Posted on 12/08/2012 1:42:01 PM PST by neverdem
However, 4 million fewer Democrats turned out this time to vote for Obama ~ than turned out in 2008.
It is us...the voter who keeps learning the wrong lesson. We keep showing up to vote and we vote GOP and they keep disappointing.
The RNC and GOP aren’t the problem, we are.
Time for conservatives to stand together and drop this two-party BS...
I have voted GOP my entire life...I am done supporting these ass-clowns, I will work locally to get a new conservative party going and give voters a real choice, candidate within a party that has solid clearly stated principles who stand behind them no matter what.
Not waiting in lines is never news ~ and 20 years ago our precinct went from busy to not busy. This time it went from not busy to busy. The only difference was the territory carved out to vote at our normal voting place ~ a school with a record of being a good place to get people in and out.
Lines, per se, mean nothing other than failure of local election boards to properly gauge probable turnout based on redistricting.
Potemkin election
Obama fell several million votes below what he'd had in 2008.
The way I see it is candidate quality was the problem. Romney was no more a draw than was McCain. Obama ran as 'first negro' ~ and he set records, then he ran is 'jus' another chicago street thug' and did less well ~ a lesson to the Dems!
The problem for us is the GOP-e ~ and some major donors who imagine you really can buy an election by buying advertising on the last couple of days.
You have to build your support in the years between elections so you have people willing to turn out for your candidates. Running loser after loser dispirits people, and then they don't vote.
You didn’t read anything I wrote.
We could have ran Ronald Reagan and we would have lost.
Stay asleep, it is what they want you to do.
But I am awake and know this election and maybe more was fraudulent.
Sorry, muawiyah.
This was the most crooked and fraudulent election in American history. Trying to blame Romney’s Mormonism for the loss is nothing more than trying justify massive fraud.
Explain how 120% of all adult voters in Cleveland voted and it counts. Explain how all the precincts in Philadelphia voted 100% for obuma, with not a single vote for Romney.
The stats showed that 20% of young blacks voted for Romney. Why didn’t that show up in Philadelphia?
“...in any given election,particularly Presidential elections,a member of one of two parties...Rat or Republican..will win.And that will be true for the rest of *our* lifetimes,at least,as it’s been true for the last 100 years or more”
What happens when the Republican candidate can’t win any more?
But the point I made was that the public persona left Romney incapable of being critical of the second worst President in American history.
That's something for Mormons to fix before they push another one of their faction forward as Presidential material.
When you finally get Romney out to run in a real campaign, give us a call ~ we are still waiting.
All Romney had to do was get out as many Republicans as did George Bush and he would have won.
Reagan would have walked all over Obama, any decent republican would have.
You cannot take a 20 year election loser, who doesn’t even belong in the party, who campaigns against the party, to carry the party to victory, even against Carter II on the verge of a depression.
Romney left millions of votes on the table.
I sure hope your sleep state is comfortable for you. Because when you finally wake up and face reality you are in for one hell of a shock.
That's how you win elections.
Do you seriously imagine that the Democrats used some sort of magic juju to win 2008 and 2012 that was unavailable to them in 2010?
His Republican party affiliation was weak, and his connection to Conservatism was simply non-existent.
Man, you are something else.
I get it. You believe we just had a fair and honest election.
I don’t. Are you even capable of acknowledging that many of us believe it was stolen? You won’t even address it.
Fine. I know in my heart and soul this election was stolen. Romney as bad as he was won this election.
I am done talking to a brick wall. Next election you give all of your money to the GOP. Put the signs in your yard. Make calls. The GOP needs you in 2016!
I will bet a Dem will win it. But no worries, just give more in 2020. It is what all good little lemmings will do.
Nobody voted for Romney. Those who voted for him at the ballot box were voting against Obama.
Romney is a political lightweight and I do not know of one Republican any better.
Don’t even talk Rubio, Bush, Jindal, Christie. All lightweights too.
Better come up with someone or it will be 16 years of dems.
Yes Reagan would have stomped on the magic negro. Yes Reagan is a better man than Romney 10 fold. But my belief is the rats would have stolen it from him.
Now the difference is Reagan would have fought for us after knowing it was stolen. Romney of course did not.
This is not about running the better man. This is about fraud.
If you're going to go this way, I humbly suggest you look over the current minor parties that offer a conservative alternative (eg., Constitution Party) and find out why they failed to click with millions. Once you find out what's stopping them, you'll know what traps to avoid - and when to call it a day if those traps prove to be unavoidable.
If you have Ross Perot in the back of your mind, please keep in mind that he's a supersalesman. He started up EDS because, as an IBM salesman, he met his full-year quota in a few weeks! And as a result, he was told to take it easy for the rest of the year by IBM management. Declining, he started up EDS and made a mint selling computer time-share services.
Here's the point. Ross Perot did not invent the computer. He did not invent time-sharing. Instead, he brilliantly marketed the two. That's his strength: marketing and selling a product that's already been put in place for him to sell. He managed to see ways that computers and time-sharing could make his customers more productive, and he ginned himself up to believe in his solutions passionately. That's what good salespeople do.
When he ran in '92, he needed a platform. He needed a platform that he could sell the h*** out of. As a natural marketer, he figured out quickly that the best "product" would aim at the centre. It would have to be one that appealed to both Republicans and Democrats. It would have to be a platform that would be eagerly welcomed by disgruntled conservative and disgruntled moderates and liberals. He needed all three as a "prospect base" in order to maximize his campaign's appeal.
And, of course, he needed a single theme to knit his program together. A single concept is much easier to sell than a bullet-point list.
So, his platform had to have:
Perot aimed at the centre. He aimed at the centre because that's where the most prospects were. That's why, before his meltdown, he was a serious contender. He aimed at the centre with a very enticing populist twist, which made both established parties look ineffectual as well as "ideological." He eschewed any policy that could be credibly tarred as "extreme" by his opponents.
So...if your third party idea is going to get off the ground, you'll all but have to aim at the centre. You have to make a home for disgruntled liberals and moderates as well as conservatives. You need a single policy, like Perot's protectionism, that ticks off both Democrat insiders and Republican insiders. One that gets splutters out of establishment conservatives as well as establishment liberals, like Ross Perot's protectionism did. That way, you can position yourself as offering a middle way between the two extremes. As an anti-ideologue battling two parties full of ideologues. As someone who can cut through the liberal nonsense and the conservative nonsense. Unless you have both, you've cut yourself off from most of your prospects and are likely to fall into the "splinter party" or "too extreme for the extremists" trap.
And...in order to reach that goal, you have to eschew any policy that would scare off disgruntled moderates and disgruntled liberals. You have to get to them all, as did Perot in his heyday.
As I hope I've indicated, it's a tall order - and likely requires a supersalesperson to see it through.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll
This is why Romney lost.
It looks like part of the problem, but there are other responses in that poll that are much more encouraging for future Republican candidates. For example:
Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most
in deciding how you voted for president?(CHECK ONLY ONE)Candidate quality: Total__Obama__Romney
Shares my values: 27%__42%__55%
Is a strong leader: 18%__38%__61%
Cares about people like me: 21%__81%__18%
Has a vision for the future: 29%__45%__54%
Romney won three of the four groups, but he lost the "Cares about people like me" group by a huge margin, 18% to 81%. I interpret that as a reaction primarily to Romney's wealth, but the 47% comments are probably also part of that result. A future non-wealthy Republican candidate should be able to change those numbers.
Appreciate your response, but it doesn’t answer my questions.
Maybe if we brought back dueling, this whole matter about America could finally settled. And so people don’t accuse me of blowing smoke out my butt, I will stand first in line when it’s time to hack leftists to death and remove their arms, legs, tongues, kidney stones and livers. I do have certain terrible skills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.