Marco Rubio steps in it.

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Had the Reps presented a viable alternative, maybe, just maybe Obama looses.

That's my point with Hillary, give those millions an alternative.
Why don't you give us an acceptable candidate that you would vote for?Anyone... If you don't have a name,then please give us your criteria for a candidate you would prefer that would make the alleged droves of Democrats just waiting to step over, vote republican. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Why don't you give us an acceptable candidate that you would vote for?Anyone... If you don't have a name,then please give us your criteria for a candidate you would prefer that would make the alleged droves of Democrats just waiting to step over, vote republican. Thanks.
Had Romney ran as Romney, not as Romney pandering to the tea partners, he would have won.

There were many ready to cross if he had done this.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
No candidate can secure the GOP nomination without playing to the Right. In the early primary states of Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire... the activists are on the Right. The energy and passion is on the Right. Usually, the most successful candidate will pander to the Right and as soon as the nomination is secured, move to the center for the general election. Ted Cruz is clearly a favorite of the Right. He speaks the language and more importantly, he is consistent.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
No candidate can secure the GOP nomination without playing to the Right. In the early primary states of Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire... the activists are on the Right. The energy and passion is on the Right. Usually, the most successful candidate will pander to the Right and as soon as the nomination is secured, move to the center for the general election. Ted Cruz is clearly a favorite of the Right. He speaks the language and more importantly, he is consistent.

Wouldn't you rather have the guy that is honest about his views upfront instead of changing his opinions depending on which crowd he is talking to? A guy that completely caters to the right will never become president. The move to the left in this country was done slowly and moving things back needs to be done slowly. The problem with Romney was that he just seemed like an out of touch, rich guy and that's probably because he is. The Republican party really needs to stop picking people like that if they hope to have a future. Rand Paul and Rubio could be great choices because they have a lot of views that will appeal to both parties.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
. . . The Republican party really needs to stop picking people like that if they hope to have a future. Rand Paul and Rubio could be great choices because they have a lot of views that will appeal to both parties.
My point exactly.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
No candidate can secure the GOP nomination without playing to the Right.

And there you have it folks. If the Republicans keep thinking like Ari above, they probably lose.....again.

In the early primary states of Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire... the activists are on the Right. The energy and passion is on the Right. Usually, the most successful candidate will pander to the Right and as soon as the nomination is secured, move to the center for the general election. Ted Cruz is clearly a favorite of the Right. He speaks the language and more importantly, he is consistent.

And if Ted Cruz is nominated(which he won't be) the Republicans lose.....again.

It's simple, watch where the big money is going and that will be your candidate. Right now it's Jeb or Walker.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
McCain and Romney were both 'moderate' candidates and they lost. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee will lose as well. Its funny when some say candidates like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and a Scott Walker will lose because they are too far right. Like adhering to the Constitution is now a radical position and continuing Obama's agenda of lawlessness is now considered the moderate position. Pretty sad really.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Had Romney ran as Romney, not as Romney pandering to the tea partners, he would have won.

There were many ready to cross if he had done this.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Romney was able to garner a plurality of the independent voters but the democrats didn't vote for him because they vote for the most leftist radical candidate.This isn't the same party of 30 years ago.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
McCain and Romney were both 'moderate' candidates and they lost.

McCain lost because of Palin and Romney lost for the exact reason(s) Ragman and myself have pointed out in our posts.

Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee will lose as well.

Not sure about Jeb, I wouldn't count Christie out and Huckabee(giving Christians a bad name since 6-12-08) is just looking for another payday.

Its funny when some say candidates like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and a Scott Walker will lose because they are too far right. Like adhering to the Constitution is now a radical position and continuing Obama's agenda of lawlessness is now considered the moderate position. Pretty sad really.

Who here has said Cruz, Paul or Walker will lose for the sole reason they are "too far right"?
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
I think Palin boosted mcCains numbers when she came on board. That knucklehead never stood I chance.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Who here has said Cruz, Paul or Walker will lose for the sole reason they are "too far right"?

I said 'some' as in ANYONE that may hold that view. Not necessarily speaking about someone in 'here'. But considering that a candidate panders to the right, in essence they have moved to the right , and deemed too far right for some. whether they are in 'here' or somewhere else .
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I think Palin boosted mcCains numbers when she came on board. That knucklehead never stood I chance.

Yeah she helped energize the fans. I think Romney and McCain lost because they ended up looking like stereotypical old, rich white guys to the left and they looked like a RHINO to the right.
 

Yowpuggy

Expert Expediter
Owner/Operator
Republican did not win because they've lost touch with regular people, and they will never win again until they find it back.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I think Palin boosted mcCains numbers when she came on board.

When she first came on board she did give a boost to his campaign. Then the American people got to know Ms. Palin. Now, don't get me wrong, that's not the only reason he lost but naming her as his running mate hurt him considerably. McCain didn't take in as much campaign money as Obama took in from donors, his age was against him, and his inability to separate himself from Bush.

It's been mentioned by myself and Rags throughout this thread about "selling out" to the right, McCain's campaign thought they needed the Evangelical, Republican right wing vote and they pandered to that voting bloc by naming Palin as his running mate.

That knucklehead never stood I chance.

He most certainly stood a chance, he just blew the chance he had.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Let's get back to the original post for a second.

Marco Rubio has alienated himself from the Evangelical Christian voting bloc by stating he would gladly attend a homosexual wedding.

Rubio may have alienated himself from a "certain" voting bloc but I assure you it is not the Evangelicals from that particular quote.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Republican did not win because they've lost touch with regular people, and they will never win again until they find it back.
That's exactly it right there. One of the problems is the rapidly changing electorate. Currently, 70 percent of Americans eligible to vote are white. In 1980 that figure was 85 percent. That's not that big of a problem in mid-term elections, when young and minority voters are far more likely than older, white voters to stay home. That's why in mid-terms you see a lot of Republicans elected locally and in Congress. But for presidential elections, more young and minority voters go to the polls, putting the older white voters closer to minority status (in 50 years that 70 percent may actually be less than 50 percent).

In 2012, President Obama lost white voters by a larger margin than any winning presidential candidate in U.S. history. In his reelection, Obama lost ground from 2008 with almost every conceivable segment of the white electorate. With several key groups of whites (i.e., white Catholics, married men, married women, blue collar workers, college educated, Democrat-leaning, etc.), he recorded the weakest national performance for any Democratic nominee since the Republican landslides of the 1980s. And yet he still won by a comfortable margin.

Republicans have to either court and win over record numbers of minorities, or convince as many Republican voters as possible to actually show up and vote. As long as the GOP nominates someone competent, they start off with 46 percent of the vote and a large chunk of the electoral college. Getting to 270 + 1 electoral votes and then to 50 percent of the popular balloting requires trade-offs and choices.

Find the swing states where demographic composition of the electorate has been volatile and where there is room among those demographic groups to grow the GOP's share. Put the two together. Of course, the demographic trends don't favor the Republicans. That means Democrats will have somewhere between 200 and 250 electoral votes in the bank by election day. Republicans have to focus on the states where they can make headroom. There are some states that will vote Democrat no matter what the Republicans do, but states like Iowa, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are states where things to go to the GOP.

The only way to push things over the top is to get back in touch with regular people, especially in those states. That means blue collar workers and married women, mostly. The issue important with blue collar workers and married women are not the issues of the religious right, they are the issues of economic security, jobs, quality of life. The GOP will have to moderate its tone on social issues, otherwise they come of as being preachy and telling people what to do and how to live their lives. As is noted in this article from a couple of years ago, by shifting traditional Republican positioning on divisive social issues, and by investing in new media platforms, the Republican Party can come back from the brink, and be truly competitive with Democrats, because they'll be bring in more of the youth vote along with the white, over 30 vote.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Romney was able to garner a plurality of the independent voters but the democrats didn't vote for him because they vote for the most leftist radical candidate.This isn't the same party of 30 years ago.
We are forgetting about the millions of registered Dems that didn't vote at all be cause of the pandering to to the far right. Had Romney remained true to his positions, those that did not vote at all just might have crossed over. We will never know now.
 
Top