(02-25-2014 11:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:08 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 08:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The GOP has failed to put forth a candidate that appeals to the independent voter. They consistently choose either a bible thumper or a war monger...neither of which do anything but play to it's base.

define "independent voter". You're an eyelash away from the same sort of mindlessness that the MSM used to pump out about, say, freaking soccer moms. And the year of the woman. Oh, and the year of the angry white male.

Bible thumper and war monger are just . . . Third grade stereotypes, dude.

unfortunately, he is also a voter that has this perception....I don't think he just light bulbed the brain and came up with it all by himself.....

perception IS the problem....

...and the dems are winning b/c of this.....

b/c EVERYBODY knows they are all full of shite.....it all comes down to which shite bag does one want to tote alone the way.....

I don't want to spoil the fun, but i think it will turn out that it's because he has a particular bug up his butt about what he will call "neocons", and an even bigger problem with what the MSM likes to call, "evangelicals", and his issue will boil down to the primary process; particularly that the "base" controls it.

Like I said, not trying to spoil the fun.

but some of the people with the biggest problem with "thumpers" and "mongers" are otherwise . . . . republicans.

(02-25-2014 11:32 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:08 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 08:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The GOP has failed to put forth a candidate that appeals to the independent voter. They consistently choose either a bible thumper or a war monger...neither of which do anything but play to it's base.

define "independent voter". You're an eyelash away from the same sort of mindlessness that the MSM used to pump out about, say, freaking soccer moms. And the year of the woman. Oh, and the year of the angry white male.

Bible thumper and war monger are just . . . Third grade stereotypes, dude.

unfortunately, he is also a voter that has this perception....I don't think he just light bulbed the brain and came up with it all by himself.....

perception IS the problem....

...and the dems are winning b/c of this.....

b/c EVERYBODY knows they are all full of shite.....it all comes down to which shite bag does one want to tote alone the way.....

I don't want to spoil the fun, but i think it will turn out that it's because he has a particular bug up his butt about what he will call "neocons", and an even bigger problem with what the MSM likes to call, "evangelicals", and his issue will boil down to the primary process; particularly that the "base" controls it.

Like I said, not trying to spoil the fun.

but some of the people with the biggest problem with "thumpers" and "mongers" are otherwise . . . . republicans.

damn man...I had to look up the neocon....learned a new one today

...and totally agree with both points....division of the red and the "base control"

it's the new version of wysiwyg.....if you see it, it's gotta be true....

what's that old saying???....a picture is worth a thousand words....has never been more true than it is today.....and the media base knows it

(09-08-2013 03:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  McC is lost. But after what Obama has done, I don't see the GOP having a difficult time going forward.

good luck getting to 270 electoral college votes in 2016...

How many people voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush? Obama is the poster boy for the GOP, just promising to undo everything he's done will get a lot of votes.

Agree. Obama's approval rating will be comparable with George W Bush's at the end if his second term.

The Republicans can win the Senate in 2014 if they say "Obama-democrats-Obamacare" enough times. No matter what some folks think, the law is wildly unpopular with most Americans.

While the media is ready to anoint Hilary Clinton as the heir apparent, the Republicans can win with the right strategy.

(02-25-2014 09:59 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 08:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When it comes to the house elections I think we should go back to our roots. Electors are supposed to choose their legislators. We have it ass backwards. Are legislators are choosing their electorate.

I believe "Our" legislators was the intended phrase…

I would gladly return to the original system of electing Representatives and Senators. US Senators were chosen by state legislatures (in a bicameral state legislature, each house typically got to choose one of them). US Representatives were frequently elected on a statewide, at-large basis. Districts existed and even gerrymandering existed, but to a degree that was laughably quaint compared to what we have now.

In the early days of the union, US Reps represented about 50K people. Now it's over 10x that, about 700-800K. How about we add more reps, and reduce their salaries? That will allow individuals to be represented in DC better, and all those seats won't go exclusively to the wealthy.

I haven't read though the entire thread so pardon me if someone has already mentioned it but, and I know few want to admit it, a significant reason the Republicans lost the last two presidential elections is because a black man was on the Democratic ticket. It was historic and had immense meaning to lots of folks who either had never voted before or for those who wanted to be part of something historic. I know liberals want to champion the changing culture of America and the acceptance of liberal policies and agendas but it'll be interesting to see if that same level of support exists in the next election. Yes, having Hillary on the Dem ticket would also galvanize some, not all, of the same voters for some of the same reasons but I'm doubtful. Of course, the Republicans must choose an electable candidate as their choice.

The Dems have won four of the last six presidential elections but anyone who knows history knows that Clinton's elections were also unique in that a third party candidate syphoned off a considerable amount of Republican support which enabled Bill Clinton to win without a majority both times.

How about voter fraud?

Republicans need to get their sh!t together, rapid.

(02-25-2014 11:59 PM)supertiger Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 03:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  McC is lost. But after what Obama has done, I don't see the GOP having a difficult time going forward.

good luck getting to 270 electoral college votes in 2016...

How many people voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush? Obama is the poster boy for the GOP, just promising to undo everything he's done will get a lot of votes.

Agree. Obama's approval rating will be comparable with George W Bush's at the end if his second term.

The Republicans can win the Senate in 2014 if they say "Obama-democrats-Obamacare" enough times. No matter what some folks think, the law is wildly unpopular with most Americans.

While the media is ready to anoint Hilary Clinton as the heir apparent, the Republicans can win with the right strategy.

Well, yes, that strategy can get you to a certain point in the mid-term elections, particularly for the House where the districts are much more ideological compared to Presidential and most Senate elections. The "throw the bums out" inclination of the electorate is always a cyclical strain in American politics that swings to the advantage of whatever party isn't in power at that time. See 2006 for the Democrats and 2010 for the Republicans.

However, anyone in the Republican Party that thinks that they can sit back and rely upon that to win the Senate is sorely mistaken: the party needs the CORRECT candidates. And when I say that "correct candidates", it basically means whoever is the opposite of who the Club for Growth and Tea Party are throwing their money behind. The Senate should have been in GOP hands already if it wasn't for some idiotic right wing primary choices in 2012. (When the party nominates idiots like Todd Akin, the party ceases to have any excuse when he says idiotic things that end up tanking his general election chances. The media bogeyman can't be blamed for that one.)

That goes several magnitudes higher with respect to the Presidential election. As I pointed out in this thread months ago, the only people that matter in Presidential elections are soccer moms. It's not about turning out your base. It's not about white males. It's not even about minorities (although that's going to be an increasing issue for the GOP as states that have been conservative up to this point see an increasing influx of minority voters). It's about SOCCER MOMS. They decide elections in the swing states that matter. Republicans need to pound that into their heads over and over and over and over.

That's where the GOP needs to figure out the correct candidate (who, to be honest, might simply not be out there in 2016) because, believe me, Hillary Clinton is VERY popular with that swing vote soccer mom group. I don't know why anyone in the GOP would get cocky about facing her - she does well with the swing voter demographics that matter and, even though there's a segment of the population that despises her, that's countered that there's basically nothing that can be said about her personally at this point that would impact people's views of her (as stuff like Benghazi only really move the meter for people that would never have voted for her in the first place). Besides, we're at the point where 48% of the country will despise a candidate simply because he/she is a member of the other party, so the pre-existing views that people have for Hillary don't have the same impact as they would have had even compared to 2008. She's a formidable candidate that's married to someone that, regardless of what you make think of Bill's views, is one of the most brilliant political tacticians in history. Just being the anti-Obama isn't going to be enough.

I don't say this out of any support for her - I don't really want much to do with her being president for 8 years at all, but fear that the Republicans will once again have an awful Presidential election playbook (and that playbook starts with how the party makes sure that it gets behind someone that can win the general election as early on in the nomination process as possible as opposed to letting loud negative candidates that score points with the narrow-minded base hang around and kill the soccer mom narrative). As I've said before, the worst enemy for the Republican Party is its own primary electorate that can't see the big picture and get candidates that can actually win general elections.

The Republicans need a candidate that lies better than the Democrats.

Would rather have a Rep candidate that tells it like it actually is instead of trying to tell people
what they want to hear.

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

Survey says?

Good answer!

(02-26-2014 10:33 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would rather have a Rep candidate that tells it like it actually is instead of trying to tell people
what they want to hear.

(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!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud 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!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

(02-26-2014 11:47 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud 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!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

Just making sure people understand that ACORN was paying their workers by the amount of people they registered which is why they often made fake registrations with the names of dead people, ficitional characters. etc. etc.

Obviously, these people would have never attempted to vote since they were either dead or didn't actually exist. Therefore, it's not really voter fraud.

(02-26-2014 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:47 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud 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!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

Just making sure people understand that ACORN was paying their workers by the amount of people they registered which is why they often made fake registrations with the names of dead people, ficitional characters. etc. etc.

Obviously, these people would have never attempted to vote since they were either dead or didn't actually exist. Therefore, it's not really voter fraud.

lol, that's quite the spin. I'm impressed.

(02-26-2014 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:47 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud 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!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

Just making sure people understand that ACORN was paying their workers by the amount of people they registered which is why they often made fake registrations with the names of dead people, ficitional characters. etc. etc.

Obviously, these people would have never attempted to vote since they were either dead or didn't actually exist. Therefore, it's not really voter fraud.

No, that's voter fraud my friend.

If registered Mr. Jimmy John himself need only show up and cast a ballot. The same man can then vote under his real name elsewhere and then do it all agin somewhere else.

(02-26-2014 11:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:47 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

Good answer!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

Just making sure people understand that ACORN was paying their workers by the amount of people they registered which is why they often made fake registrations with the names of dead people, ficitional characters. etc. etc.

Obviously, these people would have never attempted to vote since they were either dead or didn't actually exist. Therefore, it's not really voter fraud.

No, that's voter fraud my friend.

If registered Mr. Jimmy John himself need only show up and cast a ballot. The same man can then vote under his real name elsewhere and then do it all agin somewhere else.

It's 100% bonafide voter fraud.

I am not typing well this morning. Holy hell.

(02-26-2014 11:52 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:47 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

Good answer!

Just for the record, dead people can't vote.

Just making sure people understand that ACORN was paying their workers by the amount of people they registered which is why they often made fake registrations with the names of dead people, ficitional characters. etc. etc.

Obviously, these people would have never attempted to vote since they were either dead or didn't actually exist. Therefore, it's not really voter fraud.

lol, that's quite the spin. I'm impressed.

It's illegal, but oh, not really illegal.