Way forward for the GOP

[tailfins]

Not being one to simply regurgitate fund raising letters like some here, I have studied multiple analyses about the election. Since the GOP has a majority of Governorships, wouldn't it make sense to use those campaign organizations to work on getting GOP Mayors in cities and suburbs. I posted an interesting article to that effect. That would build the bench for GOP candidates while using those mayorships to build goodwill with those constituents. Conservatives need to build experience in solving urban problems in a way that minimizes bureaucracy.

[Kathianne]

All government is local. Always more immediate and more easy to influence. So, yes. Focus should always be local.

[gabosaurus]

The GOP needs to build a base of strong, personable leaders. Those leaders need to be able to reach out and galvanize voters.
The problem with the Tea Party is their extreme conservative ideas. The American populace is moving toward the center. Future national leaders will need to have moderate ideas.
Look at the shift between 2004 and 2012. In 2004, the GOP was able to re-elected an extremely unpopular president by reaching out to its conservative and evangelical base. That base has shrunk to the point where it was unable to unseat a similarly unpopular president in 2012.

The biggest mistake the GOP made in the election was offering a candidate who did not have a broad base of support. Support of Romney was, at best, lukewarm. If you listened to the radio talking heads (I tuned into Limbaugh quite often), they wanted you to vote against Obama more than they wanted you to vote for Romney.
Romney was not even close to being Reagan, or even Bush.

[mundame]

The GOP needs to build a base of strong, personable leaders. Those leaders need to be able to reach out and galvanize voters.
The problem with the Tea Party is their extreme conservative ideas. The American populace is moving toward the center. Future national leaders will need to have moderate ideas.
Look at the shift between 2004 and 2012. In 2004, the GOP was able to re-elected an extremely unpopular president by reaching out to its conservative and evangelical base. That base has shrunk to the point where it was unable to unseat a similarly unpopular president in 2012.

The biggest mistake the GOP made in the election was offering a candidate who did not have a broad base of support. Support of Romney was, at best, lukewarm. If you listened to the radio talking heads (I tuned into Limbaugh quite often), they wanted you to vote against Obama more than they wanted you to vote for Romney.
Romney was not even close to being Reagan, or even Bush.


Good analysis.

From the beginning I recognized that the GOP viewed this as a "sacrificial lamb" election that wasn't really serious, that the "first black President" would surely get another term and then they could start clean in 2016. So they let the Mormon run, realizing he wouldn't win.

However, Obama turned out to be so unpopular and the economy so bad that it really was a squeaker at the end. Poor Ryan is saying today that he and Romney really thought they were going to win till Virginia and Ohio started coming in. And a lot of people thought that.

The polls turned against them the last week, though.

I think the main message was the missing 11 million voters. They are losing the electorate with these kind of worthless candidates.

[gabosaurus]

One of the main drawbacks for the Republicans was that they never felt they could lose. Fox News and other conservative sources kept telling everyone who would listen that Romney was a lock and would win with over 300 electoral votes. They are multiple threads on this board saying the same thing.
At the same time, other polls indicated that five of the seven swing states had Obama in the lead.
Obama was unpopular and the economy is poor. The Republicans did have a huge edge in that area. In theory, Romney should have won.

Then the unexpected happened. Groups that have never voted in large numbers before (Latinos, young people) came out in droves. Latinos came out in record numbers, accounting for 12 percent of the vote. The under-25 vote as much as tripled. Women, who were projected to be in Romney's corner, favored Obama by 12 percent.
These are the groups you have to pay attention to in the future.

[Kathianne]

IMO, the conservatives should NOT look to opposition advice.

[mundame]

One of the main drawbacks for the Republicans was that they never felt they could lose. Fox News and other conservative sources kept telling everyone who would listen that Romney was a lock and would win with over 300 electoral votes. They are multiple threads on this board saying the same thing.

Yeah, but that was silly. People will say anything during an election. People always predict what they wish for, EVERYONE does that, incl. me. Poor Rove, look at him.



At the same time, other polls indicated that five of the seven swing states had Obama in the lead.
Obama was unpopular and the economy is poor. The Republicans did have a huge edge in that area. In theory, Romney should have won.

The election was close enough that I wonder if they would have with a good candidate. Romney was not attractive. But he was the best of a remarkably poor slate. I wonder if some professional pols are kicking themselves at a lost chance.




Then the unexpected happened. Groups that have never voted in large numbers before (Latinos, young people) came out in droves. Latinos came out in record numbers, accounting for 12 percent of the vote. The under-25 vote as much as tripled. Women, who were projected to be in Romney's corner, favored Obama by 12 percent.
These are the groups you have to pay attention to in the future.

Yes, well, that is a good summary, I think.

However, women were NOT predicted to be with Romney, then they surged toward Romney after the "safe hands" debate, and then the idiot "everybody run around raping women because it's God's will" senators did their thing yet again and women turned right around again. And maybe Hurricane Sandy and Christie's odd sabotage did move the sticks a little, I don't know.

I give up. I have completely lost faith. In America, in the dishonorable-at-high-levels and ever-losing military, certainly in the Republican Party as any sort of reasonable mainstream party.

[Kathianne]

Since the schools are for the most part failing at teaching civics, it's up to others to do so. The Democrats tend to go for songs on diversity and such, nothing wrong with that.

Personally at this stage, I'd like to see conservatives reaching out by writing letters, holding discussions with friends, representatives following the Roskam model, etc.

These shouldn't be partisan per se, rather a topic of discussion on what size of government, level of government, purview of government should be. Sounds boring, hardly. Once one gets started folks you know will be used as examples.

People say to me constantly, 'How can you be conservative? It's not in your own interests. Isn't everything political supposed to be based on one's interests?' Then one counters, "Hey you and hubby are over $250k per year. Your party wants to tax you more, is that in your interest?' Response is along the lines of, "We can afford to pay more, the kids are out of college, we want to help those that are struggling." Seriously, I've many friends like that.

So have the discussions, when they get heated, turn the subject onto kids, grandkids, holidays. Don't fight with friends.

[Missileman]

The GOP needs to build a base of strong, personable leaders. Those leaders need to be able to reach out and galvanize voters.
The problem with the Tea Party is their extreme conservative ideas. The American populace is moving toward the center. Future national leaders will need to have moderate ideas.
Look at the shift between 2004 and 2012. In 2004, the GOP was able to re-elected an extremely unpopular president by reaching out to its conservative and evangelical base. That base has shrunk to the point where it was unable to unseat a similarly unpopular president in 2012.

The biggest mistake the GOP made in the election was offering a candidate who did not have a broad base of support. Support of Romney was, at best, lukewarm. If you listened to the radio talking heads (I tuned into Limbaugh quite often), they wanted you to vote against Obama more than they wanted you to vote for Romney.
Romney was not even close to being Reagan, or even Bush.

Smaller, more efficient government is hardly an extreme idea. Lame stream media is responsible for the "extreme" stories about the Tea Party because they parrot the liberal mantras of bigger government and more social programs. They pick some looney out of the crowd who no more represents the Tea Party than Michael Moore does and uses them to run a smear campaign. It's the old strategy of "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger".

[gabosaurus]

People say to me constantly, 'How can you be conservative? It's not in your own interests. Isn't everything political supposed to be based on one's interests?' Then one counters, "Hey you and hubby are over $250k per year. Your party wants to tax you more, is that in your interest?' Response is along the lines of, "We can afford to pay more, the kids are out of college, we want to help those that are struggling." Seriously, I've many friends like that.

So have the discussions, when they get heated, turn the subject onto kids, grandkids, holidays. Don't fight with friends.

I don't see anything wrong with that approach. My husband and I are over $250k a year and I got that question from some.
My answer was that earnings do not reflect my ideals. I was swung by which candidate would best represent the issues I hold most dear -- education, women's right and rights for Latino (who represent a sizable portion of my immediate family).

People want a smaller government with less taxation until they are faced with huge issue like Sandy.
Others are so wrapped up in their own personal cocoon that they don't think about the world around them. There are people out there who need help. Which shouldn't difficult in a country that was built on helping others.
Sure, some poor people cheat. Rich people cheat as well.

[Missileman]

I don't see anything wrong with that approach. My husband and I are over $250k a year and I got that question from some.
My answer was that earnings do not reflect my ideals. I was swung by which candidate would best represent the issues I hold most dear -- education, women's right and rights for Latino (who represent a sizable portion of my immediate family).

So exactly what rights do you think Romney was planning on denying your Latino relatives?

[gabosaurus]

It's not just my relatives. It's Latinos as a whole. The right to exist without being harassed and profiled.

[Missileman]

It's not just my relatives. It's Latinos as a whole. The right to exist without being harassed and profiled.

So in your opinion, laws can be violated based on the ethnicity of the offender?

[Kathianne]

I don't see anything wrong with that approach. My husband and I are over $250k a year and I got that question from some.
My answer was that earnings do not reflect my ideals. I was swung by which candidate would best represent the issues I hold most dear -- education, women's right and rights for Latino (who represent a sizable portion of my immediate family).

People want a smaller government with less taxation until they are faced with huge issue like Sandy.
Others are so wrapped up in their own personal cocoon that they don't think about the world around them. There are people out there who need help. Which shouldn't difficult in a country that was built on helping others.
Sure, some poor people cheat. Rich people cheat as well.

No one brought up cheating other than you. You won't find me saying that Obama won because people wanted 'stuff.'

My point was that one often votes against the CW of 'what's in their best interests.' Many issues factor in; morality, ideology, philosophy...

[fj1200]

... women's right and rights for Latino...

What rights are women and Latino citizens being denied?

[tailfins]

It's not just my relatives. It's Latinos as a whole. The right to exist without being harassed and profiled.

This is where the Democrats have failed miserably at their own agenda. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this specific issue. Tactics used on one group eventually become justified to use on everybody. With Obama throwing money around like confetti, none of it has made its way to public defender offices. Those who are incarcerated don't even get decent food or medical care. Where's the legislation regulating police tactics in general? I cannot see how the American Civil Liberties Union can support the Democrats. Only on facade issues like gay rights and abortion can the ACLU applaud Obama. On ACLU-style issues that affect everyday people, the Democrats have failed. When the conviction rate approaches 90%, you have to question how fair trials are.