Gingrich: GOP ‘Incapable Of Competing’ Against Hillary Clinton In 2016

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lisa,

The thing is Romney got 5 million (IIRC) fewer votes than John McCain. Something had to cause that. I believe it was because evangelicals stayed home, and because he was very weak on ObamaCare.

If Romney had gotten just McCain’s votes (a man who basically gave up at the end), we’d be celebrating a President elect Romney.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Lisa,

The thing is Romney got 5 million (IIRC) fewer votes than John McCain. Something had to cause that. I believe it was because evangelicals stayed home, and because he was very weak on ObamaCare.

If Romney had gotten just McCain’s votes (a man who basically gave up at the end), we’d be celebrating a President elect Romney.
Click to expand...
Apparently this is not true and the updated count Romney equalled or exceeded McCain. Obama lost a substantial share of his 2008 vote BUT apparently many new voters came on the rolls since 08 and they broke heavily for Obama.

This is the first time in history that a candidate won a second term with fewer votes than he received in his first election. Many are unaware that Bush II received substantially MORE votes in 04 than 00 which was remarkable considering the unpopularity of the Iraq War and the Katrina issues that were erroneously blamed on him. In a funny way this is similar to this year, a weak President beat a weak challenger. It does show the power of incumbancy.

I haven’t seen that much evidence that Evangelicals stayed home and if they did I believe it was due to anti-Mormon bigotry rather than Obamacare. Romney couldn’t have been more clear about his position on the subject and frankly I do not believe Obamacare was a particularly big issue to Evangelicals. I have done a lot of reading and listening on the subject and along with the “ethnic” vote that went for Obama, I read a very well documented article on the “non-voters” who in effect elected Obama. These non-voters were the blue collar whites who simply didn’t trust Romney although they didn’t like Obama and wouldn’t vote for him either.

Another category were those voting for 3rd party candidates who had ZERO chance of being elected. This is the article I referred to and although it has incomplete info on the total votes for Romney the writer points out that had all the 3rd party voters in Florida instead voted for Romney, he would have won.

politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/how-we-got-screwed-by-non-voters-libertarians-and-principled-conservatives/#ixzz2Bpz6dvri

BTW no response to my comments about moderates not invariably failing to win the White House? I think I have a good point 😃 when you look at the kind of Republican candidates who have won. Nixon was certainly not a Conservative and neither were Bush’s I and II. Obviously I don’t prefer a moderate but I don’t think we can claim they never win…they have and they do.

Lisa
 
irishpatrick said:
We need a true prolife party.
Click to expand...
In order to do that the Republican party would have to embrace a platform consisting of anti-abortion, the elimination of the death penalty and the embracing of various social programs designed to help those who are unable to help themselves. At this point it’s highly unlikely that they’ be able to accomplish this as the party is too fractionalized.
 
gamewell45 said:
In order to do that the Republican party would have to embrace a platform consisting of anti-abortion, the elimination of the death penalty and the embracing of various social programs designed to help those who are unable to help themselves. At this point it’s highly unlikely that they’ be able to accomplish this as the party is too fractionalized.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong but I think the poster meant a party separate from the Republican Party which has pro-life as its top priority, not Grover Norquist.

I think the Constitution Party, with Pat Buchanan in 2000 and Virgil Goode in 2012, came the closest to this.
 
gamewell45 said:
In order to do that the Republican party would have to embrace a platform consisting of anti-abortion, the elimination of the death penalty and the embracing of various social programs designed to help those who are unable to help themselves. At this point it’s highly unlikely that they’ be able to accomplish this as the party is too fractionalized.
Click to expand...
Uh gamewell this IS the Republican platform. Note you qualify the social programs for those who CANNOT help themselves. Please tell me which Republican candidate or what statement in the platform indicates that Republicans are against social programs that are NECESSARY?

Lisa
 
ProVobis said:
I may be wrong but I think the poster meant a party separate from the Republican Party which has pro-life as its top priority, not Grover Norquist.

I think the Constitution Party, with Pat Buchanan in 2000 and Virgil Goode in 2012, came the closest to this.
Click to expand...
Your correct; I mis-interpreted the post.
 
LisaA said:
Uh gamewell this IS the Republican platform. Note you qualify the social programs for those who CANNOT help themselves. Please tell me which Republican candidate or what statement in the platform indicates that Republicans are against social programs that are NECESSARY?

Lisa
Click to expand...
The GOP platform does not include the elimination of the death penalty. They’re leaving the imposition of it to the Courts.
 
NeedsMercy said:
The GOP platform does not include the elimination of the death penalty. They’re leaving the imposition of it to the Courts.
Click to expand...
Compared to abortion, capital punishment is a very small issue and is not intrinsically evil.
 
irishpatrick said:
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Despite repeated denials from Hillary Clinton about a possible *2016 presidential run, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stated his party would be “incapable of competing” against her and the Democrats.

The former Republican Speaker of the House expressed negativity about his own party’s chances in 2016 with NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday. He said that the combined support of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and a presumably still-popular President Barack Obama would be an unstoppable campaign.

“Trying to win that will truly be the Super Bowl,” said Gingrich. “The Republican Party of today is truly incapable of competing at that level.”
*

washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/10/gingrich-gop-incapable-of-competing-against-hillary-clinton-in-2016/
As I said in a different thread, it might be time to start a prolife party and let things go as they will. Give the people a real choice, and let the nation move into the future according to what they people want.

I am a believer that the Lord allows us to receive what we need, and oftentimes NOT what we want. The truth is, despite all the pain the USA has suffered, people have turned farther away from God (abortion, same-sex marriage, fornication, adultery, living together, low Church attendance, etc.). Until the nation returns to actually honoring and loving God, it really has no positive future–imo.
Click to expand...
Add to that that it’s impossible to win against Democrats when they cheat in every way to win and own 98% of the media and worker’s unions. And on top of that the wealthiest counties in America voted overwhelmingly for Obama in both elections, yet Democrats were still able to convince the public that it’s the Republicans that are the party of the rich.
 
Let’s face it: it doesn’t matter who runs.

When one party is preaching personal responsibility and the promise that hard work will lead to success, and the other party is inciting envy of these people, promising to punish them for their success, take the fruits of their labor, and give them to you for free, who do you think is going to win?
 
Bill_Martin said:
Let’s face it: it doesn’t matter who runs.

When one party is preaching personal responsibility and the promise that hard work will lead to success, and the other party is inciting envy of these people, promising to punish them for their success, take the fruits of their labor, and give them to you for free, who do you think is going to win?
Click to expand...
This is the sad reality of what our country has become…😦
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Compared to abortion, capital punishment is a very small issue and is not intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
I was not making a comparison between the death penalty and abortion. I was just pointing out an error about what is/is not in the GOP platform. BTW, I don’t think the death penalty is a “small issue” to the folks sitting on death row. And, personally, I think the death penalty **is ** an intrinsic evil. My argument? The Crucifixion.
 
NeedsMercy said:
I was not making a comparison between the death penalty and abortion. I was just pointing out an error about what is/is not in the GOP platform. BTW, I don’t think the death penalty is a “small issue” to the folks sitting on death row. And, personally, I think the death penalty **is ** an intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
You may think, but the Church disagrees.
 
NeedsMercy said:
Does that make me wrong?
Click to expand...
In that sense, yes.

However you being against capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life is not. Archbishop Chaput agrees with you.
“The death penalty, is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top