This mentality is part of the problem. The GOP controls the House so at least obama can’t ram through his agenda like he did in 2009 & 2010. Anyone who would like to see pelosi in power with Obama as president out of a misplaced anger toward boehner doesn’t get what is at stake, nor who obama really is.But we can let the ‘on our side’ be the enemy of the ‘undermining us at every turn’.
Don’t you get it? Having Boehner as Speaker is no ‘win’ for social conservatives. So why should we bother?
And when it goes out of his way to indiscriminately campaign for the first gay Republican, it tells me he is an enemy, not an ally, so how is him being Speaker supposed to be any better for Values Voters than a Dim who is an enemy like Pelosi?
I would rather have the open enemy in office than the stealth enemy who will backstab and ruin at every opportunity the people who genuinely support what I and other Values Voters want.
I HOPE AND PRAY BOEHNER IS DRIVEN FROM THE SPEAKERSHIP ASAP EVEN IF IT MEANS HAVING PELOSI RETURN.
Excellent post Ridgerunner. You know firsthand what the left is. These “purist” true believer conservative dont get the left and don’t understand their agenda. They allow their frustration with GOP politicians cloud their thinking. I truly hope their impact on the midterms and 2016 is minimal. I would hate to see the left consolidate their power due to angry purists sitting at home on Election Day or voting for some 3rd party.If this is true of most social conservatives, then they don’t know the left very well.
I’m not a Repub. Never have been. Born and raised Democrat. Held office in the party. Was, myself, a radical for a time as a young man. Walked away when supporting abortion became a requirement for being a party supporter. I realized one could not simultaneously be a dedicated Democrat and a serious Catholic.
I did, however, have the experience of being present and within the inner circles when the party moved hard left. Most people have no idea at all how totalitarian the core left is and how profoundly they have changed my former party. No idea. Most people have no idea how close that movement is to having a lock on power that cannot be removed. The left knows it’s half past eleven p.m. while most conservatives still think it’s nearing lunch time.
Paraphrasing Lenin, the left “…didn’t come here to crack jokes.” They’re deadly serious while encouraging their only potentially effective opponents to be supercilious and whimsical.
Reality will happen. Romney was defeated by Sandra , sandy and candy. But the GOP needs to be better prepared and have a strategy. They can’t let the left media shape the narrative.I think reality in 2012 gave the GOP a bit of a suckerpunch,
Hurricane Sandy struck and seemed to help the President, no thanks to Christie’s actions as well.
Conservatives in some cases stayed home but this is mainly problematic in the Swing States.
Romney had Obama on the ropes and may have let off a little in the 3rd debate, the biased media was of no help either.
Again, I’d go with a Conservative messenger but I’m apprehensive to always be so critical of others as well.
Also… how do you know people won’t vote for you if they never hear your message? Besides, I would think that one of the best ways to prepare for a Presidential Debate would be to host open town halls in areas where you probably aren’t going to be very popular.I agree in that I think that a candidate should mount a ‘full court press’ until the last month of the campaign then focus on the swing states that can lock the election. They might be a different set of states by then. In the meantime use the VP nominee and other popular locals to gin up the base and prep for the general election till the President can join in.
Yes the popular wisdom is to focus what extra resources you have on the swing states that can lock the election; that is the prevailing wisdom.
But the popular wisdom is often the popular wisdom because no one will try something different and we wind up with a Black Swan situation without even realizing it.
There is limited resources and money. It makes no sense to campaign in say Washington state if you’re down 20 points while neglecting states that you have a chance in. I do agree that we should not always concede states so easily and give the Dems such a head startAlso… how do you know people won’t vote for you if they never hear your message? Besides, I would think that one of the best ways to prepare for a Presidential Debate would be to host open town halls in areas where you probably aren’t going to be very popular.
Huntsman had some solid credentials - but he never caught on. He was really quite dull and boring. Also he was identified with the Obama administration. How effectively could a candidate run in opposition to another candidate when they served under them? You can’t be a candidate that puts everyone to sleep - you have to inspire people. Huntsman clearly couldn’t do that - he lacked passion and I think people responded in kind.Didn’t read through all eleven pages of responses, so if I’m covering ground that’s already been covered, please excuse me.
My pick would be Jon Huntsman. As a former governor and ambassador, he has lots of experience with both domestic and foreign issues. He has worked in the administrations of both republican and democratic presidents. As governor of Utah he worked to lower taxes and restrict access to abortions. Although he was in favor of same-sex civil unions, he was not a proponent of same-sex marriage. As a former ambassador to China, he has a perspective that very few of the other candidates have. During the debates leading up the the last presidential election, he spoke very intelligently and handled himself admirably. I think he’d be a fantastic alternative to all the right wing nuts who are trying to out-conservative each other.
See, here’s the thing… it might not work in the immediate term (visiting every state, that is). But… and this is a big but… what’s happened in the last 4 Presidential elections has been bad for America. If the GOP is content with having razor-thin victories, then treating them as if they’ve gained a consensus among the American people (which is what happened after the 2000 and 2004 elections), be my guest. But in order to win that way, the GOP have to win nearly all of the “swing states” in addition to the states that have been called “Red” states. The Dems?There is limited resources and money. It makes no sense to campaign in say Washington state if you’re down 20 points while neglecting states that you have a chance in. I do agree that we should not always concede states so easily and give the Dems such a head start
Ishii
Why vote for a Republican fake when I can have the genuine liberal article by voting Democrat or just staying home?With all due respect, this kind of thinking is what got us another term for Obama. The House will stay GOP and I am not sure that Boehner will run for speaker again. Why not support what is possible rather than what is not so? We did not get in the mess we are in overnight and we are not going to get out of it with one election either.
No we won’t know any more after November. In 2010 the Republicans/Tea Party had a big yr and 2 short yrs later Barack Obama was reelected. Midterm and Presidential electorates are 2 entirely different animals.We’ll know a lot more after the November elections. If the Republicans win the Senate, that will really energize the party. Candidates will pick up more and more interest and scrutiny in the coming year. I still like Rubio - good social conservative, economic moderate, good foreign policy (which we’ll need), appeals (hopefully) to all wings of party. The next President will be doing a lot of clean up, and dealing with the Middle East, Israel, etc. on top of domestic issues. I don’t trust Rand Paul - I think the libertarian brand is really tarnished by the Iraq/Syria ISIS and Ukraine messes. Paul would be almost as lost as Obama. I like Ted Cruz, just not sure he would get elected. I would definitely go for him. Like Jindal. Even like Christie, but not sure he has broad enough appeal and he seems clueless about foreign policy - but the kind of guy who could pick it up and do it. We’ll see. I actually think a number of them could do it. Especially if the party is in a better place. I do worry about the Republicans winning the Senate then somehow managing to blow that - alienating enough people to lose in 2016. People looking to balance the President against the Senate and House.
I agree with Mary Bobo’s post. This could be why we have disasters like Obamacare as well.Why vote for a Republican fake when I can have the genuine liberal article by voting Democrat or just staying home?
If the GOP is not going to nominate people I want to vote for, I will vote third party or stay home and millions are feeling like me as well.
It is amusing to see so ,any Republicans counting their chickens over Obama’s low poll numbers when Boehner’s House is in the single digits because they do not serve the interests of the millions who voted them into office. Instead they serve international corporate interests.
Thanks for such a good detailed analysis of the current Presidential Electoral map.See, here’s the thing… it might not work in the immediate term (visiting every state, that is). But… and this is a big but… what’s happened in the last 4 Presidential elections has been bad for America. If the GOP is content with having razor-thin victories, then treating them as if they’ve gained a consensus among the American people (which is what happened after the 2000 and 2004 elections), be my guest. But in order to win that way, the GOP have to win nearly all of the “swing states” in addition to the states that have been called “Red” states. The Dems?
As the map sits currently, the Dems need to win only ONE of FL, OH, VA, to win, and could also win if they win four of NV, NM, IA, NH, and CO. The GOP has to win ALL of FL, OH, and VA, and then either (a) CO and one of NV, NM, IA, and NH (CO and NH would gain a tie) or (b) lose CO and win three of NV, NM, IA, and NH. As the map currently stands, if the GOP loses ANY of FL, OH, or VA, then the GOP loses - and the GOP still needs more states after those three. Regardless, the victory margin this way is small. In fact, the victory margin in 2000 was so small that GWB would have lost if any one state that voted for him had gone to Al Gore. This (plus what happened in FL) is why the Dems, even today, are convinced that GWB stole the election from Gore.
A narrow victory for the GOP would only serve to increase animosity and create more divide between the “Red” states and the “Blue” states. Seriously. You think Congress is dysfunctional now? Congress is dysfunctional because their constituents have placed themselves in “Us vs. Them” bubbles. Most “Conservatives” only talk to other “Conservatives”. Most “Progressives” only talk to other “Progressives”. Think about it. 95% of Congressional Representatives live in “safe” districts, where they are either unopposed or face only token opposition on the general election ballot. Their biggest challengers come from primary challenges. In other words, most Dems in Congress live in areas where their constituents want them even MORE “Progressive” and most GOPers in Congress live in areas where their constituents want them even MORE “Conservative”. In many areas, it’s considered scandalous if a Dem or a GOPer even have coffee together before a Congressional day starts! In fact, in many places, this is considered more of a scandal than taking bribes (Seriously - it took the GOP two general elections and a run-off election to oust Rep. Jefferson of NOLA AFTER he had been caught storing bribe money in a mini-fridge, and the Rep. who replaced him, Cao, immediately lost re-election; Sen. Bennett of UT, however, didn’t even make the primary ballot in UT after simply doing a back-of-the-napkin discussion with a Dem Senator over health care reform - an alternative idea to Obamacare that never left the back of the napkin - and Bennett, like every other GOP Senator, voted against Obamacare anyway)!
The only way to get people out of these bubbles is to come to them. As I said, doing a full-court press and covering all 50 states probably wouldn’t work in the first election, but it could plant the seed for future elections. In addition, it could reach out to the base and to undecided voters in swing states by showing them that you’re not afraid of challenging other people’s views - and that you’re able to stand firm when others challenge yours.
Hi. I am not sure its quite such a simple matter of visiting all the states enough until the blue and purple states see the light due to the wisdom of visiting candidates’ convincing speeches. There are factors and dynamics at work which go beyond the itinerary of a GOP candidate. Take California: it used to be a reliably, solid Republican state. Now the GOP ignores it because they seem to have no chance there. If you ask some people, they will blame the changing demographics. Consider: in 1970, whites made up 89% of the population of California. In 2010 they made up 57%. And 38% are Hispanic. In 1980, Reagan won California by 17 points. In 2012, Obama won California by 21 points. I think something else is going here, don’t you? The philosophy and theme of the Democrat party is: “come to America, we will take care of you. We will provide you with free healthcare, welfare and other entitlements. And your children will get in state tuition as long as we are in power.” Rob Peter to pay Paul and you will get the votes of Paul, right? Now, perhaps you can understand the rationale for Democrat policies on immigration? More immigrants = more votes = electoral lock. If it can happen in California, it can happen in Texas. When that happens (when the Democrats take Texas) it won’t matter how many earnest GOP candidates take your advice and travel the country speaking at all the states - even the blue ones! Take away Texas from the GOP and its all but over: Democrat victories as far as the eye can see. A socialist paradise!See, here’s the thing… it might not work in the immediate term (visiting every state, that is). But… and this is a big but… what’s happened in the last 4 Presidential elections has been bad for America. If the GOP is content with having razor-thin victories, then treating them as if they’ve gained a consensus among the American people (which is what happened after the 2000 and 2004 elections), be my guest. But in order to win that way, the GOP have to win nearly all of the “swing states” in addition to the states that have been called “Red” states. The Dems?
As the map sits currently, the Dems need to win only ONE of FL, OH, VA, to win, and could also win if they win four of NV, NM, IA, NH, and CO. The GOP has to win ALL of FL, OH, and VA, and then either (a) CO and one of NV, NM, IA, and NH (CO and NH would gain a tie) or (b) lose CO and win three of NV, NM, IA, and NH. As the map currently stands, if the GOP loses ANY of FL, OH, or VA, then the GOP loses - and the GOP still needs more states after those three. Regardless, the victory margin this way is small. In fact, the victory margin in 2000 was so small that GWB would have lost if any one state that voted for him had gone to Al Gore. This (plus what happened in FL) is why the Dems, even today, are convinced that GWB stole the election from Gore.
A narrow victory for the GOP would only serve to increase animosity and create more divide between the “Red” states and the “Blue” states. Seriously. You think Congress is dysfunctional now? Congress is dysfunctional because their constituents have placed themselves in “Us vs. Them” bubbles. Most “Conservatives” only talk to other “Conservatives”. Most “Progressives” only talk to other “Progressives”. Think about it. 95% of Congressional Representatives live in “safe” districts, where they are either unopposed or face only token opposition on the general election ballot. Their biggest challengers come from primary challenges. In other words, most Dems in Congress live in areas where their constituents want them even MORE “Progressive” and most GOPers in Congress live in areas where their constituents want them even MORE “Conservative”. In many areas, it’s considered scandalous if a Dem or a GOPer even have coffee together before a Congressional day starts! In fact, in many places, this is considered more of a scandal than taking bribes (Seriously - it took the GOP two general elections and a run-off election to oust Rep. Jefferson of NOLA AFTER he had been caught storing bribe money in a mini-fridge, and the Rep. who replaced him, Cao, immediately lost re-election; Sen. Bennett of UT, however, didn’t even make the primary ballot in UT after simply doing a back-of-the-napkin discussion with a Dem Senator over health care reform - an alternative idea to Obamacare that never left the back of the napkin - and Bennett, like every other GOP Senator, voted against Obamacare anyway)!
The only way to get people out of these bubbles is to come to them. As I said, doing a full-court press and covering all 50 states probably wouldn’t work in the first election, but it could plant the seed for future elections. In addition, it could reach out to the base and to undecided voters in swing states by showing them that you’re not afraid of challenging other people’s views - and that you’re able to stand firm when others challenge yours.
Good post.Except for the fact that then, as now, most so-called “Conservatives” were railing for fewer restrictions. On everything. To the point where many “Conservatives” think that just about any restriction is a bad restriction. I agree that repealing Glass/Steagall was a mistake. Down the road, it would lead to the housing bubble and crash. But when Congress, back in 2009, reimplemented even some of the Glass/Steagall restrictions through the Dodd/Frank bill, the Dems had to do this with minimal, if any, GOP support. Seriously.
Remember, there are “small-c” conservatives and “large-C” “Conservatives”. The two aren’t necessarily synonymous. You’re right, in that “small-c” conservatives are about defending the status quo, and making sure the society is a sustainable one. “Large-C” “Conservatives” are about following what the power-brokers on the “Right” want. There’s a huge difference. Repealing Glass/Steagall made no sense under “small-c” conservatism, but it was what people who sponsored “large-C” “Conservatism” wanted.
But I diverge. Before 2000, we didn’t speak of the country as “red” and “blue” states. And I think it’s defeatist for the GOP - and the Dems, for that matter - to think of it that way. It ends up meaning that, in most cases, the only states worth worrying about are states that voted for GWB twice but voted for Obama twice (mainly FL, OH, CO, IA, and VA). That’s pretty defeatist, thinking that most of the rest of the states are so out of reach that they’re practically not worth even advertising in, let alone visiting after the primaries. Think about it - Clinton, as a Dem, easily won several of the southern states (not only his home state of AR, but also TN, AZ, and several others.) Twice. He actually had collected more than enough electoral votes needed to win election before 9pm Eastern Time. Twice. Reagan and GHW Bush both won CA, MI, and many other states now considered solidly blue (of course, Reagan won 49 of the 50 states in 1984). In fact, before 1992, CA and MI pretty much were GOP strongholds as far as the Presidential election went, yet neither state has voted GOP since.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s time for candidates from both parties to do what Nixon did in 1960 (though he started it so late that he was exhausted by the first debate, which cost him). If I were a campaign manager, I’d suggest this: after wrapping up the nomination, visit every single state in the country. More than once. Go to areas where the people will probably never vote for you. Show that you’re willing to be the President of the United States - not just the President of the Republican Party or the President of the Democratic Party. If people boo you offstage for speaking your mind, so be it. But at least show that you have the fortitude to not only “preach to the choir”. Your opponents might not like what you have to say - but many people on the fence might be won over - not necessarily out of agreeing with you, but due to respecting the integrity of your message. Plus, you’ll make the “true believers” more excited, because they’ll be more likely to be convinced that you do believe what you say. People need a reason to vote FOR a candidate - not just a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy.
Its not about you, RGCheek, and its not about liberalism. Its about the secular left. As Ridgerunner pointed out so well, the left has a serious agenda for our country. They’ve been trying to implement it for decades, piecemeal. With Obama, they’ve had some huge successes and we really are close to the point of no return. Elect the leftist Democrats and you will soon find out the different between them and a Boehner, or a Romney.Why vote for a Republican fake when I can have the genuine liberal article by voting Democrat or just staying home?
If the GOP is not going to nominate people I want to vote for, I will vote third party or stay home and millions are feeling like me as well.
It is amusing to see so ,any Republicans counting their chickens over Obama’s low poll numbers when Boehner’s House is in the single digits because they do not serve the interests of the millions who voted them into office. Instead they serve international corporate interests.
Will you, then, accept the responsibility for the damage the left does? As its supporter, you really can’t escape that responsibility. One who empowers the abortionists, for example, is as guilty as the “doctor” who wields the knife. Are you ready to accept responsibility for what happens in Kobani in the next few days?Why vote for a Republican fake when I can have the genuine liberal article by voting Democrat or just staying home?
If the GOP is not going to nominate people I want to vote for, I will vote third party or stay home and millions are feeling like me as well.
And Romney gave Massachusetts Romneycare.I agree with Mary Bobo’s post. This could be why we have disasters like Obamacare as well.
Yes, I can deny responsibility. Are you serious?Will you, then, accept the responsibility for the damage the left does? As its supporter, you really can’t escape that responsibility. One who empowers the abortionists, for example, is as guilty as the “doctor” who wields the knife. Are you ready to accept responsibility for what happens in Kobani in the next few days?
Yeah, right and since I didn’t vote for Obama I would be responsible for any of Romney’s shenanigans too? And there is no evidence he would not have pursued the exact same liberal social policies Obama has.Its not about you, RGCheek, and its not about liberalism. Its about the secular left. As Ridgerunner pointed out so well, the left has a serious agenda for our country. They’ve been trying to implement it for decades, piecemeal. With Obama, they’ve had some huge successes and we really are close to the point of no return. Elect the leftist Democrats and you will soon find out the different between them and a Boehner, or a Romney.
Help the far left gain control in this country and you’ll be wishing for the “Republican fakes.” And people do help the far left by throwing little hissy fits and voting for useless 3rd party candidates. By the way, congress’ approval #'s are in single digits. But individual congressmen and women are anything but. People say, “I hate congress, they are useless. Except for our congressman. He’s great.”
So stay home, vote for the constitution candidate, or Libertarian, Natural Law, or whatever. Feel happy. But understand that you’ve helped the left.
Ishii
Actually people who don’t vote do as much damage as those who vote for left wing candidates. They refuse to make the hard decisions and vote for less than perfect candidates and then sit on the sidelines throwing stones and everyone while proclaiming their doctrinal purity. They also often guilty of the great degree of arrogance-having a decided that they are the ones who are the arbiter of what a “true conservative” is. They throw around terms like “RINO” , again under their assumption they also get the decide what a “true” Republican is .Yeah, right and since I didn’t vote for Obama I would be responsible for any of Romney’s shenanigans too? And there is no evidence he would not have pursued the exact same liberal social policies Obama has.
Your assertion is irrational. Nothing is going to improve as long as the current duopoly of Democans and Republocrats stays in power.
If you don’t vote against evil then you did nothing to stop the evil. Plus, your assertion that Romney would be Obama-lite is irrational. And there is indeed evidence that he would have pursued social policies different from Obama - for example, his judicial adviser was Robert Bork. If you can’t or won’t see the difference then I can’t help you much. I truly hope that you look at this more objectively and really try to understand the nature of Obama and the secular leftist agenda he has for this country. To conflate him with guys like Romney is to fundamentally not understand the left at all. Again, go back and read some of Ridgerunner’s posts, or read some David Horowitz - who was himself a leftist at one time. Maybe that will help you understand.Yeah, right and since I didn’t vote for Obama I would be responsible for any of Romney’s shenanigans too? And there is no evidence he would not have pursued the exact same liberal social policies Obama has.
Your assertion is irrational. Nothing is going to improve as long as the current duopoly of Democans and Republocrats stays in power.