The Next Step for the GOP

[Hooahguy]

I think the vast majority of voters who arent voting for Romney are turned off by the GOPs social conservatism. I think if they went more centrist then it would be much easier for them to win. Its hard to be seen as a "small government" party when you also advocate policies that increase government's involvement in citizen's private lives. Like gay marriage.

[rvg]

I think the vast majority of voters who arent voting for Romney are turned off by the GOPs social conservatism. I think if they went more centrist then it would be much easier for them to win. Its hard to be seen as a "small government" party when you also advocate policies that increase government's involvement in citizen's private lives. Like gay marriage.

GOP needs to move towards Ron Paul's fiscal and social stances. Not fully embrace them, but definitely move in that direction.

[drone]

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.

But the GOP has plenty of able candidates with many strengths to promote, and there is a lot of unexplored territory when it comes to this new era of multicultural American politics.

Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.

Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint.

There are plenty of up and coming Republican members from Congress and state Governor positions that decided to sit out on this election cycle for whatever reason. Marco Rubio and Chris Christie comes to mind. If Romney loses this one, just look out for a lot of mayors and governors to come out of the woodworks.

[Major Robert Dump]

Chris Christie will never be elected because he is too fatzor. The best thing he could do for his chances is to go on The Biggest Loser or something, or maybe prove that "its my thyroid!". We have not had an obese president in going on 100 years I believe. You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Chris Christie will never be elected because he is too fatzor. The best thing he could do for his chances is to go on The Biggest Loser or something, or maybe prove that "its my thyroid!". We have not had an obese president in going on 100 years I believe. You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

I lol'd. You may be right. But nevertheless I forgot to mention Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty might run again, John Thune and some others I may be missing out on. With Ron Paul finally retreating out of politics, Rand Paul may be taking up the crusade, in which case the Libertarian movement in the GOP now has a younger, more legitimate figure to rally behind and expand.

[Lemur]

You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

Whatevs, MRD, I am now and always will be a Taft man.



"He was fat, but he had the frame that carries weight with an effect of majesty, of the sort that primitive men, and even modern men in the average, like to see in their kings and leaders."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah....true gravitas. Or was that gravitational field?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.


Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint.

Romney is the candidate because he is currently polling nearly half of the electorate. If he is so weak, other, stronger candidates would have faced him in the primaries. Don't delude yourself into believing this line of BS. He's got strong minuses but even stronger pluses.

[drone]

Romney is the candidate because he is currently polling nearly half of the electorate. If he is so weak, other, stronger candidates would have faced him in the primaries. Don't delude yourself into believing this line of BS. He's got strong minuses but even stronger pluses.

My point was that other, stronger candidates don't exist. And with respect to his current polling, Romney is running against a "failed" President who is quite frankly running a very poor campaign. If Romney was all that, he would be 5-10 points ahead. Weak economy, blatant lack of leadership, and no enthusiasm from the opposition base, and he's only almost level?

[rvg]

My point was that other, stronger candidates don't exist...

Oh, they exist. They just chose to sit this one out. There are plenty of top level republicans that could sweep this election in a landslide, but they didn't even bother participating in the primaries.

[drone]

That makes no sense. If these strong GOP candidates exist, why would they sit 2012 out? You have a weak Democrat incumbent and a field of loons + Romney. If Romney pulls this off, these mythical candidates are sidelined until 2020.

Romney has money and a relatively sane record of executive experience, so he had the advantage. The base will probably never trust him since he is a flip-flopping Mormon elected by the People's Republic of Massachusetts, but they will vote for him against Obama. But who else out there could have challenged Mitt in the primaries, and still be electable by the general population?

[HoreTore]

Well, yes. I've been saying this for years. Unfortunately, there's too much cognitive dissonance amongst conservative leadership these days. "Freedom" to a neo-con is selective, and doesn't mean the same thing as what normal, rational human beings consider "Freedom."

The meaning of a term like "freedom" changes from person to person. Two persons can look at the same phenomenon, with one calling it freedom, the other doesn't. And the funny thing is that they're both right of course...