didn't even go "obama sucks" just "meh, obama not so much."

We needed to wedge every issue.

If we're having rape-bortions put around our neck, he needed to explain something back.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:36 PM (QxSug)

256 We're going to live under one-party socialist rule regardless of what we, or anyone else, does.

Posted by: Scobface at November 07, 2012 06:36 PM (IoNBC)

257
Dave in FL, we got 30% of the Jewish vote too, they say, thats the best ever.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 06:36 PM (PHb2k)

258 Cain calls for third party, and let me guess, He's the Man for the job. Just a little too soon there herm. Give us a week so our wounds will stop bleeding and coagulate. We just got beat after supporting a realativly smart, wealthy, although uninspiring man. We watched as his stiff self, walking like he has a corn cobb up the ass, as we hung on every word praying for an inflection to show some fucking emotion, then when he does, lauding it as a great speech. We got used by the establishment GOP, again. They will keep their goodies. We have issues to deal with.

WTF.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 07, 2012 06:37 PM (3Y7RV)

259 sockon

Posted by: Difnick at November 07, 2012 06:37 PM (2t6Gz)

260 I would say 90% of the liberals I know aren't economic liberals but "keep your Bible out of my bedroom" types.

They work in the private sector, make a decent living, believe in capitalism and investing, don't believe in expanding welfare and food stamps, etc. We know "this" type of Republican can win those voters (Giuliani in NYC, Romney in Massachusetts, etc.) We can find common ground to where we're both left alone.

Here's the thing, I'm not saying a pro-life Republican can never win again, but it's going to take an "inside straight" to do it nationally from now on (really bad Democrat vs really gifted Republican) Even in the "red states" now, Republicans are having trouble on the pro-life platform.

Also, keep in mind, if the economy was "decent" (like say Bush in 2000 and 2004) our side would have been utterly destroyed. We're not going to have an 8% unemployment rate to run on forever.

Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 06:37 PM (ZI/Cb)

261 This election was nothing more than "do you want free stuff someone else pays for" vs. "the reality is, nothing is free".

Reality lost

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 06:38 PM (OWjjx)

262 I find this argument of "People voted for the Democrat because what they REALLY want is a harder-core conservative and the GOP won't give that to them" somewhat unconvincing.

Posted by: Paul at November 07, 2012 06:38 PM (g4Saz)

263
what happens when voting goes online? fraud is only going to get easier and on a much granderscale

Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 06:38 PM (AW9md)

264 217

Some of those missing 5 million votes comes from Latinos.

McCain = 33% of Latinos
Romney = 22% of Latinos

Posted by: The Q at November 07, 2012 06:38 PM (IgwTl)

265 We're not going to have an 8% unemployment rate to run on forever.


Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 06:37 PM (ZI/Cb)

No, sweetie, it will be more like 30% by the time the SCOAMF gets done.

Posted by: tcn at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (VLG62)

266 "It's because, if you remember, the last two or three elections the repubs have run the "compassionate uniters" meme. Reach-across-the-aisleism. We have to get over that and become as partisan as the communists."

Yep, too bad that will never happen on this here GOP Failboat.

Here's the real 5 reasons Mittens Failed

1) The GOP is made of fail

2) The Left is pedestaled in films, literature, music, and other entertainment industries. Meanwhile, the Right pretends that celebrities and Hollywood don't matter and we should "boycott" them. LOL

3) Social cons are allowed to run their mouths in a world that no longer even relates to them, nor cares about them

4) Ignored Benghazi, tried to be "fair"

5) Mormonism

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (Td9D+)

267 Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:32 PM (LCRYB)

Uh.... there is no Constitutional Need to get 270 Electoral Votes.... just the MOST Electoral votes...

Thus, a third... or even Fourth party candidate COULD win...

And we already have Third Party candidates (independents) win in the House and Senates.....

Soooo... except for the jiggered rules where the two Parties have perpetuated their stranglehold on power in the House and Senate (which are Rules, not LAWS)..... why could there NOT be a viable Third Party....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (lZBBB)

268 ugh. as I understand it, our old white unhip voters are simply dying at a rate of about 2.5M per election cycle.

if that's the case, 3rd party what?

There were 117M votes cast this election. As far as I can tell, there was no issue that cost obama any single democrat vote.

And I think it wasn't the evangelicals that stayed home, it was the independents, who like to answer phone polls, but not to actually vote.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (QxSug)

269 Here's the thing, I'm not saying a pro-life Republican can never win again, but it's going to take an "inside straight" to do it nationally from now on (really bad Democrat vs really gifted Republican) Even in the "red states" now, Republicans are having trouble on the pro-life platform.

Pro-Life Republicans can win. Now, pro-life no exception for anything....that I am not sure.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (OWjjx)

270 The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up. Who was that? And why?

Has anyone thought that the abstaining Republicans just could not take the demonization any longer. They might have stayed away to protect themselves from the media backlash if Obama were to lose. We are all probably made of sterner stuff but our political climate has become so poisoned that some people will simply shrink back.

Posted by: Decaf at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (+Bpfx)

271 Yeah, that's probably it. It's a ploy. Beohner is after all known for his steely-eyed determination and his inability to be outmaneuvered politically .
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 07, 2012 06:33 PM (kdS6q)


So you're theory is....he capitulated? Unforced?? Now that takes BALLS.

Posted by: Cricket at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (2ArJQ)

272 I'm still baffled as to which part of the Republican coalition was willing to vote for McCain but not Romney.


The exit polling is unambiguous. The majority of Americans didn't trust Romney. The reason they didn't trust him was because he appeared to have no core principles. For Republicans, Romenycare, the flip-flopping on abortion and gun control, and his somewhat kid-gloves treatment of Obama's scandals depressed turnout. It was a stupid decision; Romney lost by one percentage point. But the precious swing voters didn't trust him, either.

Democrats don't like Obama all that much (he got 9 million fewer voters this time around) but they believed the image of Romney that the Democrats and the media created. And which Romney and the GOP let them create. "Vulture capitalist." That stuck, and it peeled off a few GOP voters, too.

Still, the Dems won most of their elections by razor-thin margins. Not all, but most. And most of the Republicans who lost were flawed. I love Allen West, but he's too impolitic to be a politician.

Mia Love lost narrowly because of her gender, race, and inexperience.

Akin lost because he came across as an arrogant, inauthentic lunatic.

The loss last night is totally explainable and without mystery.

We need to field better candidates. That's all. It wasn't an electoral sea change. People re-elected Obama not knowing what's in store for them. Even all the young people who claim to be socialists have never lived under socialism.

I've lived in six socialist countries. Believe me, when everyone gets a taste of real socialism, they'll be singing a different tune. It appears, though, that people now have to experience something for themselves before they can evaluate it.

Simply saying to someone, "Don't stick your tongue in the wall socket!" isn't good enough anymore. They have to do it first.

But after they do it, they'll never do it again.

Posted by: Llarry at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (SI/pw)

273 we are back to FDR.

+ JFK
+ LBJ
+ Nixon
+ Clinton
+ Bush I II
+ Obama

If we were only at FDR, I'd still feel good about our chances. Now? Not so much.

Posted by: holygoat at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (IGIFh)

274 I've seen comments where social conservatives aree blaming libertarians and I've seen comments of libertarians blaming social conservatives. Each group is telling the other to sit down and shut up, or else get the hell out of the Republican Party.

What nobody has pointed out is that the majority of the American people don't want either traditional moral values or individual liberty/personal responsibility. They want hedonism and free shit.

Posted by: rickl at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (sdi6R)

275 A third party is a bid to rejigger the coalition. You understand that,
right? A third party that takes 1/3rd of the vote loses. Right?ACE

Um, yeah, as you pointed out the GOP has only won ONCE since 1988, hows THAT working out?

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (E7Iyp)

276 Look, if ~ 1 in 50 voters in 4 states had switched, Romney wins with 281 EVs. Toss out one super storm and a couple of bone headed Senate candidate/millstones, and that's very much in the realm of possible. The GOP needs to retool, but it shouldn't need to self-destruct. We lost, and it sucks, but i don't think we should, effectively, give up.

Posted by: ZBBMcFate at November 07, 2012 06:40 PM (Hj9yW)

277 @ Ace

>>> But... bear in mind, a LOT of Republicans lost, ones you wouldn't expect to lose.

I haven't analyzed the downticket in any depth. I'm still forming my thoughts. Obviously the GOP did OK in Congress general and in Governorships. The Senate, not so much (but Akin and Mourdock shot themselves in the foot with people closer to you and I, semi-libertarians who won't squander our impact with mere protests).

I will say this.

I expected West to lose because I don't think he was a good candidate, for anything but a large segment of the GOP base. He's a strong-spoken man, a real doer of deeds, but some of those deeds he has done has been questionable. He likes speaking unpalatable truths, as do I, but this is not the route to election victory. So I expected him to lose.

Mia Love is a great person and an attractive candidate.

But you'll note that one of the things I said above is that, regrettably, identity politics is not a non-issue in the GOP. Mia Love is black. She ran in Utah. She lost.

The Mormon Church, of which I used to be a member, has a history with seeing blacks as lessers, and they were only fairly recently given the full Priesthood rights. Most Mormons in Utah are of course not leery about voting for a black candidate, but I suspect there may be a segment who are, and that might have cost her the election.

That speculation will ALSO piss people off, but I'm sorry, I an't help that. I don't think everyone in the GOP has a lily-white, unbiased heart, and all such biases are 100% on the left. I just don't.

Identity popularity is a factor in humans,

So the briefer answer, Ace, is I don't know exactly, but you're assuming if you think I thought West and Love were guaranteed to win. West I absolutely would have thought would lose, and wouldn't have been too upset about the fact. Mia Love's loss is a great loss.

I haven't even bothered looking at most of the other downticket losses. I'm emotionally invested in this election largely because I despise Obama, and to a degree because I came to love Romney.

Plus Ryan rocks.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (SKX2R)

278 From the Innkeeper in a movie about retired British people living in a rundown Indian hotel.

"It will be alright in the end. .....If it is not yet alright, it is not yet the end"

Yeh, it's as stupid as it sounds.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (BPyqV)

279 Soooo... except for the jiggered rules where the two Parties have perpetuated their stranglehold on power in the House and Senate (which are Rules, not LAWS)..... why could there NOT be a viable Third Party....
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 07, 2012 06:39 PM (lZBBB)

Who would you like to peel off from the D's? Social liberals? Doves? Anti-corporatists?

There are only a couple of blocs I'd want to go after.

And many here wouldn't want to back away from things like gay marriage.

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (fCMdQ)

280 IDK, Llary. all these issues people are blaming on mitt that never even came up in debates or in ads.

Maybe it was the war on tampons.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (QxSug)

281 A third party will only divide the opposition and hand more leverage to the Democrats. Some peoplestill donot understand what happened last night: The American electorate has dramatically changed. 50% or more of thepublic is now on the take.Theydon't care aboutanythingexcept how muchthey can get for nothing.Republicans nowface the almost impossible task of defeating a political premise which essentially states that you can have lots of free benefits paid for by the"rich people". It reallywon't matter who the Republicans nominate for future elections. They will always lose in this scenario - until the money runs out -and the country is bankrupt - and the economy ultimately implodes.

Posted by: Frank S at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (B9edC)

282 I'd really like to know the story of those GOP voters who showed up for McCain but didn't for Romney. Something doesn't smell right. Everyone knew (or should have known) how important this election was, not just to the Republican party but to the nation as a whole.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (i0App)

283 I don't get the Evangelicals not voting for Romney because he's a Mormon (assuming that's even true).


What, they prefer TFG's religion so much more that they sit it out?

Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (X6akg)

284 We actually won yesterday, but lost the equivalent of the 1960 massive fraud in Illinois.
Posted by: Dave in Fla

If that is actually true -- and I am inclined to doubt it, stupidity explains the vote IMAO more than fraud -- then it isn't sit back and do nothing time, it's full-on riot in the streets time. Seriously, if it actually happened it's blockade and shut down DC, confront the national guard time. You can't let someone passively steal a nationwide election, they'll just do it again.

Posted by: MaureenTheTemp at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (GOJp0)

285 We need to talk to our audience and craft a simple message. And by that I mean we need to distill down a couple of basic messages – not in policy wonk terms but in plain old English. Because that’s what most of the people we’re trying to target understand:1) “I never got a job from a poor man”. This is so common sense that even a college educated youngster will understand it. And it will go a long way towards inoculating against the Lefts “Kill the Rich” message.2) “The government creates zero wealth. All it can do is confiscate and redistribute. Period”. Many, if not most, people are economically illiterate and think that government money comes at no cost. This basic statement, repeated often enough will counter the Left’s message that all good things come from government.We need to start re-educating the American public and it needs to be done using simple, easy to articulate – and hard to refute – thoughts.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (BJVEF)

286 Samwise, I don't see evidence Christians didn't show up, but I do see evidence millions of expected votes didn't appear. So knowing nothing else, fraud can't be ruled out. No one should be afraid of some investigation. If it doesn't pan out, it doesn't, but to blindly assume numbers that look wrong are right is not smart.

Dave in FL, I'm horrified at the thought too and hope it's flat out wrong. But the lack of GOP curiosity and Boehner jumping to let O know how happy he'll be to play together are not comforting.

I just want some investigation so everyone is sure the numbers are legit before we start the circular firing squad, figure out what went wrong, and determine where to go. I want facts, not opinions.


Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (F3s39)

287 Has anyone thought that the abstaining Republicans just could not take
the demonization any longer. They might have stayed away to protect
themselves from the media backlash if Obama were to lose.




Huh?

No. Nobody has thought that.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (QKKT0)

288
Saving the House:

Last night they ran a graphic of the political affiliation by counties. By the county map, America is a sea of Red, with only pockets of Blue (Democrats). But those pockets are deep populousareas in big cities.

So the House is a good reflection of "local" politics, which is also re-inforced by the number of Republican Governors.

We SHOULD have picked up seats in the Senate, but the GOP ran a slew of really BAD Senatorial candidates (and we don't have to name them again).

There was a particularly bad selection of candidates for Senate seats that Republicans should have won. And then there are the dolts in Massachusetts who elected that imbecile Elizabeth Warren. Tucker Carlson was almost giggling with mirth last night when he talked about how ridiculous it was that she got elected. If there was any kind of "skeptical" media in Massachusetts, do you think she could have stood up to the ridicule and scrutiny for her ludicrous actions?

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (RFeQD)

289 Obama had it right when we told that Iowa paper he was surprised Republicans ceded the latino vote to him the way we did. Our messaging has been awful about immigration. Self-deporting talk or should we have been talking about criminal illegals and what laws immigrants broke we wouldn't allow on a pathway to citizenship like drunk driving and alcohol related crimes being included as to prevent wards of the state. We could have at least given hope like a 10 year crime free pathway. We could have even tied percentages of acceptance of immigrant rates to Asian immigration with a message of equality.

Posted by: Brad at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (4wewJ)

290 **Um, yeah, as you pointed out the GOP has only won ONCE since 1988, hows THAT working out?**

case in point, obama was a plurality president.

HR Perot and Bush the elder took the majority.

HR Perot bled Bush, not clinton.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:42 PM (QxSug)

291 We cannot compromise on much. We cannot compromise on immigration. We cannot compromise on raising taxes. If we think something is a bad idea, we need to explain why it is so.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at November 07, 2012 06:43 PM (Cl95C)

292 252

Wait, wait, wait. We have to stand for something. What?


Or are we going to stand for nothing? Because I don't want to start pointing fingers, but there's a certain hypothesis that has just been invalidated, and some people don't really want to notice or understand what that might have been.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:43 PM (aSf5o)

293 233 The Whigs went down because they refused to squarely face the greatestissue their day, the expansion of slavery into new territories and states, the import of which being that slavery would not 'wither away' as had been hoped (a wish held even by slave-owning Founders such as Jefferson and Washington). The Whigs essentially did nothing, fearful of upsetting the status quo and bringing about the conflict many could foresee even then, and in the end causing itsown dissolution.

So what's the biggest issue of our day?
-
The biggest issue is that the race card is not maxed, and contrary to the wishful thinking of conservatives the race card will never be maxed. On the contrary, it is growing more powerful, as America continues to import a non-White majority to vote for an anti-White party, the Democratic Party.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:43 PM (BuRsu)

294 Posted by: Paul at November 07, 2012 06:38 PM (g4Saz)

The argument is not that conservatives voted for Obama.... its that they stayed home and did not vote...

Romney got less total votes than McCain.... and Obama got less votes than he did last time even after 4 years of FAIL?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (lZBBB)

295 Third parties never work.

Until they do.

See Lincoln, Abraham.

I can't find a link, but American Badass Pat Caddell said on Fox Radio last night that he thinks we're witnessing the second fall of the Whig party.

So it isn't so much a third party concept that people are thinking about. They are thinking of replacing a useless, (almost lookalike) party with one that isn't.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (nXXIv)

296 Samwise Hobbit-fan- get somefacts to back up your claim that Christians lost this election or STFU. This is about your hundredth post today on this topic today with nothing but innuendo.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (Ou5cA)

297 A third party is stupid...we saw what happened when "True Conservatives" picked our Senate candidate in MO and IN (and DE last time).

Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (I4NNt)

298
i've said this five times here since last night i'm sure somebody is ready to tell me to STFU but the only solution is to not allow people on welfare to vote at allor maybe a non binding vote.

Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (AW9md)

299 Cain is a fucking retard. But he gets traction because stupid whites, on both sides, can't wait to be ruled by blacks. Why? Watch TV...

Posted by: Sweep the leg at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (eoL3N)

300 "I actually think the model of large pluralistic
states just encourages one coalition to punish the losing coalition.
I'm frankly in favor of smaller nations. Every time there's an ethnic
problem in another country, my first thought is "break it up into
component states."



I don't see the problem with discussing secession.



I don't have any particular problem with it. Sure, I like the
general idea of the USA, but the USA is going a route I don't like.



Things change. Nations change. Boundaries change.





Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)"I always am drawn to the fact that, on a county level, the GOP wins about 90% of the counties in the country in Presidential elections. Problem is, the number of people in those counties is small. In some way, the Electoral College, which most of the GOP favors, may be hindering secession. Of course, that's because the Founders really did want to keep the country together, but they never had to deal with the SCOAMF and his mouth-breathing acolytes.I'm 100% for secession, in theory, although I'd like to see some details before actually picking up a gun and shooting someone on behalf of the idea, if that became necessary, and since I live in NYC I know I'd have to be one of the first to have to move to a new area if it happened. I'd walk with everything I could carry on my back for a thousand miles to settle in a sovereign nation that took the Constitution seriously as something other than toilet paper or a cryptogram which, when properly decoded, proves that the Founding Fathers were actually to the Left of Stalin, only nobody ever noticed until modern-day liberals came along.I agree, though, that nothing in politics is written in stone and that boundaries should reflect some kind of natural grouping mechanism, either due to birth and kin relationships or due to ideological commonalities.I always say that we should play to liberals vanity and pitch it as "we're not worthy of sharing a state with such enlightened beings as yourselves. we're only holding you back from utopia, go on without us."

Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (P2Ufm)

301 >>>The reality is the electorate wanted free stuff, and there's no winning coalition that can be formed by denying them freebies. We made the argument and we lost. What's that saying...experience is a harsh teacher, but some men will have no other? That's where we are. It's going to take a crash now and a hella lot of people to see the light before any conservative governing coalition can form.
Posted by: JohnTant at November 07, 2012 06:03 PM (kAfbq)

This

Posted by: Max Power at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (q177U)

302 Give us a fucking candidate we can get behind! Not one we have to hold our nose and reluctantly vote for! Romney got three million FEWER votes than McCain! And still people are calling for a candidate that "appeals to the greatest number of people", so they dumped McCain and Romney on us.

You want to appeal to the greatest number of people? Give us a candidate who is DIFFERENT from the other guy! Not a lighter version of him!

No more compromise.

My vote goes to the conservative candidate from here on out.

You want to keep tossing up RINOs?

Be prepared to never win another election.

The candidate who appeals to independents is the one who is clearly DIFFERENT from what the Left is offering.

I mean...they're running their most radical non-centrist candidates...and winning!

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (fGatA)

303 All of this talk of reforming or abandoning the Republican party isn't going to change anything, because it's the Media who run things and who control the view.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (i0App)

304 Regarding "where" the conservative voter went, I firmly believe it had nothing to do with Romney not being sufficiently conservative. Even if you want to make that case, those people can't be catered to if they are willing to sit out an election like this.

I think a lot of these people have not only given up on government but given up on politics. They see the world is doomed and nothing can stop that.

Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (ZI/Cb)

305 The electoral playing field has been tilting to the Democrats due to
mass immigration and other policies, by a percent or two per electoral
cycle for a long time.
***
Based on the economic numbers, it should have been impossible for Obama to win.

This has nothing to do with demographics and everything to do with incompetence.

Romney was the wrong man, Romney ran the wrong strategy. Romney made numerous tactical mistakes.

The Republican party has now made cataclysmal mistakes in choosing the head of their ticket twice in a row.

How many times do we have to make the same mistake?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (AUeaU)

306 270 They might have stayed away to protect
themselves from the media backlash if Obama were to lose.

I voted but I did go ahead and put a locking gas cap on my rig yesterday...after the thin had been sitting unused 2 years. Hope I don't lose the keys now.


Posted by: jeanne, in full escapist mode at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (GdalM)

307 Joe,

>>>Are there any values left in America aside from gays on Bravo, abortions, and sluts?

I absolutely know you are kidding around and you're a good egg. I bring this up not to knock you at all -- swear it, not knocking you -- but because I think this is inadvertently illustrative of an image problem.

Asians broke overwhelmingly for Obama.

Now, why would they do that?

Asians have no strong racial antipathy against them. They are pretty wealthy. And so on.

A lot of them are Christian, too.

So why would they break for Obama?

I should probably put this in a post, but I think for most people, politics are simply affiliative. They don't care about politics or issues. They go with the crowed they most would like to hang with in real life.

I think most people's political development is arrested at the high school level: Either you were one of the popular A-crowd kids or you weren't.

The B and C and D crowd kids vote Democrat. Because they don't like the A crowd. The A crowd both slighted them in reality, with actual bullying or insults, or slighted them in their imagination, more commonly, by simply not even realizing the b, c, and d crowds existed.

One image problem the Republican Party has is that it often seems to pick on the weird kids. Now, as I write this, I realize this is bullshit, because the Democratic Party runs every year against our own "weird kids."

Nevertheless, I'm talking about image. When the Democrats run against our "weird kids," the media calls that 'smart politics." When we do it, they call us bullies, and the make a huge fucking deal about it.

So the answer I have in mind for Asians is "because they see the Republican Party as the swell kids and rich anglos who either bullied them or (more commonly) simply didn't invite them to parties."

This isn't to say anything about your joke, which is why I stress I know it's just a joke.

But at a 20,000 foot level, I think things like Rush's joke about Sandra Fluke is more harmful than it should be, because all the B-, C-, and D- crowd people see "there's the A crowd bullying another one of US."

And I think this Us and Not Us thing is what drives politics in reality. Even among people like Us, who actually follow issues and stuff, pretty much we stick together not because we're close on the issues but because we recognize each other as being "kind of like Us."

So just a long general thought. A lot of people will take issue when I say we have got to stop seeing so judgmental and deeply concerned about other people's sexual choices. They'll say that's what the Republic is founded on or it's principle or whatever.

My belief is we have no power to change it, and every time we do this, we tell someone in the B or C or D crowd that we're the bullies or the people who didn't invite them to parties and they should get together with the people who are more like Them.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:45 PM (LCRYB)

308 >>>But who knows. Maybe we just all hate each other too much.

I don't hate strict ficons, or hardened libertarians, or socons. I think that all of these legs have something to contribute to a practical political platform.

I do see a lot of hate for socons for some of the very stupid things said by Akin et al. But I don't think an amoral society can exist for any great period as a free society. As a result I think that the pro-life (to some extent) stance needs to be part of our platform.

However I lean more libertarian when it comes to marriage and don't believe the government should define, regulate, sanction, incentivise, or otherwise interfere with human relationships that take place between consenting adults. This includes marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, et al.

The Libertarian "Any drugs I want" is a bridge to far for me because the corresponding "No safety net whatsoever" is not similarly supported with equal fervor by the Libertarians who want to legalize drug use.

Ficons and Libertarians in a strict sense would cut the military to the point of leaving a global power vacuum wherein gallons of blood throughout the world would be poured.

All of these narrow philosophies strictly applied fall apart when they meet the complexity of the real world. This was the problem Aristotle was struggling with when he wrote politics and ethics. Plato's structured society became a casualty of the complexity of reality, just as modern variants (Communism,Socialism) inevitably are. Aristotle tried to forge a series of philosophical compromises to discuss a practical working system wherein the population was relatively free and tolerated a wide range of human behaviors and environments. He did this through a series of moderations of not only human ethics, but also political theory. His work became the prototype that Locke and later Madison and Hamilton would eventually build into the lasting political philosophies that in practice became the moderated, and compromised document the US Constitution.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 06:46 PM (0q2P7)

309 i've said this five times here since last night i'm sure somebody is
ready to tell me to STFU but the only solution is to not allow people on
welfare to vote at allor maybe a non binding vote.



Harry Reid will put that one right on the Senate calendar.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:46 PM (QKKT0)

310 @290

Fine ok.. SINCE 1992-6 then.. Whatever

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 06:46 PM (E7Iyp)

311 #282 BC, you're right, so much was riding on yesterday not the least of which was Obamacare. Since 2010, really since 2009, the right has been waiting to vote out Obama. And then 8 or 10 million just didn't show up?

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:46 PM (F3s39)

312
We actually gain in Republican govenors last night. Lots of Repub legislatures.

Time for an Article V convention.

Faster/easier and maybe more productive than a 3rd party.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 07, 2012 06:46 PM (eEev7)

313 There are at least 3 million votes to be counted in California alone. These theories comparing vote totals with the millions of votes to be counted are lacking.

Part of the problem is that too many people are just grasping for the first theory that reinforces that all is well as long as we change one thing (a candidate) or just frame this better.

The same people saying this are the same people ranting about skewed polls and likely voters screens with no knowledge of sampling techniques.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 06:47 PM (UOC+H)

314 18-1 Who then?

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 06:47 PM (icSBv)

315 I see a lot of very slow learners thinking there is going to BE another election, Heh!

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 06:47 PM (C34KJ)

316 I don't think that running a third party would win right off the bat. They would have to start at the bottom and work their way up. Except for pres. and the rep.s if there is a libetarian runningI vote for them. Gotta start someplace.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (wSTfB)

317 I've tried to see Ace's slant as well as others to fix this politically. But all I've seen is group/ethnic politics and the overwhelming power of getting free shit from the producers. As long as the dems have that (whether they actually do or not), we're going to lose elections. It's that simple.


That's why I always come back, as have others, to secession. It's the only way, after exhausting all other avenues, of re-establishing constitutional law.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (EUJBD)

318 Anyone else done with Fox news? I sure am...

Posted by: Christmasghost at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (CkK+I)

319 Leader Obama will Preside over a huge mess. QE1-3 erosion of dollars will combine with higher prices on everything. Regulations will crush us. Obamacare will be increasingly revealed as the disaster it truly is. Obama put lots of problems off past the election that he will OWN now. Interest will go up and spike the debt. Europe will continue to implode.
You get the drift. In a year or 2 all Obama's destructive policies will crush the Dem party. I hoped we could avoid the coming disaster - but along with all the misery will come the exposure of the utter failure of Dem's big gov. 2014 or 2016 baby!

Posted by: plan2014 at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (FSWu3)

320 Oh, also, Ace -- another answer to your fair question:

Coat tails.

If Romney lost a segment of the Christian vote because of his religious identity, a lot of those wouldn't have been at polling places voting for anybody on the GOP side.

---

Remember this, though. If I'm right, and taking into account Obama lost 10,000,000 votes, this does not equal an endorsement of Obama. Some explanation has to be found for why Romney couldn't hold onto McCain's voters, despite running a far better campaign.

I'll note also that McCain chose the penultimate small-c charismatic Christian running mate who appealed strongly to evangelical Christians.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (SKX2R)

321 @ 289

Pssst. Hey Brad, over here. Guess what? Blacks and "latinos" hate the fuck out of this country. And they hate your white ass even more.

Until we come to grips with that fact, and stop pretending that things are any different, reality will continue to smack the shit out of this country...

Posted by: Sweep the leg at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (eoL3N)

322 "I just want some investigation so everyone is sure the numbers are
legit before we start the circular firing squad, figure out what went
wrong, and determine where to go. I want facts, not opinions."

The media would never do that. It would take research blogging. I wonder how much can be gained from freedom of information requests? I would need to see party affiliation of all early votes, plus the GOP strike lists. I could also get the signed voter books. Then compare to the actual vote totals.

They would say "all those Republicans voted for Obama", since I doubt I could get to actual ballots. But even with the excuse, we would know what they did, and by how much.

I was wondering what I was going to do with my blog now. Damn I really didn't want it to be this.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (dX4hn)

323 Why? This is why. Some Christians -- not you -- not you -- couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon and stayed home. It's at least a strong possibility. So don't say, "It just doesn't make sense," when you haven't examined the possibilities, I implore you. It is a possibility. Just not a proven enough one to bring it up it 100 damn posts in one day.
We've all read your theory, dude. Give it a rest til we get from facts, mkay?

Posted by: Randy M at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (vI8R6)

324 Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at November 07, 2012 06:41 PM (fCMdQ)

There are many Socialy Liberal, Fiscal Con, Dems.... folks who grew up hating the Repub BRAND.

Guy at work I know... Dad was a Unionista... grew up Dem... and voted for Obama because 'Romney was in bed with the bankers'..... when I pointed out that Obama was in charge of TARP, which ALL went to big banks to buy small banks... he changed to the Dog on the Roof story...

But the key is he was voting AGIANST the Republican brand....

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (lZBBB)

325
I think a lot of these people have not only given up on government but given up on politics. They see the world is doomed and nothing can stop that.

They're right.

Posted by: Scobface at November 07, 2012 06:48 PM (IoNBC)

326 Put me down for secession too. I think this discussion should become more mainstream.

I bet this can be done peacefully - the blue states would probably be happy to see us go. We're the only thing stopping them from putting their socialist state into hyper drive.

OTOH, they do hate us more than al Qaeda, so maybe it wouldn't be peaceful. And, it probably wouldn't be peaceful after we take all their jobs provoking a climate change holy war.

We can run a complimentary daily train service for undocumented immigrants over to them from the Mexican border. Best part: drinking 24-ounce soft drinks while setting off fireworks on our new Independence Day - ALL LEGAL!

Posted by: Rich C at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (eB0I6)

327 **Obama had it right when we told that Iowa paper he was surprised Republicans ceded the latino vote to him the way we did. Our messaging has been awful about immigration.**

Our messaging on this issue is the problem because we ignore that it's a winner.

It's a wedge issue.*

We ignored wedge issues. Like a fart in a crowded room instead of running to them.

Annie C pointed out that polling on immigration shows that no one wants increased immigration. And I think no one knows just how big the immigration spigot is right now.

* I may be using the term a little too loosely but you catch my drift.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (QxSug)

328 <<Here's the real 5 reasons Mittens Failed



1) The GOP is made of fail>>

2) see Reason 1

3) see Reason 1

4) See reason 1

5) See reason 2

Fixed it for you.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (fGatA)

329 >>> But I don't think an amoral society can exist for any great period as a free society

this gets to a strange contradiction: So you think the government's responsibility is to promote a moral society?

I always find this strange. On one hand people will say they don't trust the government and that it should be small; on the other hand, they'll flip around and argue, essentially, that the government is the great moral instructor.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (LCRYB)

330 so, we lost Latino voters on Immigration????

how, where?

But, IIRC latinos are fond of pickup trucks, Jesus, family values, low taxes, etc.

Maybe, those GOP values could have been used as a wedge to break their fascination with Obama's skin color?????

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:50 PM (QxSug)

331 Third party? When did we even have the first?
I recall a movie where the son was complaining to his dad and said he wished there was a third party. The dad replied he wished there was two parties.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 07, 2012 06:50 PM (wSTfB)

332 All this talk of 3rd parties, secession, and voter fraud only highlights the fact that conservatives are in denial about their plight.

Nobody hates liberalism more than me, but I can at least admit that they are smart and they are attuned to the American public more than we are.

Conservatives don't try to beat the machine at their own game, they just whine about the machine and then suffer embarrassing losses at the hand of the machine.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:50 PM (Td9D+)

333 I mean...they're running their most radical non-centrist candidates...and winning!


***
Yep. The Democrats realize that losing an election occasionally is not as important in the long term as pushing the Overton window.
When was the last time the Democrats nominated a non-liberal? Carter...maybe? The Republicans in that time have nominated conservatives, moderates, and lately liberals.
Based on the current result, what was the better strategy?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 06:50 PM (AUeaU)

334
I am assuming its blogs in general, and not just Ace, that attracts the manic depressive types.
(A) CHILLAX -- It was a very, very close election as multiple commentors have noted. Had a few things broken differently (like Chris Christie deciding not to start a bromance with Pres. Obama after a hurricane) and a better GOTV effort in a few precincts, we would be having a very different conversation. Yes, we have some long term structural issues that we have to address re: changing demographics, but don't assume the Democrats will handle change perfectly (e.g., when you base your coalition on the diviying of spoils among different tribes, don't be surprised if some tribes don't like their cut).
(B) There will be no Succession -- Having lived all my life in the South, and being a 7th generation Southerner, I can tell you that Succession and disobedience to federal authority has generally not been a terribly effective policy (See e.g., 1861-1865 and the 1960s/integration fights). It feels good to threaten it anonymously on a blog (trust me, I have had the urge) but you can ask Jeff Davis and Bull Connor how that worked out.
(C) Stop Complaining and Start Doing -- I agree with everyone's complaints on GOTV efforts. I worked with the Romney campaign in Charlotte, NC and I call tell you, the Democrats killed us on GOTV efforts. However, no one is stopping you from volunteering with your local party to help organize your precinct and select precinct judges and observers. If we are the party of doers, then start doing.
(D) You Win Some/You Lose Some -- In terms of long term damage to the economic framework of the country, I think Obama is a piker compared to FDR and LBJ. Obama lacks their competence. Yes Obamacare is going to be destructive and harmful --but the road for this was established long before with the New Deal and the Great Society. Conservatives did bounce back after both FDR and LBJ (and yes, I realize we have never been able to really fully roll back the left/liberal idea of government as parent). We will bounce back again.
(E) Its Herman Cain -- Unless it deals with pizza or women, the man should not be taken seriously.

Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 06:50 PM (Cxl7g)

335 We lost because 3 million of us decided to stay home in protest. Not because the sky is falling, FFS.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (fXInK)

336 <<Regarding "where" the conservative voter went, I firmly believe it had
nothing to do with Romney not being sufficiently conservative.>>

Three million voters who voted for McCain and stayed home this time would beg to differ...

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (fGatA)

337 Yeah, I'm guessing an Article V convention will really work out well with that new, 51st state.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (nXXIv)

338 Yet another political party? It would be easier just to make a 2nd currency that cons/libertarians can spend amongst ourselves and not tax.

Posted by: yinzer at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (2GZPT)

339 I think we should just liquidate all of the evangelical haters.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (C34KJ)

340 Step 1: Collect Underpants.
Step 2: ? ? ?
Step 3: Win Elections.

Fool proof.

Posted by: Concern Troll at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (4KOF2)

341 Ace- reading between the lines here, I'm getting the vibe that you want to cut the socons out. Is that a correct assumption?

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (Ou5cA)

342 I WASTED MY LIFE
Used unwisely perhaps but it's not wasted yet. You're still alive and can make a difference somewhere.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 07, 2012 06:52 PM (wSTfB)

343 307

Ds = hip.
Rs = square.


That's the actual social perception.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:52 PM (aSf5o)

344 "So the answer I have in mind for Asians is "because they see the Republican Party as the swell kids and rich anglos who either bullied them or (more commonly) simply didn't invite them to parties.""

No, it's because the rest of the world works on tribal/affiliative get-ours principles. The Dems offer that sort of straightforward appeal that they understand. The GOP doesn't.

At the next generation, many vote D because they're conforming to the urban/university haze of bullshit.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:52 PM (oDtYC)

345 I don't think "square" is the problem. Square can be cool.

It's the "mean" and "smug" image that hurts.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:53 PM (LCRYB)

346 Anybody else watch Bill Whittle's Stratosphere Lounge about post-government systems?

I think I'm down for it.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 07, 2012 06:53 PM (J4gw3)

347 (B) There will be no Succession -- Having lived all my life in the
South, and being a 7th generation Southerner, I can tell you that
Succession and disobedience to federal authority has generally not been a
terribly effective policy (See e.g., 1861-1865 and the
1960s/integration fights).




Commenters' Helpful Hint: If you're going to pontificate so authoritatively on a topic, try and get the spelling right.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:53 PM (QKKT0)

348 Why did we lose? It wasn't the evangelicals bailing on a Mormon - the exit polling showed levels of support similar to 2008.

I am beginning to suspect it's all the butthurt Republicans out there that decided to stay home. Butthurt Palinites, butthurt Santorum supporters, butthurt Newt fans, butthurt Tea Partiers, and butthurt purists who found Mitt too flip floppy. Add in the R's who were tuned out by all the negative ad's and the types who think DC is unfixable so why vote anyway, and the (R) base suffered a death of a thousand cuts.

Posted by: Stirner at November 07, 2012 06:53 PM (Ytuz8)

349 The evangelicals are 40+% of the GOP so that would finish them for good...

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 06:53 PM (C34KJ)

350 That is clearly it. Everything relevant in this election including changing positions on social issues, changing demographics, data-driven GOTV efforts are secondary to an undefined group of Evangelicals not voting for Romney despite no clear empirical evidence of this occurring.

Same as skewed polls, same as likely voter, same as the demographic changes.

This isn't about not being conservative and changing everything. This is about finding a policy agenda that is consistent with reality.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 06:54 PM (UOC+H)

351 >>>No, it's because the rest of the world works on tribal/affiliative get-ours principles. The Dems offer that sort of straightforward appeal that they understand. The GOP doesn't.


Republicans have offered this for years and years. Just not McCain and Romney.

But there is a problem with this when the white % is dropping every year and will be under 50% by like 2040.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:54 PM (LCRYB)

352
IDK, Llary. all these issues people are blaming on mitt that never even came up in debates or in ads.



Maybe it was the war on tampons.


All the issues I mentioned came up repeatedly. In the primaries, Romney got painted as a flip-flopper, and it stuck. Then the Democrats added "vulture capitalist."

Add in "Ryan and Romney want to outlaw abortion!"; SCOTUS's decision on Obamacare; Obama proudly embracing Obamacare and making people feel less afraid of it; and Hurricane Sandy, and Romney lost.

But only barely.

And he lost because he was demonized PERSONALLY. Conservative policies weren't attacked, except in the broadest way. Romney was accused of bringing back the polices of BUSH, who most Americans still blame for the state of the economy. People still dislike Bush, not conservatives. They strengthened Republican control of the electoral body that holds the purse strings, after all.

So, to recap: Conservatism didn't suffer a defeat last night. A handful of individual politicians were defeated.

Sure, the GOP needs some work. But the notion that the Republicans will never win another election was belied by last night's elections.

Posted by: Llarry at November 07, 2012 06:54 PM (SI/pw)

353 So it isn't so much a third party concept that people are thinking about. They are thinking of replacing a useless, (almost lookalike) party with one that isn't.

And what exactly would be different about that new party? Assuming you were successfull and replaced the Republican Party, wouldnt the same crowd that chooses center-right candidates in the Republican Party make the choices in your new party, since your objective would be to maximize your votes and represent the right leaning half of this country? Then why not just rename the Republican Party? I dont get the analysis that leads to the conclusion that we need a new party. Its bullshit.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 06:54 PM (Rn7r2)

354 I don't see the use in "cutting out" the SoCons, but I think we do need to reevaluate where we are at as a party on some social issues. Maybe we can win where we're at, but I think we may be at a point where more people are worried about the GOP's support for state-enforced (morality / truth / oppression, depending on your POV) than about getting bossed around by state-enforced bureaucrats.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 06:54 PM (fXInK)

355 341
Ace- reading between the lines here, I'm getting the vibe that you want to cut the socons out. Is that a correct assumption?

Posted by: Matt

Hell, they didn't even support their own candidate so why have 'em?

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 06:55 PM (dZ756)

356 312. As depressed as i am, we did have some nice wins statewide and in the Hosue last night. If anybody cares, this is my self therapy.

1. McCrory becomes first NC GOP Governor in 30 years
2. Deb Fischer picks up Neb Seante seat
3. Walker gets the WI State Senate back
4. Andy Barr takes out Blue Fraud Rising Star Chandler in KY
5. Miltary Pilot Mcdally wins Giffords Tucson Seat
6. ARK GOP takes over legislature for first time since Civil war
7. GOP wins Alaska Senate
8. Heller beats Nasty Bitch in NV Senate race
9. Murtha Hack, Critz loses in Penn, Hochul in NY
10. GOP holds former Stupak Seat in the Mich UP
11. Pence is new Governor of Indiana
12, Latham takes out Blue Fraud Boswell in Iowa

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:55 PM (dTGdl)

357 >>>Everything relevant in this election including changing positions on social issues, changing demographics, data-driven GOTV efforts are secondary to an undefined group of Evangelicals not voting for Romney despite no clear empirical evidence of this occurring.

I have no idea where this got started. I haven't seen any data to back this up.

I see what I always see: Social Cons and those who are opposed to social cons blaming each other.

Absent data, this is just the same old fight and scapegoating.

Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:55 PM (LCRYB)

358 Cicero:

I am a Southerner. Its the educational system.

Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 06:55 PM (Cxl7g)

359
There was no candidate in the GOP primaries that would have outperformed Romney.This is a candidate problem like $16T in debt is a revenue problem.
Our issue, asRush put it, is that nobody can beat Santa Claus when your message is that people need to be self reliant. Santa Claus wins.
I laugh at anybody that thinks a pure candidate would have been better. Who and why.

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (icSBv)

360 Ace, thanks for reply. Interesting. I thought the slam on GOP was that we're all a bunch of nerds. I can't keep these various things straight of all our mental illnesses that make us conservatives. So we're simultaneously inept alphas.

As for Asians. God Lord. I forgot about the asians. I assumed they'd be for the GOP what with all the illegal street drift style racing.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (QxSug)

361 I'm for it, but only if we can call it "Herman Cain's Political Masturbation Jamboree."

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (mg08E)

362 People are just too depressed to vote, I'm mean Obama got 9 million fewer votes. Clinton 2.5 million more votes second term. Reagan 10.5 million more votes. Nixon 15.5 million more votes. Bush 2 12 million more votes.
Compare that to;
Bush 1 9.7 million less votes, Carter 5.5 million less votes.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (NzBQO)

363




For what it's worth, I almost didn't vote yesterday. I live in Georgia, and
the feeling was that nobody really cared about us down here one way or the
other. There were precious few signs and bumper stickers for either candidate,
because the assumption was that Georgia was going to go red anyway. In other
words, we simply weren't worth the effort to be campaigned to, period. We're
not Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, so our votes don't matter. I think that's why
a lot of the Republican voters stayed home across the country.


The only reason why I voted was because of the comments here yesterday. I
found my way here right before the last election and I don't know how I would
have survived the last four years without this site. This is the only way I'm
going to get through the next four.


I live in a college town. The only other bright spot was that there was a
CONSIDERABLE decrease in hope 'n' change among the college kids than there was
four years ago. There were actually a few that had Romney t-shirts on, which
was unheard of back in 2008.


I guess I qualify as a social conservative. I have a strong belief in
traditional family values, although I don't ram them down other people's
throats. I have spent entirely too much time in nursing homes and hospitals and
the like over the past few years to see what happens to people who don't have
those strong family ties. Nobody will take better care of you than your own
family when the chips are down, no matter how well off you are financially. You
might be able to finagle yourself into a better facility (and most of them
really aren't better facilities), but the attention of the staff is going
towards those patients whose families and friends come visit them on a regular
basis. I really, really do wonder what will happen to the Sandra Flukes of this
world when they grow old and end up in one of those places.


I'm a lousy typist, so the formatting of this is sure to be messed up. Such is life.

Posted by: Lace Whig at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (cKsNJ)

364 Depending on how the next 4 years goes down, perhaps the pain on the masses will be enough to effect change. People haven't been hurt enough. I guess we need 25% unemployment, higher taxation, food prices that rise by 30%, and we are miserable and cold because we can't afford to turn on the heat.
The only problem is there won't be any masses left to effect the change. Not with the "parasites" and the Southern influx.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (wSTfB)

365 "We must sacrifice our conservative principles to save conservatism."

It was stupid when Bush said it about the free market and it is stupid now when "fiscal-con but socially-lib" mush mouths say it(in essence) about the GOP.

I don't think third party is the answer. That said, I know for certain that caving in on social issues and helping to further the debauching of the culture is not. A GOP with identical social policies as the Dems is just as useful as a Herman Cain pizza party.

Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (+dgNb)

366
I don't get the whole gop ran bad candidates again crap, the dems ran some f'ing criminals, but I guess we have no margin for error.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (PHb2k)

367 this gets to a strange contradiction: So you think the government's responsibility is to promote a moral society?



I always find this strange. On one hand people will say they don't
trust the government and that it should be small; on the other hand,
they'll flip around and argue, essentially, that the government is the
great moral instructor.





Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (LCRYB)


I think the concept is not about government promoting a moral society but that the society itself is a moral one....on it's own. You have to admit there is a decay in society, irrespective of government.

Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 06:57 PM (X6akg)

368 "Hell, they didn't even support their own candidate so why have 'em?"

For real.

Shit, I'm pretty much a social con myself but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a wrench in the gears come election over my personal beliefs.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:57 PM (Td9D+)

369 329

The government makes/imposes laws. Most people don't have a problem with that. They only have a problem with laws against murdering very young babies, for some reason.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 06:57 PM (aSf5o)

370 The media would never do that. It would take research blogging.
--
Dave in FL, the media never entered my mind, i was thinking more about the Romney campaign, national GOP, even GOP candidates who lost. Or bloggers or other citizen investigators. You'd think the GOP would want a full explanation and understanding of WTF happened yesterday.

I just don't like all the sniping and blaming and guessing and assuming it was this group or that reason...IF there was fraud all that is wasted energy. If there was not fraud (or, no more than the usual level in the usual places), there will be PLENTY of time to place blame.

I know we're all here to share our opinions (and today, misery), but I'm a methodical person, and when numbers are suspect, there is always a reason. *Always.* You just have to find out. In my world I deal with a lot of data and when it looks funny I know where to look and how to figure out what happened. National election data is outside my scope of experience though.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 06:57 PM (F3s39)

371 I am a Southerner. Its the educational system.

Heh.

Sorry. I'm a bit pissed off today. Can't figure out what's causing it.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 06:57 PM (QKKT0)

372 Immigration is not a wedge issue I'm sorry. We have to take the issues of our day and make them more conservative. Newt was right, America doesn't want latino grandkids having to see their illegal Grandmas deported, so what do we do ... we make a long pathway to citizenship, a crime free pathway to citizenship and then tie the legislation to an amendment vote in the states requiring 2/3 majority for all future legislation dealing with citizenship matters. How many on a pathway do you think could go ten years without committing any crime? So you're for something but still getting what you want and can't be labeled anti-immigration anymore.

Posted by: Brad at November 07, 2012 06:58 PM (4wewJ)

373 335. wow, if that is true I am going to frickin vomit.

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:58 PM (dTGdl)

374 <<Yep. The Democrats realize that losing an election occasionally is not
as important in the long term as pushing the Overton window.
When
was the last time the Democrats nominated a non-liberal? Carter...maybe?
The Republicans in that time have nominated conservatives, moderates,
and lately liberals.
Based on the current result, what was the better strategy?>>

This.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 06:58 PM (fGatA)

375 "Republicans have offered this for years and years. Just not McCain and Romney."

Heh. Well, not as wholeheartedly -- largely because the principled realize that it's wrong and what makes the rest of the world suck compared to here (or did... you know the drill).

You can't outpander the Dems on this, even if you do better outreach. And the outreach moment was many years back... the affiliative association is mostly set, at least until the next transformative big face (a la Reagan turning the South).

Just gotta win the issues here. When the boss can't deliver the loot, when the crony financial/gov't system can't support the urban fancy lifestyle... second look at GOP!

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 06:58 PM (oDtYC)

376 After all, the So-Cons just need a good scare to get them off of their God-thing.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (C34KJ)

377 Honestly, the " social issues" drum the GOP keeps beating is about as relevant as an iron lung. You cannot legislate morality, you just can't, and I'm sick to death of conservatives getting pummeled with their own foolishness.

Posted by: Christmasghost at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (CkK+I)

378 I remember Hannity asking Cain months ago if he would still provide evidence that his bitchez were lying even though he dropped out of the race.

Cain said of course!

Cain's been on Hannity several times since and I'm still waiting for the evidence.

Fuck these corrupt assholes in the GOP.

Posted by: America Fuck Yeah! at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (3p/jD)

379 "Hell, they didn't even support their own candidate so why have 'em?"
Says who? Other than Samwise Gamge for the thousandth time? I live in Virginia. Evangelicals were out for Mitt. Lit dropping, working polls, posting signs. Like they always do.
Go ahead and try forming your hipster coalition and see who actually shows up to do the work.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (Ou5cA)

380 >>> Samwise, I don't see evidence Christians didn't show up, but I do see evidence* millions of expected votes didn't appear.

Alright. And thank you sincerely for replying.

>>> So knowing nothing else, fraud can't be ruled out.

Agreed. But you say nothing about "a largeish segment of the GOP base not showing up" can't be ruled out.

>>> No one should be afraid of some investigation.

But apparently only for large-scale conspiracy-theories.

>>> If it doesn't pan out, it doesn't, but to blindly assume numbers that look wrong are right is not smart.

You keep saying the numbers "look wrong". The numbers look precisely right if my hypothesis, which I and several other people, many of whom are very smart, brought up during the primary, is correct.


* Although there is the exit polls:

Exit polls.

Romney won the white vote by

59%

Won white women by 56%

Won the white youth vote by 51%

Won the Independent vote by a 5% margin.

It looks like [by deduction] the Evangelical vote was not there.
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 12:58 PM

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (SKX2R)

381 371

No worries -- I take myself too seriously and pontificate too much. I should at least take the time to spell check when I do so.

Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (Cxl7g)

382 Third party is a bad idea. I think the Republican Party needs to change or die and be replaced, but third party is not the way.

Ace keeps saying third parties split the vote. That is a bid problem but not the biggest.

Third parties split the MONEY. It is expensive to run for office, and tremendously expensive to run for President, and it's getting more expensive all the time.

Splitting the conservative money two or more ways would be deadly.

Don't seriously encourage third party talk.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (BuRsu)

383 "There was no candidate in the GOP primaries that would have outperformed Romney.This is a candidate problem like $16T in debt is a revenue problem.
Our issue, asRush put it, is that nobody can beat Santa Claus when your message is that people need to be self reliant. Santa Claus wins.
I laugh at anybody that thinks a pure candidate would have been better. Who and why."

No, this is bullshit and Rush has jumped the shark.

Romney is a milquetoast Mormon paper Ken doll. He is exactly the image the Dems needed to win this election.

We needed contrast, a real cutthroat pugilist. The GOP gave us Romney.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (Td9D+)

384 "The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few"

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (C34KJ)

385 All the pundits in Chicago, think women killed Romney

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:59 PM (dTGdl)

386 I have no idea where this got started. I haven't seen any data to back this up.



I see what I always see: Social Cons and those who are opposed to social cons blaming each other.



Absent data, this is just the same old fight and scapegoating.

* * * * *

I've said it, though the only numerical analysis I have is in my head seeing a few exit polls and thinking "wow, not very many Christian evangelicals". It's mostly a first impression of mine, and I'm very willing to be corrected.

And that is, "What on earth would make you vote for McCain in a hopeless race but stay home and not vote for Romney in a close race?"

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (fXInK)

387 Herman Cain couldn't even get his personal life together enough to run for president and we're going listen to his ideas. I'm not talking about the 3 bimbo's the press tried to get some traction with. I'm talking about him helping and phoning some woman for 3 years without telling his wife and expecting this wouldn't come out if he ran for president. Personally I'm glad he didn't get his personal life together and was subtracted from the race early. Being CEO of a company is not the same as being president. He needs to go back to peddling his book.

Posted by: Benson II at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (CBpMz)

388 this gets to a strange contradiction: So you think the government's responsibility is to promote a moral society? I always find this strange. On one hand people will say they don't trust the government and that it should be small; on the other hand, they'll flip around and argue, essentially, that the government is the great moral instructor.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 06:49 PM (LCRYB)


-------------------------------------------


Ace, I don't think anyone that believes in constitutional law desires to legislate morality. What we've been saying is that the US Constitution was framed with the understanding that only a moral and ethical nation can perpetuate it.

This nation is no longer moral or ethical. It hasn't been since the 50's. It's just finally catching up to us.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (EUJBD)

389 345

People want to be hip. They want to be with the "in crowd." That's basic tard psychology and "ideology."

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (aSf5o)

390 "You cannot legislate morality, you just can't,"

Hate crimes.

Posted by: derit at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (I88Jc)

391 **333 I mean...they're running their most radical non-centrist candidates...and winning!**

I know, right, I can repeat my research on Michigan. Or Maryland.

There is no repercussion against super arch liberal Obama in the worst economy ever.

IDK

Obviously, it's tribal for certain segments of the population. But. Agh.

Look, we can do it a few ways:

1. Obama super secret cheated (but as stated above, Cali numbers not yet calculated, will probably boost numbers)

2. SoCon's suck because...walmart.

3. Romney strategy was too nice.

4. Obama is actually doing a good job.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (QxSug)

392 This happened in Canada, so for Americans considering this. Please look at the Reform/PC(Progressive Conservative) party vote splitting that occurred back in 2000 in various provinces. Two conservative parties, votes split down the middle where it allowed traditional counties to go from conservative to Liberal or NDP. Tallies in those provinces would have given a +20 if it had been a single party at the time.

It was...a mess. When the parties finally merged, it created a unified conservative voting block. Luckily the liberal voting block is heavily fractured up here between the Liberal Party and NDP.

Posted by: Elilla at November 07, 2012 07:01 PM (ZmOCa)

393 @388 "What we've been saying is that the US Constitution was framed with the understanding that only a moral and ethical nation can perpetuate it."

Yep.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:01 PM (ZYlKz)

394 354 I don't see the use in "cutting out" the SoCons, but I think we do need to reevaluate where we are at as a party on some social issues. Maybe we can win where we're at, but I think we may be at a point where more people are worried about the GOP's support for state-enforced (morality / truth / oppression, depending on your POV) than about getting bossed around by state-enforced bureaucrats.
Anecdotal: Here in California, I know quite a few people in my circle of family and friends who are right there with me when it comes to economic issues. However, they voted for Douchey McDouchebag, why?

GBBGays, 'bortions, and birf' control.You can argue fiscal cliff until you are blue in the face, it won't penetrate (heh)their sex crazed minds.

Posted by: Concern Troll at November 07, 2012 07:01 PM (4KOF2)

395 "People want to be hip. They want to be with the "in crowd." That's basic tard psychology and "ideology.""

And as long as we continue to ignore that in our campaigns, we fail hard.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:01 PM (Td9D+)

396 **We needed contrast, a real cutthroat pugilist. The GOP gave us Romney.**

You know...I hate to say it...but can you imagine Perry "I know you, Mitt Romney, hired illegal aliens to cut your lawn" would have come out to play.

That's play play.

But, whatever.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:02 PM (QxSug)

397 We prepped our campaign specifically around the knowledge that Romney was the Republican Party pick, and they are very predictable.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel, of the Down-Low Club at November 07, 2012 07:02 PM (C34KJ)

398 "Dave, that's an even worse outcome, but one we'd REALLY need to know
about. However, all the close Senate races breaking wrong suggests just
a bad overall turnout... (yeah, or even more widespread fraud)."

See that is where I get really curious. How does Romney run ahead of Berg in ND? It isn't like ND is a hotbed of Mormon fans.

One thing Jeff B said that was true, in between Gabe's profanity, is that Romney ran ahead of every down ticket race, except a few, like Heller.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at November 07, 2012 07:02 PM (dX4hn)

399 "this gets to a strange contradiction: So you think the government's responsibility is to promote a moral society? I always find this strange. On one hand people will say they don't trust the government and that it should be small; on the other hand, they'll flip around and argue, essentially, that the government is the great moral instructor. "They don't have to be the doctor, but it should at least do no harm. Like the Fluke nonsense, as someone pointed out, was about forcing Catholics to pay for BC. wtf is the role of government ANY where in that situation, yet people were voting on it?! This is what you get from equality first 'liberals'.

Posted by: Randy M at November 07, 2012 07:02 PM (vI8R6)

400 And that is, "What on earth would make you vote for McCain in a hopeless race but stay home and not vote for Romney in a close race?"
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 07:00 PM (fXInK)


Its quite possible that there are a lot of people out there who would answer this sincerely with "Sarah Palin".

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 07:02 PM (Rn7r2)

401 "The problem was that not even McCain's level of voters showed up.



Who was that? And why?"


Everyone keeps going back to that. The answer is simple, we lost votes over the last four years because we have fewer people that want what we're selling. People do not want conservatism, we have been trending toward a leftist/socialist nation for decades now and have finally past the rubicon. There just isn't enough people anymore that wish to live is a free republic with a free enterprise economy. Get used to it.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (GZitp)

402 Romney turned out the Bush coalition from 2004. Unfortunately, that coalition is a smaller percentage of the population as a whole.
This is a demographic realignment, not a short term turn out issue.
As bad of a President as he was, GW Bush understood that the Republicans needed to forge a new coalition to remain viable. That's why he tried to pass immigration reform - Bush and the GOP could have made inroads with Hispanics and could claim to be the party that gave illegals a "path to citizenship."
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh killed that bill dead - and have doomed the Republicans' hope for a newnational majority coalition.
Now, it'll be funny watching Republicans LINE UP to sign a weaker, more damaging bill that a DEMOCRATIC President will take credit for, ensuring that Hispanics become wards of the jackass party.
I guessthe "great Americans"can pat themselves on the back and continue calling everyone who disagrees with them socialists and lazy degenerates. That won't erase the fact that the PURITY wing of the GOP has destroyed the party.

Posted by: stickety at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (+Vm+w)

403 ah, new anne coulter column out. I can recharge my brain with her knowledege

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (QxSug)

404 376. The scare will be when their parents sit in front of a death panel at HHS, by then it will be too late

I need more proof that the Socon's stayed first before I get pissed, but if they did not vote in 2012, they never will

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (dTGdl)

405 No need to cut the SoCons out (you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by doing that anyway), you just need a fiscally conservative candidate who knows how to navigate the social issue minefield. It's not hard.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (uD2fR)

406 <<It's the "mean" and "smug" image that hurts.>>

Said images are propagated by their media. That media needs to be starved and combated, not cajoled and granted interviews.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (fGatA)

407
Here is what all my liberal friends tell me is wrong with the GOP:
1) Based on Religion and God
2) Wrong side of the abortion issue
3) Wrong side of gay rights issue
4) Wrong side of war on drugs
5) Party for the rich
6) Hates immigrants.
Seems to me that if we simply sell out onthose issues, we could then havean election based on what free stuff they are entitled to.

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (icSBv)

408 "Nobody hates liberalism more than me, but I can at least admit that they
are smart and they are attuned to the American public more than we are."

In what way? Yes, they are attuned with the proportion of the population that wants the same things they want. That's tautological, though.

Do you really think that liberals understand conservatives, because recent studies show that they probably don't. When they call conservatives "racist", they are probably being honest in their assessment. That they are 100% wrong (most of the time, obviously there are some racists) shows that they actually AREN'T attuned with a large slice of the American public. All they know is they want power over that slice of the American public.

Plus, in any sort of secession scenario, who cares if liberals are attuned to the population that stays behind in their portion of the continent? Great, I'm sure they'll all be very happy together, then. Won't matter to me, though, because I'll be in a completely different jurisdiction.

It's all about the fact that I don't trust liberals to make laws that apply to me. They have shown historically that they are incapable of making laws that are neutral in approach and application. Knowing that gives me an itchy trigger finger.

Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (P2Ufm)

409 (I'd really like to know why the blog is eating my spacing)

Posted by: Randy M at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (vI8R6)

410 All the pundits in Chicago, think women killed Romney


According to most of the exit polling I have seen, among married women (the still count as women, right) Romney closed the gap to something like -4.

And Romney dominated men.

And before we go and tear the entire damn thing apart, lets take just a moment of reflection.


Romney lost in the battlegrounds by under half a million votes. Not a lot, all things considered.

As someone upthread said, its hard to beat Santa Claus. Romney came damn close.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:04 PM (OWjjx)

411 "No need to cut the SoCons out (you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by doing that anyway), you just need a fiscally conservative candidate who knows how to navigate the social issue minefield. It's not hard."

Oh! Phew...we can all rest easy now.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:04 PM (Td9D+)

412 I think it's silly to argue the path to victory for us is that we need to hone our message and pitch it to an electorate which has no problem voting for the SCOAMF in this economy. Hello, conservatives...

THEY DON'T GET IT.

We're not in Kansas anymore. Only option now is to let it crash down (pain's a good teacher, maybe the only teacher THEY will get).

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (zpqa2)

413 >>> Says who? Other than Samwise Gamge for the thousandth time?

William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard, both before the election, yours truly before the election, a whole lot of Ace of Spades commenters today and yesterday, of which these are only a small representative portion:

http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=334729#c19638070

Plus it was brought up many times by many people during the primary.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (SKX2R)

414 410 -- Yep.

I do think there are some things we have to address structurally, but I think the party has been in worse spots.

Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (Cxl7g)

415 I am hoping I feel different next year, but right now I feel like we're hit the tipping point most of us have been afraid of.

They went after the infrastructure in the 60s and now they control the government bureaucracy, education, and the media. They control the narrative. Combine that with demographics and there just is no turning back. This grand experiment is over..
We are just like everyone else now. Only we don't have someone like us to bail us out when we need it.

This just gets uglier from here.

Again, I hope I feel different later.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (ZYlKz)

416 I see that here in some of the comments.

Comparing Fox exit polls in 2008 and 2012, Romney turned out a higher proportion of conservatives than McCain and won a higher percentage of their votes. The evangelical vote was about the same percentage nationally (about 25%), and Romney outperformed McCain by a few points.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (UOC+H)

417 402. What if Amnesty passed in 2007? The Hispanics would have given no credit to the GOP anyways, due to the media spin. A matter of fact, Dem Jim Webb was one of those who killed that billed

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:06 PM (dTGdl)

418
The Republicans had 4 years to get it all together against the JEF. This includes their Congress selections, fraud issues, voter issues etc and they blew it. Wasted time on primary fighting instead of adding to the party base. Christ, Rubio couldn't deliver Florida, Ryan couldn't deliver Wisconsin, Akin...WTF?
It was our only chance and it was a clusterfuck!!!

Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 07:06 PM (i7KmQ)

419
"It's Hip to be Square!" - Huey Lewis

The conundrum of social conservatives and a limited government has been around since the dawn of the Republic. Some of the Founders were real moral scolds, and that has been happening periodically throughout our history. Abolitionists were some of the nastiest moral scolds in the country, regardless of how absolutely abhorent slavery was (and it was!). They were crazy in the surety of how right they were, and the result was a terrible and bloody war, which wrecked a good part of the country.

The Prohibitionists were moral scolds.

And society today is teeming with moral scolds and libertines (not libertarians). The point is that Lincoln once uttered a phrase about "the mystic chords that bind us", and he meant a great many things ; like our shared history, our shared beliefs and morals, the expectation that men in government would live up to the "better angels of our natures".

This has not been true of most of our history, but it is a myth we like to tell ourselves, and it is actually a pretty good myth, because it helps to restrain the worst impulses in men and women. And we have a lot of bad impulses.
There is a terrible tension between being a really "free man" and realizing that we also have responsibilities. And that is where we have failed, because too many of our citizens have lost sight of their responsibilities.

The terrible present insult to many Americans is the callous disregard that many in the regulatory state of the Federal Governmenthave forour rights with various "Titles" that have been passed by Congress because they were to lazy to execute oversight, and the Democrats have been building the Regulatory state since Wilson's time to perpetuate control over the people.

There is always a call for 'morality' in government, but just whose morality will it be?

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at November 07, 2012 07:06 PM (RFeQD)

420 Said images are propagated by their media. That media needs to be starved and combated, not cajoled and granted interviews.

THIS! And the place to start is NBC. Tell David Gregory to go fucking pound sand. GOPers are done going on Meet The Press. We are done going on MSNBC.

And in 2016, my only question to a potential nominee will be "would you ever consider Joe Scarborough for any position in your administration."

Anything short of hell no is an automatic disqualfier.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:06 PM (OWjjx)

421 <<you just need a fiscally conservative candidate who knows how to navigate the social issue minefield. It's not hard.>>

You want to keep us SoCons forever? Be against abortion in all cases but rape, incest and life of mother. In favor of traditional marriage, or perhaps in favor of banning marriage as a legally recognized union in any circumstance and replace it with Domestic Partner laws that apply to everyone. Take a strong stance against drugs and its legalization. Encourage "traditional families" and the American Dream.

Above all...don't try to "appeal" to centrists by sounding like the other guy.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:06 PM (fGatA)

422 Bill Whittle's video is very long and preliminary but essentially what he is saying is that the government is lost to us. It's beyond reform. There is no coalition that could rise to power and reverse course. The Welfare State is like the Titanic after the iceberg was in sight: intact but unable to avoid the collision. Therefore, the political path to the future is closed and we should abandoned it.

Let them have the State while we take back the country.


Posted by: runninrebel at November 07, 2012 07:07 PM (J4gw3)

423 "Do you really think that liberals understand conservatives, because recent studies show that they probably don't. When they call conservatives "racist", they are probably being honest in their assessment. That they are 100% wrong (most of the time, obviously there are some racists) shows that they actually AREN'T attuned with a large slice of the American public. All they know is they want power over that slice of the American public."

Yes I do think liberals understand us, and they hate us for speaking the truth. They are a self-loathing lot, and 99% of the shit they fling our way is PURE PROJECTION.

They ARE attuned, because they understand that people want to hear pretty white lies.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:07 PM (Td9D+)

424 Who was that? And why?"


Everyone keeps
going back to that. The answer is simple, we lost votes over the last
four years because we have fewer people that want what we're selling.
People do not want conservatism, we have been trending toward a
leftist/socialist nation for decades now and have finally past the
rubicon. There just isn't enough people anymore that wish to live is a
free republic with a free enterprise economy. Get used to it.


Posted by: lowandslow at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (GZitp)

If that's the case why did Obama lose so many votes, no one has explained this. People talk about the demographic shift, that's fine, but where did his votes go?

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 07:07 PM (NzBQO)

425 ok, thanks Ann. Feel better now.

wait, no I don't.

Romney was good, romney didn't wedge it up, relied on competence.

I imagine that back in 1980, AFTER THE FUCKING SEXUAL REVOLUTION AND NIXON, Reagan was quite unhip too with the kids and the negros.

But he got them with, IDK, being good or not got them at all.

(sorry for the caps lock)

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:07 PM (QxSug)

426 "you just need a fiscally conservative candidate who knows how to navigate the social issue minefield"

No, you need one fiscally non-conservative socons can *believe* in.

Romney was exactly the above, and not enough turned out for him in Ohio. They *did* turn out for Bush because he was one of them.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 07:07 PM (oDtYC)

427
"This nation is no longer moral or ethical. It hasn't been since the 50's."
And I thought the media was lying when they said Mitt wanted to take us back to the 50's. Guess that is what some of us were looking for.

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 07:08 PM (icSBv)

428 One excuse the GOP could use to soften their immigration policies is that illegal immigration has mostly stopped, thanks to Obama's shitty economics

Posted by: The Q at November 07, 2012 07:08 PM (IgwTl)

429 let's all step back from the idiot point I made earlier today that's now metaphysical certainty. Not all the votes are in. Maybe Obama will end up with 65M to Romneys 62M.

Then what?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:08 PM (QxSug)

430
415 This just gets uglier from here.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:05 PM (ZYlKz)

Yep.

Posted by: Scobface at November 07, 2012 07:08 PM (IoNBC)

431 "Yes I do think liberals understand us"

They don't, not in the least. They don't even understand themselves. But they do understand the squishes they mau-mau into going along or staying home.

Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (oDtYC)

432
Everyone keeps going back to that. The answer is simple, we lost
votes over the last four years because we have fewer people that want
what we're selling. People do not want conservatism, we have been
trending toward a leftist/socialist nation for decades now and have
finally past the rubicon. There just isn't enough people anymore that
wish to live is a free republic with a free enterprise economy. Get used
to it.

* * * * *

Simple != simplistic. You're asking me to believe that the GOP has, while showing dogged opposition to Obama for four years and winning more individual elections than it has lost, lost 5% of its 2008 vote, which itself was a perfect, 100% turnout of GOP supporters. 3 million McCain voters waited in line with Obama's enthusiastic ree-rees four years ago knowing they would lose, but are on food stamps and loving it now. Really?

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (fXInK)

433
ah, new anne coulter column out. I can recharge my brain with her knowledege

I'm truly curious about her take on the results. To her, Romney was the ideal GOP candidate. I predict she blames the idiot electorate and lapses into nihilistic despair over the state of our nation.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (QKKT0)

434 Chris Christie is teh awesome!

Posted by: A. Coulter at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (C34KJ)

435 Our issue, asRush put it, is that nobody can beat Santa Claus when your
message is that people need to be self reliant. Santa Claus wins.
***
In a *much* more leftwing electorate Maggie Thatcher one on pretty much exactly that platform.


Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (AUeaU)

436 Again, there are millions of votes in California alone to be counted. Wait to draw those larger conclusions about turnout until votes are counted.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (UOC+H)

437 Well, I can tell you what I'm doing, and that's joining the Dems. I voted for Bush (twice), McCain, and Johnson (I'm in CA) this go round.

And I'm covinced the GOP will not drop the Socons, and cannot win without them anyway. Socons are known as "social democrats" in Europe and they pull about 25% of the vote.

Anyway, I'm only Red (or was, anyway) because of fiscal conservatism, but team Red has been terrible on that issue, and at any rate, it no longer matters. Demographically, the GOP can no longer win a national election.

So, what to do? The libertarians provide most of the intellectual firepower for the GOP right now. Well, no more. It's completely a waste of time BECAUSE THEY CAN'T WIN WITH THE SOCON CRAP HANGING AROUND THEIR NECK.

So libertarians need to switch to Team Blue and start reforming it. Team Blue is all identity polics now, with no actual governing core, no intellectual approach whatsoever.

Liberarians can provide that. The core Blue platform is: strong safety net, favor the middle class with regulations, tax the wealthy enough to pay for the regs and the safety net, and be socially liberal (sex, drugs, war).

As a practical libertarian, I can work within that framework, and actually bring some much-needed intellectual rigor to the ruling party going forward. Once team Blue learns how o govern, and not just win elections, Repubs will long for as good a result as they got yesterday.

Sorry red team, but the Socons lost it all for you, and for me.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (LmEvg)

438 @419
Seriously? That was one of the WORST songs EVER MADE!

Second ONLY to "Might as well go for a SODA"

Geeze.. (I have no idea what else you said lol.. that song has ruined me for now)

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 07:09 PM (E7Iyp)

439 Oh, and by the way, the reason Obama lost so many votes is because HE WASN"T FUCKING LIBERAL ENOUGH for his liberal base.

Don't know how you can contort that into a win for us.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:10 PM (Td9D+)

440 << Only option now is to let it crash down (pain's a good teacher, maybe the only teacher THEY will get).>>

Well, we're gonna get that now. SCOAMF has no third term to run for and no media to curb his illegalities...he's going to double down on his first term.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:10 PM (fGatA)

441 410. Thanks. Mitt saved the House last night. We will probably keep in 2014 and 2016 due to Barry's 6 and 8 year itch.

Newt, Santorum etc.... we lose the House last night. He saved many GOP incumbents in Penn, Ohio, Mich, and WI last night

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:11 PM (dTGdl)

442 The Republicans had the luxury of slowing killing off the Whigs because the opposing party did not seek the destruction of the nation; the opposing party was not shredding the Constitution every day. We do not have that luxury today. 12-16 years? Yeah, like we'll still be salvageable by then.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 07, 2012 07:11 PM (KL49F)

443 Christ, Rubio couldn't deliver Florida, Ryan couldn't deliver Wisconsin, Akin...WTF?
--
And Romney didn't deliver MA.

Seems...unbelievable.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 07:11 PM (F3s39)

444 Switch a total of 150k votes spread among OH, VA, FL, NH and we have President Romney today.

let's not panic just because a Cult of Personality formed around the first black POTUS and the media all decided to worship him, throwing over HJC in the process.

We don't have another Reagan, but they sure as shti don't have another First Black President Who Can Blame Bush for the Economy again.

You know who lost his first campaign for State Assembly? And his first run at Senate? And his first run at VP? And his 2nd run at Senate? And didn't get the nomination until the 3rd ballot?

Of course, it was Lincoln.

Chillax. You don't just give up because you lose a fight. Nobody goes undefeated through life.

Posted by: Najdorf at November 07, 2012 07:11 PM (tAHf5)

445 Everyone keeps going back to that. The answer is simple, we lost votes over the last four years because we have fewer people that want what we're selling. People do not want conservatism, we have been trending toward a leftist/socialist nation for decades now and have finally past the rubicon. There just isn't enough people anymore that wish to live is a free republic with a free enterprise economy. Get used to it.
Posted by: lowandslow at November 07, 2012 07:03 PM (GZitp)


-------------------------------------------------


For the 52%ers, yeah, you're right. Strange, huh, that once again it's 52% who gave us this pile of shit. It's beginning to look like a feature not a bug.

Once again. Perhaps the other 48% need to split from Washington DC.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:11 PM (EUJBD)

446 351 >>>No, it's because the rest of the world works on tribal/affiliative get-ours principles. The Dems offer that sort of straightforward appeal that they understand. The GOP doesn't.

Republicans have offered this for years and years. Just not McCain and Romney.

But there is a problem with this when the white % is dropping every year and will be under 50% by like 2040.
-
No, really Republicans haven't stepped up for the tribe, that is why the tribe has been reduced in numbers. From 1965 on, the Republican Party has accepted that America has to become less and less White. The price of that for Republicans is losing. The price did not have to be paid immediately, but the debt was bound to come due, and it has come due.

The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful.

That's not how I would have preferred things, but it's the inevitable consequence of chronic mass non-White immigration, in a world where people line up by race and tribe.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 07:12 PM (BuRsu)

447 Oh and for those slamming Cain you frankly aren't thinking.

Boehner is considering kow-towing to Obama as we speak. Why? Because he thinks there is a cost if he doesn't.

What do we have to keep him fighting for conservativism? How about the potential that if he plays kissy face with Obama he loses his party?

This is *exactly* the right minute to threaten third party. And I hope that the Republican leadership is listening. We've tried go along to get along for decades now.

NO
MORE
LIBERAL
LITE

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 07:12 PM (AUeaU)

448 "Soooo... except for the jiggered rules where the two Parties have
perpetuated their stranglehold on power in the House and Senate (which
are Rules, not LAWS)..... why could there NOT be a viable Third
Party...."

Because two of those parties would be vying for the same 48% of the electorate. The Dem share would remain unchanged.

Posted by: holygoat at November 07, 2012 07:12 PM (IGIFh)

449 Heh! I don't need to "run" for a third term... I now hold the levers of power...See Castro, Chavez, and etc,. ad infinitum

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:13 PM (C34KJ)

450 "William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard, both before the election, yours truly before the election..."
Oh well, the argument is settled then. Those guys have always had the pulse of the Evangelical Christian movement.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 07:13 PM (Ou5cA)

451 I think the distinction between

"a segment of the usual GOP vote didn't turn out for this candidate"

vs.

"America has turned irretrievably toward the left"
(as evidenced by Obama getting less votes)

and so there's no point, it's hopless, AMERICA IS DOOMED!!!

is a kinda semi-important distinction.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 07:13 PM (SKX2R)

452 "The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful."

I'm confused, do you actually believe this, or are you speaking from a liberal POV?

Because if the former, get fucked.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:13 PM (Td9D+)

453 366

I don't get the whole gop ran bad candidates again crap, the dems
ran some f'ing criminals, but I guess we have no margin for error.


There's a big difference when the Media is actively protecting one group of candidates and actively trying to destroy the other.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 07, 2012 07:14 PM (i0App)

454 437. Socons are Christian democrats in Europe, social are the socialsts. The most powerful person in Europe is a Christian Democrat. Chancellor Merkel of germany

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:14 PM (dTGdl)

455 The idea that people respond to principles rather than choosing the candidate they perceive to be closest to their position is not supported.

Most people think you win elections by appealing to the median voter. This idea that centrists respond to conservative principles alone is just unsupported.

A huge part of this problem is that the median voter is different than in 1980. We can't pretend you change the minds of median voters by holding positions dramatically far away from these voters.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 07:15 PM (UOC+H)

456 You need people who can bleed support away from the Democrats because they sell a good fiscal and administrative alternative, but who don't carry the social-conservative stigmata that send the Dem voters running screaming in the other direction, and yet who have enough in common with the Republicans that they can co-operate on the floor of House and Senate. Yes, your ultimate goal is to have someone with R in their name in the Big Chair, but you shouldn't lose sight of the power which comes from controlling both Houses in a cooperative fashion.

Maybe it's because I'm from the British Commonwealth that I'm coming at this from so much of a Westminster-Parliament angle, but think about it. A third, nominally Centrist party may be exactly what you need. So long as it stays disciplined enough not to compete for the top spot, and it ruthlessly selected its putative Senators and Congresscritters based on proven talent and achievement (e.g. in the military, as state governors, from the Private Sector), it wouldn't do Republican aspirations for the Presidency any harm. The trick would be to ensure that the Sandra Flukes and Lena Dunhams of this world didn't get on board, which is what happened to Australia's "Australian Democrat" party (upon which it swung rapidly to the left, slammed into a political wall and self-destructed, leaving the power vacuum to be filled by people who make Barack Obama look like Rick Santorum.)

Posted by: perturbed at November 07, 2012 07:15 PM (pkVI+)

457 It looks like 9,350,000 'D' voters and 2,500,000 'R' voters stayed home this year.

9,350,000 'D' voters deciding not to vote for BO, after seeing his job performance (particularly having no opposition the first 2 years) makes sense.

But the 'R' crowds we saw suggest that perhaps 2 million 'new' people were energized to vote, or to switch to, 'R'.

The missing 2,500,000 'R' voters is puzzling; what happened? Did Romney energize 2-3 million new voters, only to have 5 million stay home?

Not sure I buy the Evangelicals-vs-Mormons argument. Same for the Ronulans; they were not a factor in 2008. Fraud on this scale seems unlikely; loosing an average of 100 votes per precinct would require an effort in 25,000 precincts. Perhaps many seniors were scared about SS.

Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 07:15 PM (rlWf0)

458 <<Sorry red team, but the Socons lost it all for you, and for me.>>

The main reason Libertarianism isn't more popular is its basic "I want my money and I want to have my fun" platform. There are no moral stances in Libertarianism; only self-centered ones.

The Libertarian Part is a party of petulant children.

At least the Left wants to accomplish some socialist good with collected taxes; it's misguided but at least it's founded in something beyond "I want."

Most grown-ups have a brief flirtation with Libertarianism and then, well, they grow up.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:15 PM (fGatA)

459 "Yes I do think liberals understand us, and they hate us for speaking the
truth. They are a self-loathing lot, and 99% of the shit they fling
our way is PURE PROJECTION.



They ARE attuned, because they understand that people want to hear pretty white lies."

I mean understand in a more basic way, like understanding even the ideas of conservatism and liberty. You are implying that they see "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as some kind of truth, like conservatives do, but I don't think they see that as truth at all, but as a smokescreen for racism, sexism and class warfare. They don't understand that a person who has nothing can believe in those things and hold them true just as authentically as a Mitt Romney can hold them as true.

Anyway, I'm just repeating in my own way what Jonathan Haidt said he found when he asked people of different political persuasions to anticipate what people of other political persuasions would say or do when confronted with a specific set of circumstances. It turned out that liberals were the worst at anticipating how someone of a non-liberal political persuasion would say or do in those scenarios. Basically, liberals live in a land of complete delusion about their political adversaries.

Yes, there is projection in a lot of their comments toward conservatives, but there's also just pure ignorance of conservative ideas and positions. I'm not saying one is more troubling than the other because both can lead to dehumanization of conservatives and pretty much has, so that many liberals are comfortable with exterminationist rhetoric against conservatives, I'm just saying that non-liberals know liberals better than liberals know non-liberals. And it's obviously a problem.

Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 07:16 PM (P2Ufm)

460 what is it we want as conservatives?

Smaller government, that doesn't mean we think that people should die from a hurricane with no assistance.

How hard is it to make basic points.

Is there anything that resonates with the public outside our cocoon?

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:16 PM (QxSug)

461 433. Coulter was on talk radio today. She now says Obama won due to Incumbency.

Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:16 PM (dTGdl)

462
That Guy: "The core Blue platform is: strong safety net, favor the middle class with regulations, tax the wealthy enough to pay for the regs and the safety net, and be socially liberal (sex, drugs, war)."

Agree with you for the most part, but you will never get fiscal restraint out of the Democrats because they need to feed their core constituency. Without the giveaways to the public employees and the entitlment recipients, they wont win on the social issues alone.
Fiscal conservatism is the problem. People don't want it.

Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 07:16 PM (icSBv)

463 Hell as it stands now, we can't win, even without a viable third party. Why not give it a shot and see how it shakes out? Losing with 25 percent is no worse than losing with 49.

Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 07:16 PM (qAMin)

464 452 "The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful."

She's not a woman, she's a republican

and Condi Rice was called a skeezer.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:17 PM (QxSug)

465 I'm basically pro choice until the third trimester, but the only SoCon issue that absolutely must be abandoned is the lack of an exception for rape. First, it's almost impossible to explain and second even with a good canned answer, it poison to women voters. Poison. Face it, more women vote than men. We cannot lose women by 10% when the make up 53% of the vote.

Posted by: JBs at November 07, 2012 07:17 PM (lZE/o)

466 We aren't always going to have the advantage of a national candidate who has overseen a terrible economy for four years with an electorate where 65 - 70% think the economy is the most important issue. We should have been able to win this one.

Posted by: Paper at November 07, 2012 07:17 PM (UOC+H)

467 @437 "Sorry red team, but the Socons lost it all for you, and for me."

Posted by: That Guy

I agree with on that point. But if you think you're welcome on Team Blue you're in for a rude awakening. I don't think you have quite dealt with how far left Team Blue is now. There are no more moderate Democrats. They want government. They want to tell you how to live. They think a tax cut COSTS them money. They want to control business from D.C. and cronyism is not a bad word for them.

If you think your brand of libertarianism has a place there, I don't think your brand of libertarianism is very libertarian.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (ZYlKz)

468 "McCain voters waited in line with Obama's enthusiastic ree-rees four
years ago knowing they would lose, but are on food stamps and loving it
now. Really?"

Yeah that's what I'm saying. It doesn't make any difference how big some lines are or how big the turnout is in a couple swing states if you don't have enough fucking states to win.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (GZitp)

469 There's a big difference when the Media is actively protecting one group of candidates and actively trying to destroy the other.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 07, 2012 07:14 PM (i0App)


------------------------------------------------


So you're saying that we'd be fucked either way. If we run the same type of really cool criminals all we'd get from the media is that the repubs are a bunch of criminals. I agree.

It's time to split the sheets and move on.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (EUJBD)

470 "Hell as it stands now, we can't win, even without a viable third party. Why not give it a shot and see how it shakes out? Losing with 25 percent is no worse than losing with 49."
Uh- yeah it is. Try having a filibuster proof Senate and overwhelming house majority for the socialists and see what happens.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (Ou5cA)

471 It is useful that most people on the Left and the Right see "winning" as the only morality. That makes it much easier for us.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (C34KJ)

472 "At least the Left wants to accomplish some socialist good with collected taxes; it's misguided but at least it's founded in something beyond "I want."

Nope, the Left uses collected taxes in the name of socialist good as a platform for getting what THEY want. And I mean the elites in power, not the hapless table scrappers that they use as pawns.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (Td9D+)

473 463

The electoral system would have to be reformed first.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:18 PM (aSf5o)

474 Romney lost in the battlegrounds by under half a million votes. Not a lot, all things considered.

***
Oh come on.

If in 2009 I told you Obama would be running on a record of 8% unemployment (really 16%), a $16T deficit, and a list of scandals that would make Clinton blanch no way anyone would argue winning would be in the realm of possibility for him.


Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 07:19 PM (AUeaU)

475 "Oh! Phew...we can all rest easy now.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:04 PM (Td9D+) "


I meant that it wasn't hard to navigate the social issue minefield. Finding a fiscally conservative candidate who can do it? Yeah, seem to be a bit of an insurmountable obstacle at this point in time for some unknown reason.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 07, 2012 07:19 PM (uD2fR)

476 The only thing that is resonating right now is the official tipping of the electorate toward statism. We deny this at our own peril.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:19 PM (zpqa2)

477 Perhaps many seniors were scared about SS.

Don't buy this. Romney won the older crowd by large margains. For this to work, it would have been that members of the most reliable voting class decided against voting because they disliked Obama and was scared of Romney.....which I just do not think is right.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:19 PM (OWjjx)

478 California red: I agree, but goog governance is all I'm shooting for. Their top economist if Krugmam for chrisakes! There's nothing in their core platform that's incompatible with good governance, which is why I'm making the switch.

I can no longer carry water for the Socons. That shit's toxic.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:19 PM (LmEvg)

479 More Taxes = equals more *owned* votes.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:20 PM (C34KJ)

480 Even Reagan supported an exception for rape

Posted by: JBs at November 07, 2012 07:21 PM (lZE/o)

481 @ 452 "The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful."

At its heart, the party is one of ideas. That by definition makes it for everyone.

The Democrats are for dividing up the nation by race and special interest and promising enough groups what they want to carve out a 51% share.

Which one is the real sectional party?

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:21 PM (ZYlKz)

482 478

Good for you. Now keep your word and fuck off.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (aSf5o)

483 "The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it
is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the
interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful."
I'm confused, do you actually believe this, or are you speaking from a liberal POV?
Because if the former, get fucked.


The Lightworker does believe this. Check out his other comments.

The Republican Party is doomed, however. Lightworker gets one thing right: the GOP is the White Party, and can never be anything other than the White Party even if most GOPers don't want it to be, and the rest of the nation hates whites, and 39% of whites are among those haters of whites.

If there is ever going to be opposition to Obama, it is going to have to rally around ... opposition to Obama, and include non-whites. The Republicans will not be able to do this. A crackup in the Democrats ("Whigs II") could do this, and by chance pull in some "former Republicans".

We're getting socialism. The problem now is to fend off the cult of personality.

Posted by: boulder hobo at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (QTHTd)

484 Asians broke overwhelmingly for Obama.



Now, why would they do that?


Everyone's talking about identity politics and demographics today, but isn't it true that if Romney had gotten the number of Republican voters McCain got and taken the Gary Johnson voters, he would've won?

I don't think demographics play as big a part as people are saying.

If Romeny had won without Latinos, blacks, and Asians and then governed inclusively and had done some kind of immigration reform--legal and illegal--and gotten people back to work, he would likely have generated enough goodwill to get reelected, and then we'd have a two-term Republican president we could point to who wasn't "harmful" to minorities.

But not enough Republicans turned out to elect him, and too many people voted for Gary Johnson.

Let me tell you about life in the socialist paradise of Norway, all you Republicans who stayed home.

The government subsidizes alcoholics, paying them weekly stipends and providing them with homes, rent free. The government outlawed speaking to your child in a loud tone of voice. The government passed a law allowing strangers to camp on your property for one night as long as they do it out of your line of sight. The government outlawed kosher food. The government took 50 percent of my paycheck, even though I wasn't a citizen was was ineligible for any benefits.

The Norwegians were the heaviest drinkers I've ever met in my life, and when drunk, they all said they wanted to move to the U.S. where they could be free. Sober, they hate us, but drunk, they cry about how much they hate Norway.

Norwegian cops hit you in the kidneys with phone books so it won't leave a mark, and then it's your word against theirs.

Norway has one anti-terrorism squad for the whole country, but no helicopter to transport it. They haven't made an arrangement with the army because they don't want the negative militaristic associations. Their anti-terrorism squad doesn't want to hurt anybody, so that's why they had to drive two hours to the island where Anders Brevik murdered children for three hours straight.

And, finally, the Telemark Battalion was sent to Afghanistan with long-range Carl Gustav recoilless rifles that allowed them to engage the Taliban before the Taliban could get within range. After word got out to the Norwegian press, the Norwegian defense ministry declared that this was unfair and ordered the Telemark Battalion to put its recoilless rifles in storage.

When real socialism hits here, the enraged shrieking from the people who said they wanted it will be very, very enjoyable.

Posted by: Llarry at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (SI/pw)

485 Tommy identity politics evidently wins

Posted by: JBs at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (lZE/o)

486 At least the Left wants to accomplish some socialist good with collected taxes; it's misguided but at least it's founded in something beyond "I want."Most grown-ups have a brief flirtation with Libertarianism and then, well, they grow up.
Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:15 PM (fGatA)


------------------------------------------------


I see you've never really talked with anyone from the OWSer crowd.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (EUJBD)

487 By the way, this proves my point: people want to be cool. The stupider they are, the more they want it.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:22 PM (aSf5o)

488 "Enabling gov't to assist people" = Empowering gov't to coerce more taxes to buy more votes to gain more power to coerce taxes to buy more votes...See?

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:23 PM (C34KJ)

489 If in 2009 I told you Obama would be running on a record of 8% unemployment (really 16%), a $16T deficit, and a list of scandals that would make Clinton blanch no way anyone would argue winning would be in the realm of possibility for him.

Considering the cult of personality around Obama, his stranglehold on the African-American voting bloc and the fact that he would have a head start, I would have told you it still would have been close.

Look, do I know why Romney lost....nope. I suspect it is not any one reason but a combination of 1) Obama, with all his stupid side issues, allowed him to keep the topic off the economy at various times 2) the mormon thing 3) Sandy blunted the Romney momentum 4) the GOP GOTV is not as good as Obama's and 5) yea, its real friggin hard to beat Santa Claus with reality.


Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:23 PM (OWjjx)

490 We already have a party that supports redefining marriage, killing the unborn and recreational drug use. We don't need another.

Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 07:24 PM (JItvH)

491
The missing 2,500,000 'R' voters is puzzling; what happened? Did
Romney energize 2-3 million new voters, only to have 5 million stay
home?
***
I'd say so. There are many, many conservatives outraged that Romney was the nominee.

Consider, for example, how key Obamacare was in the 2010 election, and how it was an afterthought in 2012 because of Romney's record.

Did that cost the R's votes?

How about Romney's "evolving" positions on abortion or gay marriage?

How about Romney's own earlier statements about whether he was a Reagan Republican?

The R's ran someone too far left, and saw a large chuck of their base stay home...sounds about right.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 07:24 PM (AUeaU)

492
More Taxes = equals more *owned* votes.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:20 PM (C34KJ)

That's what California just did. People passed the prop with more taxes on the rich but voted down the one that taxed everyone's income.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 07:24 PM (NzBQO)

493 477 Mallamutt

Ok, but then what? There is a problem with motivated voters that we see (how many ... 2 million? more? less?), and a 2.5 million voter decline from 2008; how did this happen? it seems that 2.5 million 'R' deaths per year should leave about the same vote count, given the 'R motivation' we saw and read about.

Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 07:24 PM (rlWf0)

494 "31 Nor'easter forcast : Heavy snow now in NYC! Up to 5 inches in parts of Connecticut. Could get much more snow in Manhattan and even Long Island areas as it looks like cold air is winning the battle. Also, an unconfirmed report of a 70 mph wind gust on Nantucket. Thank goodness they have Obama to take care of them.
Posted by: Stormy at November 07, 2012 06:02 PM (1f2Z2) "

All of the East Coast can crash into the Atlantic for all I care. I refuse to give them any charity; they want the government to take care of them, then let the government take care of them. The ony ones I feel sorry for is Staten Is. because I hear they are conservative and they get the shaft because of it.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 07, 2012 07:25 PM (KL49F)

495 335 We lost because 3 million of us decided to stay home in protest. Not because the sky is falling, FFS.

Gee, thanks! And Obama thanks you. The USA thanks you. Huzzah, 4 more years! And Obamacare forever. Thank you, patriots.

All 3 million of you that stayed home "in protest" this election: fuck you.

Posted by: lael at November 07, 2012 07:25 PM (tUcg9)

496 My pseudo-informed opinion:

Mitt was (wrongly, but whatever) painted as one of the Greedy White Guys.™

He AND Ryan were also painted as Mean White Guys.™

This was made possible (kernals of fact) by TWO social issues: abortion, and immigration.

So unhappy people stayed home. Total turnout was I think 10mil lower that 2008.

Posted by: Nerpz at November 07, 2012 07:25 PM (YTGKQ)

497 483

The Republican Party could be the party of Christianity.



What alternatives are there?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:25 PM (aSf5o)

498 Shorter election:

Obama: A big govt is good, taking from rich redistributing is what I'm about, etc

Mitt: Traditional American values are what I'm about, ind. Liberty etc

(Both fully-honed messages)

Obama wins.

Interpret amongst yourselves, but I just heard a big TIP...

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:26 PM (zpqa2)

499 <<Here is what all my liberal friends tell me is wrong with the GOP:
1) Based on Religion and God
2) Wrong side of the abortion issue
3) Wrong side of gay rights issue
4) Wrong side of war on drugs
5) Party for the rich
6) Hates immigrants.>>


Astonishing. Since the major issues were the economy and foreign issues; their major criticism are almost solely small wedge issues.


Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:26 PM (fGatA)

500 (Also, of Capitalism, but that's a harder sell, which is why you have to combine the two.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:26 PM (aSf5o)

501 osted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 07:24 PM (rlWf0

I do not know. I suspect in the future maybe in addition to polling registered voters or likely voters, maybe we should start asking why people are not voting.....might be useful.


Like I said earlier....I think there is a mutlitude of reasons for this lose. I do not think 1 answer is it or that 1 cause is the main reason for the numbers.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:27 PM (OWjjx)

502 "Enabling gov't to assist people" = Empowering gov't to coerce more taxes to buy more votes to gain more power to coerce taxes to buy more votes...See?
Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:23 PM (C34KJ)


-------------------------------------------------


Which brings us back to what some of us have been saying since the election was called.

Last night was the end of the United States of America as we've known it. Hello, New America.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:27 PM (EUJBD)

503 I wonder how many people in the world are really Libertarians and don't even know it?

Posted by: skinnydipinacid at November 07, 2012 07:27 PM (WuCLB)

504 <<All 3 million of you that stayed home "in protest" this election: fuck you.>>

and on behalf of those who didn't want to vote for Obamalite:

Fuck you too, Sparky.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:27 PM (fGatA)

505 All of the East Coast can crash into the Atlantic for all I care. I refuse to give them any charity; they want the government to take care of them, then let the government take care of them. The ony ones I feel sorry for is Staten Is. because I hear they are conservative and they get the shaft because of it.

And this. More of this, actually.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:28 PM (OWjjx)

506 **Astonishing. Since the major issues were the economy and foreign issues; their major criticism are almost solely small wedge issues.**

yeah

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:28 PM (QxSug)

507 Let me say something about social conservatives...

I am one. I have been for a long time. I believe we can not have a true republic without a morally sound and Christian culture.

However, that ship has sailed a looooong time ago. The paradigm has shifted. We can't win on those ideas anymore.

Socons HAVE to shut the fuck up if we will ever get anywhere. They just have to.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:28 PM (Td9D+)

508 @503
Thats what I think too..

My friends were surprised when they took a "which political party do you lean to?" test.. They came out Libertarian and was like, "wow, I never knew they had these ideas, I just thought it was about POT"

And there in lies the prob...

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 07:28 PM (E7Iyp)

509 503

Very few.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:29 PM (aSf5o)

510 Boehner has capitulated, see Drudge. "Mr. President, this is your moment. We want you to lead." I.am.not.making.this.up. Bonus: he says GOP will agree to higher taxes.

Posted by: Mayday at November 07, 2012 07:29 PM (F3s39)

511 Socons are Christian democrats in Europe, social are the socialsts. The most powerful person in Europe is a Christian Democrat. Chancellor Merkel of germany
Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 07:14 PM (dTGdl)


Nope, there are no significant social conservatives left in western europe. Christian Democratsare fine with abortion and gay marriage/civil unions.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 07:29 PM (Rn7r2)

512 <<I see you've never really talked with anyone from the OWSer crowd.>>


I see you're using a generality based on a tiny segment.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (fGatA)

513 507

Take your own advice.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (aSf5o)

514 Socons HAVE to shut the fuck up if we will ever get anywhere. They just have to.
***
Out of the last three presidential candidates the Republicans have nominated, Romney, McCain, Bush 43 who was the most SoCon. Who won?

Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (AUeaU)

515 510

Fuck.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (aSf5o)

516 @499 "Astonishing. Since the major issues were the economy and foreign issues; their major criticism are almost solely small wedge issues."

Yep. And that's where we lost. I happen to disgree with the GOP on many of the social issues but I'm not willing to throw away the country for them.

Other people have their racial or demographic issue and they vote on that. They WANT THAT THING and they rationalize why fiscal problems don't matter. They convince themselves that everything will be alright in the end and they just want to get the thing they want.

We lost to those people. They don't think the country is going over a cliff. They didn't vote for that. They don't want it to happen. But they're able to just pretend it isn't going to happen. As long as they get the thing they want.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (ZYlKz)

517 We lost because 3 million of us decided to stay home in protest. Not because the sky is falling, FFS.
Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 06:51 PM (fXInK)


-------------------------------------------------


You were a troll last night and you're a troll now. Fuck off!

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:30 PM (EUJBD)

518 Ace read #499. I can't link because I am teh dumb.

Posted by: Nerpz at November 07, 2012 07:31 PM (YTGKQ)

519 511

The elites.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:31 PM (aSf5o)

520 Socons HAVE to shut the fuck up if we will ever get anywhere. They just have to.

I disagree. Now, the messaging and tactics may need to be re-examined. But you still need all three legs of the conservative stool to win.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 07, 2012 07:32 PM (OWjjx)

521 452 "The Republican Party claims to be for all Americans, but in reality it is now only a sectional party. Either it's useful in protecting the interests of its people, who are 90% White, or it's not useful."

I'm confused, do you actually believe this, or are you speaking from a liberal POV?

Because if the former, get fucked.
-
Blacks have no trouble saying that the Democratic Party needs to do stuff for them or it's useless. Gays have no trouble saying that the Democratic Party needs to do stuff for them or it's useless. Hispanics have no trouble saying that the Democratic Party needs to do stuff for them or it's useless. Single feminist women have no trouble saying that the Democratic Party needs to do stuff for them or it's useless.

And - this is key - for every group that was supposed to support the coalition, Obama made a case that the Democratic Party was doing to would do stuff for them - not for everybody in general, but specifically for them. And that's how you win.

If you are of no use to anybody in particular, then you may not get enough votes.

Claiming to be for "everybody in general" and "prosperity!" and economic wonkery is not the easy and sure path to success in a deeply divided country that people who haven't internalized the radical demographic changes want to think it is.

This election was a wake-up call.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 07:32 PM (BuRsu)

522 "Out of the last three presidential candidates the Republicans have nominated, Romney, McCain, Bush 43 who was the most SoCon. Who won?"

Irrelevant, the culture has decayed significantly since Bush.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:33 PM (Td9D+)

523 difference between reagan and romney,

reagan said communism don't work and carter is proof.

romney said Obama just didn't work out.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:33 PM (QxSug)

524 @ 520

" the messaging and tactics may need to be re-examined. But you still need all three legs of the conservative stool to win.."

This was true in 1980. The message from yesterday is the electorate has changed.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:34 PM (zpqa2)

525 One reason ficons need to go Dem is because only the Dems can actually cut entitlements. Seriously. The GOP cannot do it with cries of killing the poor; they can't do it and stay in power anyway, which is the same thing.

The Dems are intellectually vulnerable to a sound theory of good governance that also involves spending cuts. CA HAS cut spending!

Repubs will have no chance on the national stage once libertarians exit the party and start giving the Dems the intellectual arguments the need to govern effectively. It might actually save this country we all love from the fiscal abyss.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:34 PM (LmEvg)

526 Allahpundit is one of the smartest people out there, and this is his take on it, looking at exit polls:

One question I’m seeing in the comments is, “Did evangelicals turn out for Romney”? Yep, looks that way. Turnout among Protestants generally dropped slightly from 2008 (54% to 53%) but Romney’s share of the vote increased from 54% to 57%. Among white evangelicals specifically, turnout was steady at 26% of the electorate from four years ago and Romney took 78% of the vote compared to just 74% for McCain. If you’d rather slice the data by how often people go to church, the number who attend at least weekly rose from 39% in 2008 to 42% this time. McCain won 55% of that group. Romney won 59%. He improved on McCain’s numbers among Jewish voters too, from 21% of the vote in 2008 to 30% this time (or maybe more), the highest take for a Republican since 1988. If there’s any religious group that underperformed for him, it’s Catholics. He did improve on McCain’s numbers — from 45% to 48% — but O still won a majority despite the abortion-rights jamboree at the convention and the contraception mandate. Catholic turnout was down two points this time, however.

The interest in the comments in evangelicals, I think, is due to people looking at Romney’s popular vote total and wondering where all the votes went. McCain won just shy of 60 million votes in 2008. As I’m writing this, Politico’s popular vote tracker has Romney at 57.6 million. Where’d all the votes go? Possible answer: Nowhere. They’re out there, they just haven’t been counted yet, says John Podhoretz
http://goo.gl/Gaabn

Podhoretz is also someone whose opinion I value.

I think it was and is a valid hypothesis to look at, but the tale must be told by the numbers.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 07:34 PM (SKX2R)

527 There really are only a measily 40% of the misguided Republicans; we will be dealing with them when it comes time (March 2012) to require, per ACA of 2010, a microchip in every person. They won't take what they call "the mark of the Beast" and will immediately be shut out of this gov't's concern or assistance.

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:35 PM (C34KJ)

528 as for taxes? I guess Boehner is looking to use his only remaining chip for leverage.

What do you think is going to happen over the next 4 years?

If those GOP Sen cadidates that lost didn't have posters up basically saying "vote for me to repeal obamacare," then they deserved to lose.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:35 PM (QxSug)

529 522

Yes, tards are tardier.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (aSf5o)

530 and on behalf of those who didn't want to vote for Obamalite:

Fuck you too, Sparky.


Libertarians told me that it's better to let every collapse at once so we can rebuild.

Simple question for those of you who didn't want to vote for "Obamalite":

If you're on an airplane that starts to go down, would you rather it auger into the ground nose first at 500 miles per hour, or would you rather an experienced pilot take the controls and try for a belly landing?

Which sort of crash do you think you're more likely to walk away from so you can rebuild your life?

Posted by: Llarry at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (SI/pw)

531 235
It's because, if you remember, the last two or three elections the
repubs have run the "compassionate uniters" meme.
Reach-across-the-aisleism. We have to get over that and become as
partisan as the communists.

We had a candidate who called Obama what he was and would have pounded him into the ground along with the liberal sycophant press. He also would have schooled all the brain dead Republican voters about wr they needed to rid ourselves of liberalism. His name was Newt Gingrich. If the leech Santorum hadn't fooled evangelicals he was one of them it would have been a two man race. Hannity and Palin were the only two who saw he was the one we needed. Gingrich accomplished more in one speech or TV interview than Romney did in his whole campaign. If he was speaker now Obama would be in for the fight of his life and if he'd run against Obama no one in this country wouldn't be aware of the failures and lies of the Obama administration and the press. Reagan is gone and Gingrich is to old for the next time around. We've lost the best two conservative communicators and I don't see anyone on the horizon to replace them.

Posted by: Benson II at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (CBpMz)

532 523

This.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (aSf5o)

533 Based on Boenner's comments to the President I say bring on a third party

Posted by: JBS at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (lZE/o)

534 >The Dems are intellectually vulnerable to a sound theory of good
governance that also involves spending cuts. CA HAS cut spending!

Pelosi drove the Blue Dogs out of the Dem party.

Posted by: Nerpz at November 07, 2012 07:36 PM (YTGKQ)

535 516 Other people have their racial or demographic issue and they vote on that. They WANT THAT THING and they rationalize why fiscal problems don't matter. They convince themselves that everything will be alright in the end and they just want to get the thing they want.
-
Exactly.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 07:37 PM (BuRsu)

536 525

Go ahead.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:37 PM (aSf5o)

537 491 18-1

Sounds possible.


501 Mallamutt

I realize that you might not have the answer(s) and that there may be a list of several reasons ... but it would be useful to determine the reasons.


If the problem really was that Romney was too far left, and/or a Mormon, and/or ... etc. ..., then we have a problem: we will eventually fall, forever, to the Left, the Socialists.

I like the idea of a Third Party, preferably an energized Tea Party, right now, because we need to put fear into Boehner and the 'Rs', right now, and it looks like the GOP won't do it.

But, yes, we need to sort out platforms, and get the various factions to deal with reality: Ronulus the Paulistinian, and fools like him are too ... whacky. Huckabee, Akin and others Powered by Jeebus ... need to keep that to themselves: they are able to influence, maybe even dictate, the choice of candidate, but their choice can produce, and has produced, an un-electable candidate.

Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 07:37 PM (rlWf0)

538 Stop nominating, stop signing nominations of, and stop voting for that God girl.

Everytime that wing nut opens her mouth you fools lose another 100k votes.

Posted by: lance at November 07, 2012 07:38 PM (2orMQ)

539 If this was 1980, Romney would have won.

It's not 1980 anymore. The country is different, the demographics are different, the media is different.

We got totally got sucked into thinking it was 1980 all over again because Obama was so clearly Carter all over again.

This President was DISASTROUS on nearly every front. Think about that. A total disaster. And he won re-election.

Yes, the situation is that bad. You can't just reformulate the message. You can't just tinker. The GOP as it is will not likely win another national election again. Not ever.

It's all downhill from here.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:38 PM (ZYlKz)

540 534 well, libertarians are UNBELIEVABLY stubborn. Pelosi is an idiot.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:38 PM (LmEvg)

541 Michael Walsh, writing at National Review this evening:

"Second, lay off the social issues. Let me be blunt: Conservatives have
lost that war, and last night’s defeats are just the beginning. As with Griswold and Roe, the times they are a’changing when it comes to sex"

Either:

1. SoCons accept this and move on,
2. SoCons have to be driven out the the GOP, as the John Birch Society once was, for being politically radioactive,
3. Non-SoCons have to leave the party and either start a third party or try to infiltrate the Democrats, and/or
4. The GOP will never win another election.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. In the last 30 years, even when the GOP won, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 and didn't actually DO anything about abortion. They were pandering to SoCons, just paying them lip service. Sorry to break this to you, SoCons, but you've been played for chumps. Get over it or go away.

Posted by: cool breeze at November 07, 2012 07:38 PM (hx/td)

542 "I'm not seeing how a third party could be any worse, then you know, losing twice with the current party you have. "

This is an astute comment.

If the Republican Party is going to be a party that nominates fringe religion candidates who are thinly-veiled Democrats (remember Romney invented ObamaCare and worked with Massachusetts Democrats to get it passed), then what fucking use do I have for this party?

I may as well become a Democrat and get my free ObamaPhone.

The Republican Party has one final, last gasp opportunity to become viable and that is to vote against a debt limit increase in January.

Here's the thing: For the past 4 years, the Republicans have given Barack Obama a $5 trillion slush fund with which to bribe people to vote for him. Free phone? NO problem. Free lunch? No problem. Free welfare with no work requirements? No problem.

The Democrats FUND their candidicies by bribing their electorate and it's very effective. You might not like it, but it works.

Now ... Republicans can respond to this dynamic in one of two ways. Either:

a) They can better deal the Democrats and offer me a Republicar instead of just an ObamaPhone, or

b) They can reduce the value of Obama's deal by eliminating his checkbook.

Here's what Republicans have to do: They have to vote once and for all an end to debt limit increases. Pretty simple really. Just Say No.

Don't offer any deals. Just. Say. No.

Don't offer budgets. If you offer a budget that cuts spending, then you get hammered as heartless assholes. So stop fucking doing that. Don't offer ANYTHING. Because as soon as Republicans start talking about cuts to this or that program to balance the budget, the media goes into overdrive using that against Republicans to gin up Democrat votes from whoever's ox is being gored.

Stop fucking playing that game.

Just stop.

Instead, merely vote against any debt limit increase and then go home.

Obama would then be forced to create a budget cutting plan all by himself. He'd have to come up with the oxes to be gored.

Then Republicans can run ads targeting whoever he proposes gets the cuts. Oh, the media will demand that Repulbicans offer their own cuts if they don't like Obama's proposal.

So what? Tell the media to fuck off. Don't play the game on their turf because you will never win it. They buy ink by the barrel, and since Republicans refuse to purchase these newspapers and fire these fucking Democrat hack reporters and replace them with Republican-leaning reporters, the media is never, ever going to change.

So tell them to fuck off. Tell Obama to fuck off. Cut up his credit card and leave the mess for him to deal with.

The worst thing that could happen would be that people won't elect Republican candidates. But hey, they're not doing that already.

This is the ONLY way Republicans are going to change the game. You have to overturn the table.

And the way you do that is to vote against any debt limit increase.

Let Obama propose cuts, then vote against those proposals. Now you can go to voters and explain that you're on their side and Obama isn't.

If Republicans continue to allow Barack Obama to borrow money - which he ONLY USES to fund HIS SIDE - then what further use do I have of this political party?

Posted by: someguy at November 07, 2012 07:38 PM (sEXZ/)

543 I'm all for the BURN IT DOWN PARTY

Posted by: JBS at November 07, 2012 07:39 PM (lZE/o)

544 526

Oh, fuck off.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:39 PM (aSf5o)

545 296 Samwise Hobbit-fan- get somefacts to back up your claim that Christians lost this election or STFU. This is about your hundredth post today on this topic today with nothing but innuendo.
Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 06:44 PM (Ou5cA)


--Amen. I keep seeing this stupid meme over and over and over. Total BS. I haven't talked to, heard, read, one Christian who was "sitting it out". I'm in Virginia, and everyone from Gov. McDonnell down to my co-workers who are Christians was incredibly eager to vote for Romney.

Oh, and to you idiots screaming about "SocCons". You are idiots. Social conservatives are the base of the Republican party. Apparently what you really want to form is the Democratic party with small taxes. Good luck with that.

Posted by: rightwingva at November 07, 2012 07:39 PM (OJ/tZ)

546 @525 That Guy

You're delusional. The Democrats don't want anything to do with you. They hate you. They have kicked out every moderate in the party. Stop talking nonsense.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:39 PM (ZYlKz)

547 Repubs will have no chance on the national stage once libertarians exit the party and start giving the Dems the intellectual arguments the need to govern effectively. It might actually save this country we all love from the fiscal abyss.
Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:34 PM (LmEvg)


------------------------------------------------


This is why I hate libertarians. All of them are way too fucking full of themselves.

Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 07:40 PM (EUJBD)

548 "Second, lay off the social issues. Let me be blunt: Conservatives have
lost that war, and last night’s defeats are just the beginning. As with Griswold and Roe, the times they are a’changing when it comes to sex"

Yep, its fucked but that's the way it is. I pity the denialists.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:41 PM (Td9D+)

549 Game over....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm1XErUvXo

Posted by: Rob in Katy at November 07, 2012 07:41 PM (PiTBB)

550 @ 539

Totally. What will make me ill is if I continue to hear "business as usual" approaches leading up to 2016. Examine the circumstances under which we just lost, people!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:41 PM (zpqa2)

551 541

Yeah. Good thing you purged the John Birch Society, you fucking idiot.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:42 PM (aSf5o)

552 Samwise, I guess I should've read that Hotair link.

We are fucked. It's demographics.

Fucking non-whites love Obama. And fucking whites love him too.

What will life be like in 4 years? Duh, nothing is going to change.

Obamacare implemented.
Supreme Court goes Politburo
Taxes go up
Spending goes up, sequestration be damned
abortion mills keep on post-birth aborting
Jobs will keep disappearing

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:42 PM (QxSug)

553 It took slavery to slave owners to create the Republican party to free them and now it will take slavery to the state to create the "new" party again and make all people free.

We still have not yet felt pain but pain will be felt and it must be felt.

Posted by: Trevor (@TJexcite) at November 07, 2012 07:42 PM (Ea64Y)

554
How many people refused to vote McCain in 08 becausethey were certain Reagan II was coming in 2012?

♫ wrong -wrong -wrong -wrong ♫
♫ wrong - wrong - wrong - wrong ♫
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at November 07, 2012 07:42 PM (LCZ3l)

555 481 The Democrats are for dividing up the nation by race and special interest and promising enough groups what they want to carve out a 51% share.

Which one is the real sectional party?
-
Both are sectional parties.

But the Republican Party is in the grip of a delusion that it is not, so it does a bad job of being a sectional party. It has not protected the interests of its section, and it has let its section decline as a share of the population.

The Democratic Party knows that it is a coalition of "diverse" interests. It fights to increase its constituents as a share of the population, and its strategy works.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 07:43 PM (BuRsu)

556 and one reason why it's demographic is because NOONE bothers to defend W.

The who farted strategy strikes again.

Either fight or not fight but don't die on a issue without responding.

gayrapeabortion my ass.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:43 PM (QxSug)

557 This is exciting. I so hope the GOP's days are numbered...

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:44 PM (zpqa2)

558 546 delusional? The Dems already have the socially liberal part, now I just need to make the case for good governance in a narrative they'll understand.

Hint: "you all just want free shit" is not how they think of their desire for a strong safety net and rules that favor the middle class.

I can as, for certain, that I've got a lot better chance of making a difference if I join the party and take their concerns seriously than if I sit over here talking about free shit, killing babies, and sex with dogs.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:45 PM (LmEvg)

559 52
Weed, abortions, and gay marriage. You can offer all those without busting the budget.




Posted by: SFGoth


Get high, kill a baby and get fucked in the ass. The new democrats.


Posted by: Dang at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (R18D0)

Well considering obama and the media that sucks his cock have been fucking americans in the ass for the past 5 years, its not surprising that people are more comfortable taking a big old cock up the poopshoot nowadays.

Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at November 07, 2012 07:45 PM (ovpNn)

560 558

Why the fuck are you still here?



(And no one was talking about sex with dogs, you fucking imbecile.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:46 PM (aSf5o)

561 Two words: Executive Order

We don't need no stinkining Congress and we have been getting what we want without them. Those amusing themselves of fantasies that anyone on the compassionate Left cares about rich white slave holders antiquated Constitution or rules, or laws of any kind that slow the march of egalitarian communitarianism has been paying zero attention, in history class, or current events, or gov't aquisition of power.

Those claiming they have a list of rules they can go to to get what is "right" are now just talking out of their...well, you know...

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:47 PM (C34KJ)

562 560 Santorum talked about gays and dogs.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:48 PM (LmEvg)

563 **Hard to win an “economy election” if not even one-third of voters think conditions are deteriorating on election day. Hard to win too if you can’t crack 40% on the incumbent in this metric:**

That is, less than 40% blame obama for the economy.

The polite, don't mention bush strategy failed.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 07:48 PM (QxSug)

564 @ 558 "now I just need to make the case for good governance in a narrative they'll understand."

Posted by: That Guy

Okay. Give it a shot. No need to let us know how it goes. We'll be able to see it from here.

Posted by: Tommy V at November 07, 2012 07:48 PM (ZYlKz)

565 >>> We are fucked. It's demographics.

That was one of the things I was saying yesterday.

But I latched on to the maybe it was the Mormon thing today because, well, I predicted it could happen during the primary.

But also, optimism. If it was true, then a different candidate would have won.

But no, you're right. It's demographics.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 07:49 PM (SKX2R)

566 562

If you say so. Different people notice different things, I guess.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:49 PM (aSf5o)

567 "now I just need to make the case for good governance in a narrative they'll understand."

LOL

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:49 PM (Td9D+)

568 560 the real question is why you Socons are still here. Your self righteousness about morality is why ficons need to leave the GOP for dead.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:50 PM (LmEvg)

569 563

Whenever Leftists mention Bush, we must immediately pull down our pants and bend over. It's the new 11th Commandment.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:51 PM (aSf5o)

570 I will tell you what just doesn't jive, but I don't think anyone will touch it. Here in Virginia, we had lines with people waiting up to 4 HOURS to vote for Romney. We had NOTHING like that in 2008. The numbers don't make any sense. Was there massive fraud? Beats me. I have no idea, but the numbers simply don't add up. Nobody will investigate and nothing will come of it.

Posted by: rightwingva at November 07, 2012 07:52 PM (OJ/tZ)

571 568

Then keep your word and leave already, you fucking hypocritical, self-righteous imbecile.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:53 PM (aSf5o)

572 542 The Democrats FUND their candidicies by bribing their electorate and it's very effective. You might not like it, but it works.

Now ... Republicans can respond to this dynamic in one of two ways. Either:

a) They can better deal the Democrats and offer me a Republicar instead of just an ObamaPhone, or

b) They can reduce the value of Obama's deal by eliminating his checkbook.
-
c) Both.

The Democrats win by gutting Republican constituencies and reducing them as a share of the population, while funding and empowering their own constituencies and increasing them as a share of the population. This works.

Fund and empower Republican constituencies, and increase them as a share of the population. Treat Democrat constituencies the way the Democratic machine treats Republican constituencies. Play the game. Try to win.

Repeal the Hollywood tax cuts!

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 07, 2012 07:53 PM (BuRsu)

573 564 will do. And please try and save the GOP from the Socons if you can, it seems like their's a tiny opening now.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:53 PM (LmEvg)

574 At the New World Order we LOVE "fis-cons", they don't have sticking points on trivialities like "right" and "wrong"...they are very easily converted

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:53 PM (C34KJ)

575 570

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:54 PM (aSf5o)

576 551

Wow, somebody came to the defense of the John Birch Society.

Speechless.

Posted by: cool breeze at November 07, 2012 07:54 PM (hx/td)

577 573

Are you done now, you traitorous piece of shit?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 07:55 PM (aSf5o)

578 507
Let me say something about social conservatives...


I am one. I have been for a long time. I believe we can not have a
true republic without a morally sound and Christian culture.


Posted by: W.H. Doubter

Really? We can't have a true republic without a Jewish culture? Gotta be Christian? I'm not seeing a whole lot of Christianity in the Constitution and BoR.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 07:56 PM (dZ756)

579 Coolbreeze- the left was going to try to run social issues on us no matter who the nominee was. Did any significant group or candidate in the party say anything about the legality of contraceptives in the past 10 years? And there was our old friend Stephanopoulos, asking about contraceptives in a GOP debate as if it were an issue. Not even Santorum was touching that one.
So when Obamacare required churches- freaking churches- pay for contraceptives, were the Catholic Church or bible printing companies supposed to ignore this grotesque violation of religious liberty? Then the Dems scared the pants off women by saying the GOP was against contraceptives.
I still can’t believe we got played like that by Stephanapolous and the Dems.
We let the lib media frame the debate about wedge issues where we’re vulnerable- even when we don't believe in them! How we deal with the media is a more important step than conducting the Stalinesque party purge this site is becoming.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 07:56 PM (Ou5cA)

580 @ 569

Whenever Leftists mention Bush, we must immediately pull down our pants and bend over. It's the new 11th Commandment.

We need to do this when the right mentions Jeb Bush too (so, right now).

What a hoot that there's already a conversation about Jeb. The Stupid Party will probably nominate him too!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 07, 2012 07:57 PM (zpqa2)

581 "At the New World Order we LOVE "fis-cons", they don't have sticking points on trivialities like "right" and "wrong"...they are very easily converted"

Right and wrong doesn't matter anymore, we're compromised. We can try to repair from within, but you're deluding yourself if you think morals will win us an election.

Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 07:57 PM (Td9D+)

582 That Guy, I can see where you're coming from and I'll just assume your motives are good. However, your message of good governance won't resonate with the movers and shakers on the left. It's not about governing well, it's about control. Feel free to give it a shot though..no one's trying to stop you.

Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 07:58 PM (qAMin)

583 We'll have a final solution to the eternal world Jewish problem, don't worry about that...

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 07:58 PM (C34KJ)

584 576

Anyone who thinks, in the year 2012, that the Birch Society was completely wrong about everything is ... there isn't even a word for it.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 08:00 PM (aSf5o)

585 Somewhat O/T but found this in my FB newsfeed - this is what we are up against:

The campaign ads are over. Women, we don't need to worry -Todd Aiken was NOT elected. Congrats to Elizabeth Warren but shout out to Republican Scott Brown for running a clean campaign and being an admiral adversary. Moderate candidates are important to eliminating the polarization we are seeing. To all the Romney supporters - Don't worry. Obama will take care of you too. You will work, you will pay LESS in taxes, this "Welfare state" you speak of with such vehemence are benefits for YOU if times get rough and he will keep them for YOU. The economy will recover, we have healthcare, we will create jobs, we will reform the STUDENT LOAN problem!! Data shows that the economy does better under a Democratic President. Now if Congress get's their act together - for that I have less hope. Keep Calm and Carry on.

Posted by: bingomom at November 07, 2012 08:00 PM (deRkf)

586 I'm not seeing a whole lot of Christianity in the Constitution and BoR.
***
Are you serious? Its more Judeo-Christian, but the notion that all men are created equal is one of the core elements of Jewish/Christian thought and what distinguishes it from, for example, pagan thought.


Posted by: 18-1 at November 07, 2012 08:02 PM (AUeaU)

587 585

Speechless.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 08:03 PM (aSf5o)

588 582 thanks Motorhead. Hopefully it won't be any harder than getting good governance on the right, which, frankly, has been completely ineffective.

I'd keep plugging away on the right if I thought the could win a national election or reform entitlements, but I'm convinced they can't.

The Dems will be forced to because, Math, and hopefully I and others like me can start now to impove the results.

Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 08:03 PM (LmEvg)

589 588

Put your ass where your mouth is. (Oh, wait, never mind.)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 07, 2012 08:04 PM (aSf5o)

590 Bingomom, I have an idgit like that too.. Will comment on my posts, but NEVER about THE actual POST lol.. Like I posted Clintons line about having a Prez that lies.. I said "So, hes running AGAIN??"

She answered "Yes, hes out stumping for Obama!"

All I could do was post a pic of Picard doing DoubleFacePalm..

*doublefacepalm*

Posted by: JarvisW in TEXAS at November 07, 2012 08:06 PM (E7Iyp)

591 At the Down-low Club we love guys...who aren't worried about trivialities like "right" or "wrong", they are much easier to "convert"...Heh!

Posted by: Harrison J. Bounel at November 07, 2012 08:06 PM (C34KJ)

592 "You were a troll last night and you're a troll now. Fuck off!"

* * * * *

No?

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 07, 2012 08:12 PM (fXInK)

593
Did any significant group or candidate in
the party say anything about the legality of contraceptives in the past
10 years? And there was our old friend Stephanopoulos, asking about
contraceptives in a GOP debate as if it were an issue.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 07:56 PM (Ou5cA)
In fact, Santorum talked about this throughout the 2012 primaries. He called contraception "a grievous moral wrong", talked about the "the dangers of contraception", said that he "believes that the 99 percent of all women in the U.S. who had used birth control had done something wrong", hinted he would try to overturn Griswold, and otherwise tried to play footsie with the SoCon nutjobs on the contraception issue every chance he got.That's exactly why Stephanopoulos asked Santorum about it.

Posted by: cool breeze at November 07, 2012 08:14 PM (hx/td)

594 Fuck it, Cain. And same to those who think the GOP should purge social cons.

Ace is right about keeping the 49% together instead of losing drastically with lower percentages, but higher sanctimony and self-righteousness.

That said, for this bargain to work the social cons need to not nominate fuckheads who think candidacy for high office is like a revival's personal testimony hour. Learn to STFU and carry out your agenda on the DL.

As for Libertarians, I love their policies, but they have the same problem with smugness that turns off tons of people who might otherwise be inclined to support them. Seriously, just learn from the Dems and hide/temper your major beliefs. Don't spout off like you're "thinking out loud" on a discussion listserver since people & the media will take everything you say literally and in the worst possible way (e.g., Libertarianism = anarchy, lead in water, roach legs in candy, poisoning children for capitalism).

It's true that the Dems will say it about you anyway, but there's a big difference between the Democrats saying something and the general public having a plausible example shoved down their throats (cf. Akin & Mourdock)

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at November 07, 2012 08:16 PM (Y5I9o)

595 Weed. Rs need to embrace weed, campaign on legalizing it, on all platforms, county to federal. Be on the forefront of it as a liberty issue like the Dems were with gay marriage. Of course Romney lost Colorado, legal weed was on the ballot. Even conservatives like weed. It is a naturally occuring plant on all 7 continents. Tie it in with the Fast Furious scandal and the failed drug war Obama's DOJ is prosecuting.

Its either going to be them or us that claims the weed mantle. Its a plant people. A plant. A...... plant.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 08:22 PM (ZlSH3)

596 551 541

Yeah. Good thing you purged the John Birch Society, you fucking idiot.


Yep. The John Birch Society was absolutely fucking right all along. I've been saying that for several years now.

(The only actual JBS member I've met was back in the 1980s when I had a short-lived job in a venetian blind factory. She was an older, married woman who worked at the machine next to me. I was a twentysomething rabid leftist idiot at the time. She was a very nice lady and we got along fine.)

Posted by: rickl at November 07, 2012 08:24 PM (sdi6R)

597 307

C'mon, Asians broke for Obama for status reasons. Asians, by and large, are status-obsessed. Cars, careers, schools...they go for not only the best brand, but the one that carries the most social status. Dems, at least under Obama, have that status. And it makes sense--celebs, influential academics, all the cool kids are proud and out for Obama. It's a status thing. Simple as that.

Why can't Republicans carry that same cachet? Well, one reason is that the majority of Republican backers cannot under any circumstances evince any pride in the single denominator that most of them share. Others are afraid that same restriction will be placed on them if they join, and they have preferences at present. Plus, the capitulation of Republicans automatically demonstrates low status.

Which is also why you get weird proxies like the Tea Party and Israel First.

There are other reasons, not so hard to divine.

Posted by: limks at November 07, 2012 08:26 PM (N+0zT)

598 Lord Matt, I hope you're being tongue in cheek. I'm all for legalizing it myself but we'd be crushed if it was the only thing we changed.

Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 08:27 PM (qAMin)

599 Let me follow up: We need to let Obama sit on it like he has values, cuz he doesnt want to be known as the Prez that legalized weed......... I dont think anyway..... I digress. Let him pretend he still has values to common Americans and then as part of the 2016 platform have all R's suddenly embrace legal weed. Top down, starting with the prez candidate.

Since elections are now pinned on novelties, lets throw them a novelty they will cherish for the rest of their lives, a novelty that doesn't cost the government any more money, isn't a hand out, and actually opens up a new tax base and sector of the economy. Not to mention de-criminalizes 1/3 of the population. This is how you get the votes and loyal voters. Big issues.

I bet that over a majority of Obama voters didnt realize that ObamaCare is going to cost them money, every year, forever. But people voted for welfare!

Legalizeweed. They will vote for legal weed! Ultimately it is a liberty issue.

A plant. A........... plant.............

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 08:29 PM (ZlSH3)

600 Hey, we're plants too!

Posted by: Opium Poppies at November 07, 2012 08:32 PM (hx/td)

601 Last follow up on legal weed I left out: We cant let the D's know our plans or they will snatch it from us in a heartbeat and turn it into their latest novelty and lock step voting block. But for now they carry on the pretense of holding up an ancient value set that appeals to "normal" Americans where weed is a dangerous drug worthy of lifetime incarceration. Those are ancient values. Most Americans have beenaffected by having someone they know go to jail for weed and they know it is a BS offense.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 08:33 PM (ZlSH3)

602 I dont think you can pick up poppies and smoke them in their raw state can you? You can literally pick up weed off the ground and smoke it. It occured naturally during fires, no? Do we really want to be the party regulating plants? People can eat belladonna, mushrooms, whatever. Let the Democrats be the party of regulation.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 08:35 PM (ZlSH3)

603 OK Matt, well played.

Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 08:35 PM (qAMin)

604 Ace, a typo: "I think the uncomfortable suspicion is that we can win apart, but we also can't win together."

That first "can" should clearly "can't". We can't win apart, but we also can't win together.

Posted by: mr_jack at November 07, 2012 08:36 PM (TMG3G)

605 Well, apparently the consensus here is for Repubs to become Dems, while Dems become socialists. So we will win by becoming what we opposed? In order to win elections, we have to become what we are not, or lie to get there? I'd rather be a losing party than a sell-out, concerned only about "power" and "winning" and only then worrying about who you got elected.

You will NOT sell personal responsibility and self-determination to this nation. Romney's 47% crack was dead-on, as this election proved. The conservatives aren't just trying to win voters, they are trying to re-educate the masses. And they won't succeed at both.

You have a populace that simply does not care that the President lied about Benghazi, or will sell out Israel or sell us out to the Russians. He can f*ck them all he wants, so long as he leaves the $ on the dresser before he leaves.

Before ya bring up the "Repubs need more minorities" canard, remember,
Allen West and Mia Love both lost last night. Because, to the minorities you seek
to placate, they aren't "black". Because they support conservatism.

We don't need a third party. We need a new second one. The "Republican" brand is tarnished, just like a Pinto. Time to trash it and start fresh. New name, new logo, new players. Flush the old, fat Repub turds and start a whole new line up.

In the meantime, I advocate for the libs go full retard on their agenda, and for us to encourage it. No holding back, show us the nation you really want. Embrace Cloward-Piven and break us. Let these stupid bastards get exactly what they want. You support abortion? Well, let's ELECTRIFY it and go full support for partial birth. Support partial birth? Then support "after-birth". Embrace the tax the rich line and pass regulations to tax all entertainment branches (sports, music, tv, movies) 80% on all income earned and use THAT $ to "reach around", er, I mean, "reach out" to minorities. Will see how quickly Hollywood supports THAT tactic.

Only after we've lost everything will we be able to do what's needed. The sooner this happens, the better. As anyone pulling a band-aid off will tell ya, ya pull quick.



Posted by: Saltydonnie at November 07, 2012 08:58 PM (XG4Sp)

606 Bill Whittle has a video with a way forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s02SypCcYIcfeature=g-all-u

Posted by: Sophomore at November 07, 2012 09:06 PM (e2csJ)

607
"Based on the economic numbers, it should have been impossible for Obama to win"
FDR Won FOUR FUCKING TIMES during a period where unemployment was DOUBLE what it is now. He won because he promised people more free shit than the other guy.
Jesus, there is nothing hard to understand about this. Last night proved that the country has more people who want their free shit, than people who want the government out of their lives and to be left alone.
Its about free shit. Its ALWAYS been about free shit. These fucking Marxist scumbags knew that and they were patient knowing the eventually they could change the character of the people so that they were more interested in free shit.
The 'shining city' on the hill no longer shines. It's turned into a shithole infested by worthless fucks that just want their free shit just like decrepit Europe. Now, I'm just waiting for it to burn.
All those people who gave their lives for country...they diedso that future generations could loot other people. I'm sick that so many people lay down their lives for...this.
Do you know why people prefer this? Because liberty is HARD. It isn't easy to be free, and people like things easy.

Posted by: blindside at November 07, 2012 09:19 PM (2rf52)

608 Third party, No
New Second Party

Posted by: some dope at November 07, 2012 09:21 PM (+kznc)

609 Coolbreeze, if you're still out there-I'm sorrythat I did not state my point clearly- I meant that no one was seriously saying that contraceptives should be banned by law. Obamacare related regulations included a mandate on employers to include contraceptives in health care coverage and the administration put out statements supportingthe regsin late 2011 and early 2012. Stephanopoulos asked GOP candidates about whether states had the legal right to outlaw contraceptives in Jan 2012.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think thereis a distinction between saying that there shouldbe an exemption foremployersto opt out of paying for contraceptives on moral grounds and outrightadvocating the outlawing of contraceptives. It is also different than saying, as Santorum apparently did,that the Supreme Court was wrong to find a constitutional right to privacy that prevents states from banning contraceptives. (You don't have to be a social con to think that Roe v. Wade and Griswold created rights with little constitutional support.) It is also different from Santorum stating what catholic doctrine was about contraceptives (grievous wrong), which he made when discussing the Blunt Amendment well after the debate.
The debate question came from Stephanopolous and was directed to Romney- do states have the right to ban contraceptives. Romney was bewildered.He would have been able to hit the Obamacare mandate out of the park, if it had been framed as a religious liberty issue. It looked to me as an attempt by the left to change what would have been an wedge issue that was going to help the GOP- Obamcare's affront to Catholics- into an attempt to paint Republicans as adopting apolicy position supporting the outlawing of contraceptives.
Santorum made many statements that taken out of context caused us a lot of trouble. The fact that it has taken me so long just to try to unwind this shows how effective the left used them against us.

Posted by: Matt at November 07, 2012 09:27 PM (Ou5cA)

610 I saw a comment by Asimov at Ticker Forum:

Maybe somebody should start a FSA party and then once interest is captured, start using the major party's statements to illustrate how they are in the wrong party and should be running for the leadership of the FSA party!

(FSA = Free Shit Army)

Posted by: rickl at November 07, 2012 09:34 PM (sdi6R)

611 >>> Santorum talked about gays and dogs.

Actually, yeah, now that you mentioned it, he did.

Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 09:35 PM (SKX2R)

612 I actually love the idea of a "peaceful secession", I'd move to Texas or the South in a heartbeat if they were a soverign nation.
I'll 2nd the notion that the "blue" states would probably be happy to see us go. I know I would feel the same way if they wanted to leave.

I also know how this story ends, the blue state residents would swarm the red states for jobs and bring their locust politics with them. We would definitely need some serious border enforcement.

The only realistic way I could see a turn of events like this is if we had a currency collapse on the order of what Argentina experienced, otherwise people wouldn't be down.

Posted by: Jeepers at November 07, 2012 10:27 PM (XDRsa)

613 How about a third party that sucks votes from Democrats? I could get behind a notion like that...

Posted by: Gork at November 07, 2012 10:51 PM (WJh8F)

614 Hah ace!

So we lose twice consecutively with 'electable' candidates and radioactive positions on abortion, gay marriage and foreign wars... we face a demographic disaster as Allah apty pointed out... but going to a third party would be the disastrous move???

I defy you to show me a demographic route to political 'rubber meeting the road' once immigration reform comes through, Puerto Rico gets statehood, and the aging vestiges of Republican support die out. Yes dems don't reproduce so well, but they do bring in socialist allies from other countries, they do run the law schools (and produce they supreme court justices) and they have no trouble protecting the hallowed tradition of voter fraud which international visitors got to witness recently...

This is a straw man, this notion that 3rd party advocates are into omphaloskepsis and technical argot. We want conservative ideas to win. The important ones. The constitutional originalism, the financial sanity, the end of welfare statism. I know enough yankee democrats who would go for these ideas if divorced from biblical politics that I have to be believe there is another way to victory for conservative ideas. For if there is not, then we are well and truly doomed to a socialist technocratic nightmare that will last until China decides it is no longer geopolitically prudent to lend us money.

Posted by: Roald Dahl Paul at November 07, 2012 10:58 PM (Kd6lF)

615 And all this nonsense that there was fraud, the media did it, the turnout was low - all of these are lame excuses that don't change the brick wall we face in 2016. No hispanic LGBT GOP presidential candidate is going to change that. Although that would be a pretty hilarious election if it was our LGBT hispanic maverick versus Joe Biden...

Posted by: Roald Dahl Paul at November 07, 2012 11:31 PM (Kd6lF)

616 " 45 24. You are correct sir. Why not just secede with a conservative republic. that welcomes all that want to be free. Let the Blue States run into the ground.
Posted by: Jack J at November 07, 2012 06:05 PM (dTGdl)"

Well the ditches full of lead riddled, scorched, and blown up dead people kind of argue against it for most people. I mean if you can't get your ass out and vote or stop trying to shush people while asking them to vote for you, then how are you going to win a regional civil war or even a long and rough security crisis ?

Posted by: Cackfinger at November 07, 2012 11:57 PM (CCHli)

617 " That said, for this bargain to work the social cons need to not nominate fuckheads who think candidacy for high office is like a revival's personal testimony hour. Learn to STFU and carry out your agenda on the DL. "

We learned not to trust you or consider you genuine allies in much of anything. You invite us to the party hoping we'll bring beer and once the beer is on the table you try to kick us out and tell everyone what an asshole we are. So you ran your magic rino, he tripped over his dick, lame duck is king, and now you have even more advice for us.

Great. Have fun with breeding a better RINO to fool your way back into power, and calling in favors that aren't owed you from people you hold in contempt, and repaying them with slaps and insults. Welcome back to the same old ditch of 2008. You lose because you suck. This is twice in a row that you've pulled this sad shit. It is no longer a foible, it is a disease.

So you can lose on your own from now on and do it the RIGHT WAY, and then self righteously blame everybody but yourselves for it. I'm out. It turns out the same if I get on board and put up with your idiotic, passive-aggressive, two faced, narcissistic 'THEOCRAT' shouting shit anyway.

Posted by: Cackfinger at November 08, 2012 12:14 AM (CCHli)

618 I like Herman Cain. He's a great conservative and explains the philosophy well and clearly. He was an awful candidate, his policy of 9-9-9 was simplistic and didn't actually add up, and he had no answer to the scandal allegations despite a 9-day heads-up they were coming.

But with this third party talk, I am SICK of it. I hear it every two years at least. TALK IS CHEAP. You f-ing whiners who keep talking this crap need to just get out and DO IT and leave the rest of us the Fluke alone.

This is still America. It costs you NOTHING to form a third party. The Libertarians did it in a guy's living room. Howard Phillips just announced the Taxpayers Party (now Constitution Party). Pretty simple.

So quit your incessant kvetching and whining and go out and start your own party. Invite all your lunatic fringe friends. Serve cookies and Kool-Aid. We wish you well, sincerely (almost, mainly we wish you GONE).

Don't complain about how few join you, and don't EVER come back. Hasta la vista, baby!

Posted by: Adjoran at November 08, 2012 12:14 AM (ZHQvg)

619 Fuck no, I'm not coming back. And like you said talk is cheap. I'm done with the cheap GOP triangulating talk. That's all it is and all it ever was. Cheap talk. There is none cheaper. Big plans, and shit for results except cursing at "splitters" and socons and whoever else won't kiss your loser asses with sufficient deference and passion. Inevitable! Avoid scaring off the independents! make it so the party chooses the delegates from the top down, ignore the protest and don't file a minority report! Then be sure to donate and vote for us! Chirp chirp. The age of reagan is over. We've got to find the middle and mean nothing at all while the left pisses in our eyes and tells us we are on fire and we should thank them. Just a bunch of useless knobs.

Posted by: Cackfinger at November 08, 2012 01:06 AM (CCHli)

620 483 ... the GOP is the White Party, and can never be anything other than the White Party even if most GOPers don't want it to be, and the rest of the nation hates whites, and 39% of whites are among those haters of whites.
-
Right. The Democratic Party is the anti-White Party, and the Republican Party is the White Party whether it wants to be or not.

However, the Democratic Party increases its anti-White base, by mass immigration and other means, while the Republican Party is ashamed of its White support and is willing to let Whites wither away under leftist pressure.

That means the Republican Party must have a radical change of attitude, or else it is useless and must be allowed to die.

This is the issue. The issue is not how to get rid of Obama. Obama cannot run for office again. The issue is that the Republican Party is demographically beaten, and worse, it has agreed to be demographically beaten, by letting the left reduce Whites as a share of the population year by year. This attitude must change.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 08, 2012 01:32 AM (3Mjz2)

621 The GOP doesnt have to be the white party. Run on anti-government and anti-regulation, de-criminalization, run a good candidate, and at the 2016 convention, announce top down support for legal weed, tie it in with Fast and Furious and failed drug war. Bam, your demographics are back in competition. Of course Romney lost Colorado. LOL @ the thought now of Colorado turning red. Hello! Legal Weed was on the ballot! The Democrats are currently the party of weed but their president is also the party of federal punishment for weed. Seperate the two. Somehow the Rs became the party of rape and higher taxes so lets make the Ds become the party of criminalization and regulation, by offering a novelty voters can vote for and one that wont cost them money for eternity, and produces a new taxbase.

Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2012 09:34 AM (ZlSH3)

622 As far as secession, there have been cars in Texas with a Secede bumper sticker for the last 4 years already! People really do take it seriously, to a certain extent. Of course we would never take up arms but the will is there for amore permenant and long lastingseparation from the others whos policies result in failure.

Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2012 09:37 AM (ZlSH3)

623 "547 Repubs will have no chance on the national stage once libertarians exit the party and start giving the Dems the intellectual arguments the need to govern effectively. It might actually save this country we all love from the fiscal abyss. Posted by: That Guy at November 07, 2012 07:34 PM"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, the left will listen to people they despise almost as much as Conservatives. Why, they will even change their views on spending thanks to them! Libertardian is more accurate.

Posted by: Hard Right at November 08, 2012 10:08 AM (+aCe4)

624 621 The GOP doesnt have to be the white party.
-
Doesn't it? It doesn't want to be, but the left keeps pinning that implicit label on it, and the only way to get that label off would be to tell 90% of the party's voters that they are not wanted any more.

621 Run on anti-government and anti-regulation, de-criminalization, run a good candidate, and at the 2016 convention, announce top down support for legal weed, tie it in with Fast and Furious and failed drug war. Bam, your demographics are back in competition.
-
A bold policy.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 09, 2012 12:20 AM (B/XPo)

625


Hey - who needs a third party?The Republican Partyhas been doing just swell lately. In 2008 the GOP nominated Senator Maverick, who only four years before had
been openly lobbying to be John Kerry's running mate. In 2012 the GOP picked
Mitt RomneyCare, a failed one-term governor from a deep blue state whom the GOP
brain trust convinced themselves was Most Electable.



Can't wait for whoever the leftist GOP Establishment barfs up in 2016. Dede
Scozzafava, anyone? Or Olympia Snowe? How about Charlie Crist? Perhaps Lincoln
Chafee, Chris Christie or Lindsey Graham will condescend to leading a party
they deeply hate. Personally, I am practically orgasmic just thinking about
Christie giving a concession speech on Election Night 2016 in which he blames
Todd Akin, Sarah Palin and Herbert Hoover for his thumping loss. Ecstacy!



Or the ultimate prize: maybe the self-declared geniuses running the GOP can
convince Arlen Specter to come back to the Republican Party. I can just see the
campaign slogan now: ARLEN AND THE GOP: BOTH BACK FROM THE DEAD.

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at November 23, 2012 12:09 PM (HHJh6)

626 The GOP is absolutely committed to losing the next 2 to 3 elections so we are already consigned to 8 to 12 years of Democrats (aka Marxists) in the White House.

Romney got more votes than McCain. And Obama got several million less this go around than the GOP scored in 2008. The GOP has already slipped into irrelevance and they appear to be quite happy with that.

There is nothing to lose by forming a 3rd party now. Nothing to lose at all.

Posted by: WarEagle82 at November 23, 2012 08:46 PM (HDZvH)






Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.0935 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0213 seconds, 635 records returned.
Page size 395 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat