If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

I think 2010 showed how far right the electorate is. If anything Romney isn't far enough right for the electorate.

Better question. What does is say about the electorate if the worst President in history is re-elected? Furthermore what does it say about our nation?

Social issues aren't issues for most voters. Most people vote with their wallets. Only the left thinks social issues are a big deal to voters and its obvious based on their lack of ideas and terrible record. Without drumming the base with falsely perceived social issues the democrats never win again.

Probably nothing, they won't change.

I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

So effectively satisfy pro choice and pro marriage equality independents, take a balanced approach to taxes and spending, and reduce our role as world police? I would consider voting for that.

(10-30-2012 06:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Better question. What does is say about the electorate if the worst President in history is re-elected? Furthermore what does it say about our nation?

Beat me to it.

(10-30-2012 06:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

So effectively satisfy pro choice and pro marriage equality independents, take a balanced approach to taxes and spending, and reduce our role as world police? I would consider voting for that.

I think most Americans would, but they would never get out of the primaries.

(10-30-2012 07:11 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

So effectively satisfy pro choice and pro marriage equality independents, take a balanced approach to taxes and spending, and reduce our role as world police? I would consider voting for that.

I think most Americans would, but they would never get out of the primaries.

Then end the primaries and go back to political bosses picking the candidates. I'm serious. I think we got better candidates out of that process, for less money--and would again. And winning the election would be more important than ideological purity, so there would be a move back toward the center.

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Did you ask these questions about Democrats in 2004?

(10-30-2012 07:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 07:11 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

So effectively satisfy pro choice and pro marriage equality independents, take a balanced approach to taxes and spending, and reduce our role as world police? I would consider voting for that.

I think most Americans would, but they would never get out of the primaries.

Then end the primaries and go back to political bosses picking the candidates. I'm serious. I think we got better candidates out of that process, for less money--and would again. And winning the election would be more important than ideological purity, so there would be a move back toward the center.

Who do you think the GOP bosses would have picked this year? 2008? 2000?

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Romney is "moderate/centrist"... no ifs ands or buts about it. In my opinion, the RNC will TRY to move the Republican party further to the left/liberal agenda than it is now (even further away from the libertarian branch)

Now _IF_ the GOP takes the Senate and House but not the Presidency... I don't think they'll change as much.

If things stay as they are now.. I have no idea what the RNC will suggest for the party platform.

(10-30-2012 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Did you ask these questions about Democrats in 2004?

I would have in 2008 if McCain won.

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

Then stake out an economic policy that gives up arguing over whether to stimulate consumption by cutting taxes or raising entitlements and starts instead to focus on stimulating supply by balancing the budget while making tax rates competitive on world markets, and the only way to do that is to lower rates, broaden the base, and institute a consumption tax, along with cutting spending, military and otherwise. Grover Nordquist be damned, that's the only way to do it.

And stake out a foreign policy that gets us out of micromanaging the world.

W's promises in 2000 would be a pretty good place to start--cut the size of the federal government and get out of the nation-building business. Of course, what W then spent 8 years doing would be anything but.

I have a little secret for you Owl-you aren't in the center. Just thought you should know.

(10-30-2012 08:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Romney is "moderate/centrist"... no ifs ands or buts about it. In my opinion, the RNC will TRY to move the Republican party further to the left/liberal agenda than it is now (even further away from the libertarian branch)

Now _IF_ the GOP takes the Senate and House but not the Presidency... I don't think they'll change as much.

If things stay as they are now.. I have no idea what the RNC will suggest for the party platform.

I have no clue as to what Romney is. He keeps flip flopping from from centrist to far right that I think it is impossible for anyone to know anything about who he is.

(10-30-2012 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Did you ask these questions about Democrats in 2004?

Dems had an heir apparent in 2004. The same one as 2012.

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

I think the Democrats have moved so far to the left on social issues because the Republicans have done just the opposite. It hasn't been a move in a vacuum. Kennedy nominated Whizzer White for the Supreme Court. Ford nominated Stevens. I had hoped Obama would go more middle on his selections but that didn't happen. But does anyone for a second think Romney will go to the middle on his selections??

Romney did govern Massachusetts as a centrist but I think his core beliefs are very conservative and he only went with the flow in that state out of necessity. That won't be the case in Washington.

Why can't there be a legitimate 3rd party answer?

(10-31-2012 01:50 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I have a little secret for you Owl-you aren't in the center. Just thought you should know.

Let me guess, you think you are.

(10-31-2012 05:46 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the democrats have gone so far to the left on social issues that a republican party that moved to the center could still capture the vast majority of social conservatives. Limit abortions but don't end them, make adoption a more reasonable option, give marriage back to the churches, let civil unions function for all legal purposes, and require that civil unions be between one consenting adult and another consenting adult. And any social conservatives they lost wouldn't be voting democrat, for sure.

I think the Democrats have moved so far to the left on social issues because the Republicans have done just the opposite.

I get tired of conjecture that completely contradicts history.

(10-31-2012 05:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2012 05:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If they can't beat "the worst President in history," what does that make their candidate? There is little doubt that the party will need to shift to be better aligned with the desires of the electorate, the question is how the GOP will reposition itself.

Finally move away from social issues?
Embrace the libertarian branch?
Move to the center and go big tent?

(Obviously the election can go either way at this point, but it is close enough that this is a reasonable scenario)

Did you ask these questions about Democrats in 2004?

Dems had an heir apparent in 2004. The same one as 2012.

So, you're adopting the Republican "It's my turn" model. Good luck with that.