(02-26-2014 04:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:28 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 01:15 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  By, "Religious-fueled social conservatism", you mean Republicans need to give up on any "family, social or moral values" issue. Yea, that's the ticket.

Yes. 100% yes. All the Republicans do with those issues is simply add votes to states that are already in the bag and wouldn't ever turn Democratic anyway (i.e. Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma) while losing voters in the swing states that matter for Presidential elections (including formerly red-turned-blue states like Colorado and Virginia). I don't understand how any Republican that actually wants to win can look at the electoral map and not see how obvious this is. It's far from political rocket science.

Here's a breakdown of the 2012 Presidential Election:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electio...ed_12.html

You'll notice that Obama took 86% of liberals and Romney took 82% of conservatives. Duh.

But Obama took 56% of moderates to Romney's 41%. What are the issues that Republicans can focus on that will help deliver moderates? Hint: It has nothing to do with the bedroom.

I'd rather get 100% of conservatives.

1) 100% of any voting block is an unrealistic goal
2) Evn if you could, that strategy won't win POTUS elections

(02-26-2014 04:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Neither McCain nor Romney ran on any moral issues against the false god.

One thing we're forgetting is that it's not always about the man or woman at the top that represents the campaign. They typically play the middle ground. It's the groups that support them and the ads they run and the language they use and the attacks they make.

Typical Dem Group Attack Ad:
Republicans wanna take away your SS, Medicare. Don't care about the poor, minorities, working man/woman, environment, teachers, etc.

Typical Repub Group Attack Ad:
Democratics are evil, immoral, ungodly socialists, etc.


To the average man/woman on the street that doesn't read our message boards, rarely ever watches the news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc), rarely reads anything but maybe the local newspaper and then usually only glance at pages other than the sports or lifestyle section, those two messages get hammered into them every time they turn the TV on. If you knew nothing else, you'd be inclined to view Republicans as unlike you and Dems as more like you. Granted, most people aren't evil.

(02-26-2014 04:41 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Neither McCain nor Romney ran on any moral issues against the false god.

One thing we're forgetting is that it's not always about the man or woman at the top that represents the campaign. They typically play the middle ground. It's the groups that support them and the ads they run and the language they use and the attacks they make.

Typical Dem Group Attack Ad:
Republicans wanna take away your SS, Medicare. Don't care about the poor, minorities, working man/woman, environment, teachers, etc.

Typical Repub Group Attack Ad:
Democratics are evil, immoral, ungodly socialists, etc.


To the average man/woman on the street that doesn't read our message boards, rarely ever watches the news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc), rarely reads anything but maybe the local newspaper and then usually only glance at pages other than the sports or lifestyle section, those two messages get hammered into them every time they turn the TV on. If you knew nothing else, you'd be inclined to view Republicans as unlike you and Dems as more like you. Granted, most people aren't evil.

somebody finally recognized the 'why'.....

losing the senate and house was the fkn problem....now you got all three.....good job red.....

These last two election cycles has been about social issues. ****** probes. i remember when the R's used to beat us up on abortion. that worm has turned in a big way and will ONLY get worse for the R's going forward. Cleveland . com had a poll out today and Kasich polled on the wrong side on social issues.


Ohioans are moving left on marijuana and same-sex marriage, according to a poll released Monday by Quinnipiac University.

The poll found an overwhelming majority — 87 percent — of Ohioans support legalizing marijuana for medical uses. About 51 percent support allowing adults to legally possess a small amount of the drug. And 83 percent agree marijuana is equally or less dangerous than alcohol.

At the same time, 50 percent of Ohio voters now support same-sex marriage, compared to 44 percent who do not.

A plurality of voters — 34 percent versus 26 percent — also disapproved of Gov. John Kasich’s handling of abortion. (In the latest state budget, Kasich and his fellow Republicans in the Ohio legislature imposed new restrictions on abortions and abortion providers.)


http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5551...ssues.html

This will only continue to worsen for the GOP.

(02-26-2014 04:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  These last two election cycles has been about social issues. ****** probes. i remember when the R's used to beat us up on abortion. that worm has turned in a big way and will ONLY get worse for the R's going forward. Cleveland . com had a poll out today and Kasich polled on the wrong side on social issues.


Ohioans are moving left on marijuana and same-sex marriage, according to a poll released Monday by Quinnipiac University.

The poll found an overwhelming majority — 87 percent — of Ohioans support legalizing marijuana for medical uses. About 51 percent support allowing adults to legally possess a small amount of the drug. And 83 percent agree marijuana is equally or less dangerous than alcohol.

At the same time, 50 percent of Ohio voters now support same-sex marriage, compared to 44 percent who do not.

A plurality of voters — 34 percent versus 26 percent — also disapproved of Gov. John Kasich’s handling of abortion. (In the latest state budget, Kasich and his fellow Republicans in the Ohio legislature imposed new restrictions on abortions and abortion providers.)


http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5551...ssues.html

This will only continue to worsen for the GOP.

you know what is really sad....you think those stats matter.....

gdm some of you really don't get it....

morality is a LOSER......did that help?

(02-26-2014 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, it's like the conservative base is willfully blind. The Republicans have won state-wide elections in blue states like California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts and the blueprint was to avoid those social issues like the plague. Don't they realize how much the electoral map changes if the party just shuts the f**k up about social issues?

And what do they do then Frank when the media keeps harping on the "Glass Ceiling" or "gay marriage"

CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC: Now about that Gay Marriage issue...

Romney managed to avoid it completely in the first debate, because everytime they'd bring up social issues, he'd point to his Mormon belief and then go right back to the important matters... what's happnened after taht?

"Religious Romney won't talk about the War on Women".

However, this one I have to dispute, Frank...

Quote:Unfortunately, the ideologically-focused subgroups like the Tea Party and Club for Growth (who say they aren't social issue-focused yet manage to rile up their supporters on those issues) would rather crash and burn with political purity tests as opposed to winning elections.

Again, the TEA party / Club for Growth make no statements on these type of issues. Yet, somehow they're at fault because it just so happens that many of the people who support the _financial_ ideals of these two groups are also social conservatives?

Club for Growth website:

Their _Stated_ goals from their own website:

Quote: Reduce income tax rates
Death tax repeal
Limited government through limited spending and budget reform, including a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution
Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts for younger workers
Expanding trade freedom (free trade)
End abusive lawsuits through medical malpractice and tort reform
Replacing the current tax code (flat tax, fair tax)
School choice
Regulatory reform and deregulation

So where is the social issues with the Club for Growth? Cause I'm not seeing anything in there for that.

(02-26-2014 04:00 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So are you saying they have run candidates they don't focus on social issues like a Scott Brown? Yes then I agree.

I'm saying that the Republican Party in those states have followed Frank-the-Tank's advice, and have "eradicated" (to the extent it's humanly possible to do so) "religious-fueled social conservatism" from their midst, and they have the results to prove it.

You mention Scott Brown. Okay, then, let's look at Massachusetts and see how the GOP has done there: in congressional elections over the last 20 years, here's the tale:
1992/2-8
1994/2-8
1996/0-10
1998/0-10
2000/0-10
2002/0-10
2004/0-10
2006/0-10
2008/0-10
2010/0-10
2012/0-9
2014/?-?

And in US Senate races, they have compiled the following record:
1988: 33.9% of statewide vote (lost)
1990: 43.1% (lost)
1994: 41.0% (lost)
1996: 44.7% (lost)
2000: 12.9% (lost)
2002: no GOP candidate (lost)
2006: 30.5% (lost)
2008: 31.0% (lost)
Jan. 2010: 51.8% (won/Scott Brown)
2012: 46.2% (lost/Scott Brown)
2014: ??

I could post the results for state legislature and county-level offices, but it would tell the same tale. The Mass-GOP did hold the Governors Mansion 4 times in a row (1990-94-98-02), so there is a ray of light amidst the dark clouds.

I can well understand why certain people (Democrats, liberals, Obama supporters) would want to see the national GOP emulate the political strategies used by Republicans in Massachusetts over the last generation or so. What is less clear is why someone who supports the GOP (or is professing to give the GOP impartial
advice) would want to see that, too.

(02-26-2014 01:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 01:15 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 12:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 09:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  How about voter fraud?

Survey says?

Good answer!

Meh. Voter fraud is the go-to stock excuse for the losing party. Democrats accused Republicans of it when Bush won and Republicans accused Democrats whe Obama won. In reality, it's the political equivalent of blaming the refs for a loss in football as opposed to looking at what your team actuall did wrong. The Republicans have lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes for President and the demographics aren't getting more favorable for the GOP. The party needs to stop blaming the refs (so to speak) and change the game plan. Fiscal issues and Obamacare are still good Republican issues to focus upon. Religious-fueled social conservatism, on the other hand, needs to be eradicated if the party wants to actually win the general election.

By, "Religious-fueled social conservatism", you mean Republicans need to give up on any "family, social or moral values" issue. Yea, that's the ticket.

In actuality, it's a real thing...however, IMO they definitely need to get rid of the god thingy....it's taking them down and too stubborn to realize it....

people will always vote with their back pocket in their hand.....every time.....

How'd voting for Zero help the pockets of the 98% of the blacks that voted for him?

(02-26-2014 05:21 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:00 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So are you saying they have run candidates they don't focus on social issues like a Scott Brown? Yes then I agree.

I'm saying that the Republican Party in those states have followed Frank-the-Tank's advice, and have "eradicated" (to the extent it's humanly possible to do so) "religious-fueled social conservatism" from their midst, and they have the results to prove it.

You mention Scott Brown. Okay, then, let's look at Massachusetts and see how the GOP has done there: in congressional elections over the last 20 years, here's the tale:
1992/2-8
1994/2-8
1996/0-10
1998/0-10
2000/0-10
2002/0-10
2004/0-10
2006/0-10
2008/0-10
2010/0-10
2012/0-9
2014/?-?

And in US Senate races, they have compiled the following record:
1988: 33.9% of statewide vote (lost)
1990: 43.1% (lost)
1994: 41.0% (lost)
1996: 44.7% (lost)
2000: 12.9% (lost)
2002: no GOP candidate (lost)
2006: 30.5% (lost)
2008: 31.0% (lost)
Jan. 2010: 51.8% (won/Scott Brown)
2012: 46.2% (lost/Scott Brown)
2014: ??

I could post the results for state legislature and county-level offices, but it would tell the same tale. The Mass-GOP did hold the Governors Mansion 4 times in a row (1990-94-98-02), so there is a ray of light amidst the dark clouds.

I can well understand why certain people (Democrats, liberals, Obama supporters) would want to see the national GOP emulate the political strategies used by Republicans in Massachusetts over the last generation or so. What is less clear is why someone who supports the GOP (or is professing to give the GOP impartial
advice) would want to see that, too.

1) I love it when people bring data to the table.

2) It's possible that there are some states where Republicans just can't compete because that R is all people see. Plus, competing with the Kennedys in Massachusetts is hardly a fair fight. At least 2012 was competitive.

3) The other possibility is that as the nation moves left, the Republicans are going to have a harder and harder time winning at the national level without rethinking their party platform.

(02-26-2014 04:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 01:15 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  By, "Religious-fueled social conservatism", you mean Republicans need to give up on any "family, social or moral values" issue. Yea, that's the ticket.

Yes. 100% yes. All the Republicans do with those issues is simply add votes to states that are already in the bag and wouldn't ever turn Democratic anyway (i.e. Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma) while losing voters in the swing states that matter for Presidential elections (including formerly red-turned-blue states like Colorado and Virginia). I don't understand how any Republican that actually wants to win can look at the electoral map and not see how obvious this is. It's far from political rocket science.

The GOP tried that, and lost. The political rocket blew up.

(02-26-2014 05:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 01:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 01:15 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 12:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Survey says?

Good answer!

Meh. Voter fraud is the go-to stock excuse for the losing party. Democrats accused Republicans of it when Bush won and Republicans accused Democrats whe Obama won. In reality, it's the political equivalent of blaming the refs for a loss in football as opposed to looking at what your team actuall did wrong. The Republicans have lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes for President and the demographics aren't getting more favorable for the GOP. The party needs to stop blaming the refs (so to speak) and change the game plan. Fiscal issues and Obamacare are still good Republican issues to focus upon. Religious-fueled social conservatism, on the other hand, needs to be eradicated if the party wants to actually win the general election.

By, "Religious-fueled social conservatism", you mean Republicans need to give up on any "family, social or moral values" issue. Yea, that's the ticket.

In actuality, it's a real thing...however, IMO they definitely need to get rid of the god thingy....it's taking them down and too stubborn to realize it....

people will always vote with their back pocket in their hand.....every time.....

How'd voting for Zero help the pockets of the 98% of the blacks that voted for him?

b/c they believe in socialism.....golly, you really just asked that question

(02-26-2014 05:28 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 05:21 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:00 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So are you saying they have run candidates they don't focus on social issues like a Scott Brown? Yes then I agree.

I'm saying that the Republican Party in those states have followed Frank-the-Tank's advice, and have "eradicated" (to the extent it's humanly possible to do so) "religious-fueled social conservatism" from their midst, and they have the results to prove it.

You mention Scott Brown. Okay, then, let's look at Massachusetts and see how the GOP has done there: in congressional elections over the last 20 years, here's the tale:
1992/2-8
1994/2-8
1996/0-10
1998/0-10
2000/0-10
2002/0-10
2004/0-10
2006/0-10
2008/0-10
2010/0-10
2012/0-9
2014/?-?

And in US Senate races, they have compiled the following record:
1988: 33.9% of statewide vote (lost)
1990: 43.1% (lost)
1994: 41.0% (lost)
1996: 44.7% (lost)
2000: 12.9% (lost)
2002: no GOP candidate (lost)
2006: 30.5% (lost)
2008: 31.0% (lost)
Jan. 2010: 51.8% (won/Scott Brown)
2012: 46.2% (lost/Scott Brown)
2014: ??

I could post the results for state legislature and county-level offices, but it would tell the same tale. The Mass-GOP did hold the Governors Mansion 4 times in a row (1990-94-98-02), so there is a ray of light amidst the dark clouds.

I can well understand why certain people (Democrats, liberals, Obama supporters) would want to see the national GOP emulate the political strategies used by Republicans in Massachusetts over the last generation or so. What is less clear is why someone who supports the GOP (or is professing to give the GOP impartial
advice) would want to see that, too.

1) I love it when people bring data to the table.

2) It's possible that there are some states where Republicans just can't compete because that R is all people see. Plus, competing with the Kennedys in Massachusetts is hardly a fair fight. At least 2012 was competitive.

3) The other possibility is that as the nation moves left, the Republicans are going to have a harder and harder time winning at the national level without rethinking their party platform.

You and me say the same thing....we just do it in a different way....hope that doesn't put the sharks on you....

I'm old enough to be sick of all of it.....

I'm the old a$shole and you are the voice of reason....don't stop fighting the fight....somebody has to combat the rhetoric...