Johnny Tremain
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
My Prediction if Romney Loses
- Thread starter BigRob
- Start date
Werbung:
And you think he would have won?
Romney had more" Republican" votes than McCain according to exit polling, and according to the same exit polling, Romney got crushed by double digits among self described "moderates".
How did he insult them?
His campaign missed a lot of key opportunities, no argument here -- but the campaign you describe is what Newt Gingrich did in the primary -- and Republican primary voters (typically the most conversative of the bunch) rejected him soundly.
Exit polling showed that was indeed the biggest issue voters were concerned about -- but it also showed 4 in 10 thought the economy was improving -- and Obama took that group with 88% of the vote.
I have never stated that he ran a good campaign -- you made that up. I do believe he was hurt by his lurch to the right in the primary. We of course got slammed by the black vote, the hispanic vote, and the asian vote by huge margins -- lost by double digits with "moderates" -- although we did do slight better with "independents".
All that combines for a loss. Targeting the base does not make up any ground with moderates, blacks, hispanics, maybe a little with Asians -- the votes just are not there. In my opinion, to win in the future we need to make some serious inroads in the hispanic community, the asian community, and those who would ID themselves as moderates.
This doesn't mean ignore the base -- but it certainly doesn't show (to me) that lurching back and focusing on the far right is a future path to victory.
Neo-Con is so overused it has lost any meaning that it once had. This from Wiki (I think they address it well):
"Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War. For example, conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been lifelong conservative Republicans (though Cheney and Rice have supported Irving Kristol's ideas) and differ from most neoconservatives on some issues.Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism; some traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. For example, columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon." Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul would have offered a real choice rather than a choice between the lesser of two evils.
You seem to be advocating for the Rs to out do Ds, by offering more free stuff. This can't happen because it is impossible...the Ds have perfected free stuff...it is their THING.
The Ds are the party of collectivism, class warfare, welfare, baby killing, bigger government, deficit spending..... All those things are IMMORAL and NOT SUSTAINABLE. If the R candidate can't make the case against these IMMORALITIES and UNSUSTAINABLE POLICIES, he is a fool. As such, Romney is a fool. Ron Paul would have made the case clear and concise. You think making the case would scare away voters. But Romney and McCain did not make the case and they lost.
You appear only interested in winning elections rather than winning ideas.
If America is lost and inevitably destined to become a Euro socialist style state, then Conservatism and Libertarianism are lost on America. America is dead.
No -- I want to reach out to moderates and swing voters and convince them that the Republican party is better suited for them. This will never be accomplished if we continue to allow the brand to be defined as radical conservatism. There are many good ideas conservatives have, but it is a big tent party, and writing off the moderates will ensure we cannot win any national election in the future.
As for wanting to win elections -- I believe that Republican ideas will win elections. How we portray and argue for those ideas is the key point that will determine if we win on those ideas. But yes, I am very interested in winning elections, because if we cannot win an election, we might have the best ideas in the world, but it is irrelevant if we do not have a seat at the table.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Let's back this train up for a minute... You said we needed a leader who was good at conveying conservative principles to the American people. Was Romney that guy? I inferred from your comments that you would have agreed with me that he wasn't that guy. Romney had too many flip-flops where he had to reverse himself from previous positions in order to "sound" like a conservative for the election. His foundation was not conservative principles but political expedience, hence the explanation of his flip-flops with regards to working "across the isle" with dems to govern a blue state. Romney's supporters said this proven flexibility was a benefit to his candidacy but to people looking for a leader grounded in conservative principles that inconsistency was a liability.
Now as to your question... I asked if there were any "Conservatives" who weren't Collectivists, are there any? From the intellectual leaders of Conservatism to the candidates they support, all seem to be collectivists - just not as radically collectivist as the Left. Again, it's a difference of degree rather than substance. Both "Conservatives" and "Liberals" agree that the welfare state is necessary and they both agree in having a foreign policy based on military interventionism. This agreement comes from both having their philosophical foundations based on collectivism.
I would agree with Gipper that of the candidates who ran, Ron Paul was the least collectivist - however - I also think he does a horrible job of explaining his positions and thereby winning popular support. Would Ron Paul have lost? Yes, badly. The electorate has been moving Left for nearly a century, they obviously want more collectivism, not less, hence the Obama victory. So even if I do offer a specific candidate that isn't a collectivist, you would counter by pointing out they couldn't win - and you'd be right. The P schools and media have ensured that Progressive Collectivism is the dominant ideology (Right and Left) in this country, so the country will continue to move in the direction of big government statism and do so at the expense of individual rights and liberty.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Flip it into a positive, embrace the radical label. When Reagan was in a debate and his opponent tried to slam him for his age, Reagan said he wouldn't hold his opponents youth and inexperience against him - that's the approach Republicans need to take when faced with the memes of the Left. For example:
The Left has labeled us as "Radicals", well they're right, we are radicals. Our country was founded on some pretty radical ideas; individual rights, individual liberty, individual prosperity and those are the same radical ideas we carry today. The Democrats will tell you they are the "moderates"and they're right about that too. They are the party of mediocrity. They seek a mediocre economy, a mediocre military, a mediocre country, mediocre advancement of the individual so as to avoid any type of inequality - their "moderate" party is pushing for a mediocre country filled with mediocre people who aren't any more exceptional than any other country or people on earth.
We believe that every individual citizen has the potential to be exceptional and they deserves better than government mandated mediocrity. We believe the US is the greatest country in the world and that our people, every individual citizen, should have the freedom to pursue their own happiness, break free of mediocrity, rise to their own individual level of greatness and prosperity, and bring about another American renaissance. The Republican party IS radical, we want radical growth of the economy, radical prosperity - for every individual - and we are equally radical about protecting the rights and freedoms that allow individuals to achieve greatness and fulfill their own potential.
Republicans need to stop trying to pander to groups and focus on the individual, win the individuals and you win elections.
The propaganda wing of the Democrat party, i.e. the media, sets the template. The Republican ideas of today that are labeled "Radical" are the Democrat policies of yesteryear, JFK's time. The Dems and their allies in the media want to push this country all the way to the Left, so everything even slightly to the right of their positions will be classified as 'radical right wing extremism'. You're not going to change that, you can't hide from it and you can't avoid it, you have to fight it.
I believe Romney would have been a fine President. I believe he also had to contort himself in so many ways during the primary that it was almost impossible to recover from that. However, had he not done that, he would not have been the nominee.
Was he going to be the revival of Republican dominance -- odds are good he would not be -- but he was a winnable candidate if taken at face value in my opinion.
I don't know. I think a major difference comes down to how the welfare state is administered and the size of it. I'd like to see it shrink substantially, but I also believe that there are people who legitimately cannot work for some reason (I don't believe those numbers are as big as people getting benefits), and I am happy to help them out. I believe that there are people who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives, and should get the benefit they were promised and they paid for. It is in dire need of reform, but I fully embrace a plan like Paul Ryan's to leave it alone for people 55 and older.
I don't like the idea of being forced to maintain a bloated welfare system that is being abused, but I am willing to accept a "safety net" as it were for those who legitmately cannot work etc. But there needs to be some serious firewalls in place to prevent abuse, and ensure that the dollars are being spent as wisely as possible.
In terms of the military, I don't think it is a radical idea to protect our own interests abroad. I support any effort to that 100%, but that does not translate into running around the Middle East toppling dictators for no real reason. If our interest is simply oil (which is an important interest), I don't care who it is that provides it, as long as the supply remains constant and unthreatened.
It is true that I place quite a premium on winning. I'll accept at face value that the country is moving further left, but to bring it back, I feel we need a moderate who can 1) get elected, 2) clearly articulate for Republican ideals, and 3) make that sell to the public. I don't believe the path back to the right is best accomplished (or accomplished at all) in an abrubt motion, but rather a gradual, clear, effective argument for why Republicans ideals work better -- and the ability to back it up in a way people understand.
I like the message, but I would have to see some polling data on how that places with certain audiences. In a July 2012 poll, 61% of Independent's stated they had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. This translates over into other groups as well -- and I think that a large part of this is not the message that Republicans push, rather how they push it -- and in many cases the issues they push.This same sample for example said that 64% of this audience wanted a smaller government, 69% wanted to drill offshore more, 56% said it was more important to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon than preventing another war, they opposed Obamacare by a large majority...but it flips on various issues, like abortion, taxes, climate change.
When asked the following three questions, Independents sided with Democrats and against Republicans on all three:
1) Which party do you think is better described by the phrase "is more extreme in its positions"?
2) Which party is better described by the phrase "is more willing to work with leaders of the other party"?
3) Which party is better described the the phrase "will govern in an ethical and honest way"?
There are a lot of ideas that Republicans cleary win on with moderates, independents etc, but it seems to be a perception issue in the way that we go about conveying our message, and the manner in which we govern that turns these audiences off to our ideals. We should reach out to these audiences and exploit our common ground -- but that simply won't occur if we do not change the tone of our party in my opinion.
Groups are nothing more than individuals who get together. We should target groups and exploit our shared values.
I think you fight this by bypassing the media and on the local level, in State Rep districts, county wide positions etc, you put leaders in office who get things done, and can advocate clearly and intelligently for Republican ideals. If someone reads in the newspaper that Republicans have no ideas, and are all radicals, if they have strong local Republican leaders who have clearly established otherwise, they won't believe it in my view.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Maybe so, but if you are right, we are destined for trouble. The riots and poverty in Europe are the consequence of leftism reaching its inevitable self-destruction and a precursor of what is coming our way.
Many on the right are in mourning, but not me. BO's winning means the death of Liberalism may come much sooner. Now it is anyone's guess what replaces it and it certainly could be worse. But, lets roll the dice.
Some think we are headed for war, revolution, or both. We know the elites will not allow significant change that might usurp their power and they are very good at duping the public. War is a great way to control the masses and expand the power of the central government, while keeping the elites in power. As such, my guess is we will have war.
This is a case in point in my view of what turns moderates off to the Republican party -- and I think speaks clearly to why we scored so lowly on some of those questions.
In my view, the idea that we are heading for revolution over this election is absurd. Take a look around. The United States, the most powerful country in history, despite being deeply divided, just had a peaceful election. The result was not rioting in the streets, it was as it always was, the people spoke, and their decision has been accepted. Our system works -- better than any system on the planet, and this election just proves it again.
Those who talk of war and revolution are the extreme minority, and sadly many in the middle will ID that as the Republican response to this election -- further entrenching in their minds that we are radicals.
Look at the facts -- Republicans have serious disagreements with Democrats over policy issues, Obamacare is a good example. We didn't riot in the streets, we aired our opinions to our leaders, and used the system as designed -- via the courts. We lost, and we accepted it. No one took up arms to change the law -- again, our system worked -- and Republicans worked within the system as it was designed. That is not radical -- it does the brand no good to promote talk of revolution and war because basically we lost an election. That is absurd -- and that is not America.
Johnny Tremain
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
Extreme hard times, deprivation, currency collapse and rationing--will change everything--anywhere on Earth.
When they arrive--all bets are off.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You have not paid attention. I have posted many times BEFORE the election espousing the views you now claim have to do with BO's winning. My views would not have been different if Romney had won. Romney is a progressive. He would have expanded government and continued deficit spending....maybe not has much as BO...but we end up in the same place, just the same.
You must know that we are on an unsustainable path thanks to liberalism.....one would think Romney smart enough to point this out repeatedly and loudly during the campaign...but he wasn't....because he is a progressive. That path is going to lead to something big. It will be war or revolution or maybe another Great Depression that just happened to lead to WWII. Funny how that happens.
Please do not lump me in with the Rs. I have not been an R since the late 80s.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
So, you really think we are on an "unsustainable path because of liberalism?" Not because of our HUGE defense bill that really doesn't serve ANYONE but the big defense industry corporation and the defense contractors?
Wll, I disagree. . .not that it should matter to you. Just expressing my opinion!
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If you mean that he appeared to flip flop that has been a problem for him since before this election. In any case he did not lose because he was conservative.
Similar threads
