[jbock13]

So let me get this straight. If 70% of Latinos vote for Democrats based on "Hey, the Republicans hate you!!!", how exactly do you combat that message?

Cause one would be a fool to even try. You can't win an argument with such shallow minds.

[Purple Haize]

. The GM issue decided Ohio.

The Republicans IMO just need to get practical and deal with the hand we are dealt. We can’t afford to live as ideologues. I hope they aren’t idiots when it comes to the fiscal cliff we are facing. If we can get that issue resolved 2013 will be fine.

Agree about the GM bailout. It only affected about 600 people in the state but it was perceived to be bigger. Also, an alternative was never given. I still think Gov Romney's position was best but it wasn't perceived that way. But GM will be right back where they started soon so we can have that debate again.

As for the fiscal cliff you have more faith then I do. I'm almost to the point to say let it ride.

[SuperJon]

To say that conservatives have no chance is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

The House is conservative.

The Senate is conservative.

What the Republican party has to realize is that people, in general, are more socially liberal now than before. They're also open to the idea of being fiscally conservative. The thing is, the socially liberal side of things is more important to people right now than fiscally conservative. Is that dumb? Yes. Yes it is. But it's where people are.

[lynchburgwildcats]

What evidence in this election shows that appealing to Libertarians would have made any difference? This is the typical "he didn't win because he didn't appeal to MEEEE!!".

I was very upbeat about the whole thing, but I guess I just listen to the wrong sources. I'm really starting to question how much of the population really is conservative, and not just because of the Presidential result, but many of the ballot measures that passed. Things are moving in a definite direction, but it's not in a Libertarian direction.

Four years from now will be very different without an incumbant running. But what I see is a much more liberal population than I thought. Republicans have to start appealing to Hispanics more, I don't see any way around it.

You can vote liberal on social items (marijuana, gay marriage) and still be libertarian, because you know the libertarian ideal is socially liberal and economically conservative...

[lynchburgwildcats]

A mixed race woman could win it. Appeals to all the minorities because you know she is mixed race, so that will get a lot of the minority vote regardless of anything else she does. Also will get a lot of women because women will vote for her because she doesn't have a penis. Might scare off the racist rednecks that always vote republican, but will they really vote for a democrat they will of course hate? I'd call their bluff...

But it's going to be tough for any republican regardless of who is picked. Democrats basically have over 1/5 of the votes they need to win handed to them on a silver platter every year in California. It's hard to overcome having a 55-0 deficit to start the election...

[From the class of 09]

So let me get this straight. If 70% of Latinos vote for Democrats based on "Hey, the Republicans hate you!!!", how exactly do you combat that message?

Cause one would be a fool to even try. You can't win an argument with such shallow minds.

Change the message!!! the Republican message says "hey latinos we hate you" if you change the message you could change the result. Of course this would involve giving up the founding Republican principal of not granting amensty. Again not to quote myself but...

If you can’t deal with that it’s ok we can continue to keep our ideals but continue to lose every election that matters (no voting bloc is increasing as quickly as the Hispanic-American).

Hispanics as a rule back traditional marriage, pro-life, pro-family and encourage hard work to make ends meet. Yet because they value family they don't want to see family deported and this is an overiding issue that the Republicans can't get over. Even though there is no pratical solution that doesn't involve amnesty in some shape or form.

[lynchburgwildcats]

What the Republican party has to realize is that people, in general, are more socially liberal now than before. They're also open to the idea of being fiscally conservative. The thing is, the socially liberal side of things is more important to people right now than fiscally conservative. Is that dumb? Yes. Yes it is. But it's where people are.

What he said. The social issues are much more polarizing than the economic issues.

[ALUmnus]

What evidence in this election shows that appealing to Libertarians would have made any difference? This is the typical "he didn't win because he didn't appeal to MEEEE!!".

I was very upbeat about the whole thing, but I guess I just listen to the wrong sources. I'm really starting to question how much of the population really is conservative, and not just because of the Presidential result, but many of the ballot measures that passed. Things are moving in a definite direction, but it's not in a Libertarian direction.

Four years from now will be very different without an incumbant running. But what I see is a much more liberal population than I thought. Republicans have to start appealing to Hispanics more, I don't see any way around it.

You can vote liberal on social items (marijuana, gay marriage) and still be libertarian, because you know the libertarian ideal is socially liberal and economically conservative...

So you're saying what, that these libertarians came out to vote liberal for the social ballot measures and then....what? Voted for Obama because they're so economically conservative?

[From the class of 09]

As for the fiscal cliff you have more faith then I do. I'm almost to the point to say let it ride.

The fiscal cliff will come down to the wire, I've been told that multiple times from both sides of the isle. As long as they actually deal with it before checks start bouncing it will be recoverable. If we actually start missing payments that could effect our interest rate for our debt which would be bad (understatement) really, really, really, bad.

[jbock13]

Yeah let's just nominate a lesbian hispanic single mom transvestite and we'll win! That's show everyone we love them!

I will not compromise my principles to win elections. I will not divide this country based on skin pigmentation, class, sexual preference, etc. You do so if you want to lose.

[Purple Haize]

Yeah let's just nominate a lesbian hispanic single mom transvestite and we'll win! That's show everyone we love them!

No need to bring one of my ex girlfriends into the discussion

[Purple Haize]

To say that conservatives have no chance is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

The House is conservative.

The Senate is conservative.
.

The Senate is Democrat. At least with Harry Reid in charge nothing will get done!,

[SuperJon]

Oops. Yeah. My bad.

[TDDance234]

To say that conservatives have no chance is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

The House is conservative.

The Senate is conservative.
.

The Senate is Democrat. At least with Harry Reid in charge nothing will get done!,

It's a little tighter at least then what it was before. It would be monumental but would only need 5 dems to cross over the aisle if both the independents lean repub on any issue.

[lynchburgwildcats]

What evidence in this election shows that appealing to Libertarians would have made any difference? This is the typical "he didn't win because he didn't appeal to MEEEE!!".

I was very upbeat about the whole thing, but I guess I just listen to the wrong sources. I'm really starting to question how much of the population really is conservative, and not just because of the Presidential result, but many of the ballot measures that passed. Things are moving in a definite direction, but it's not in a Libertarian direction.

Four years from now will be very different without an incumbant running. But what I see is a much more liberal population than I thought. Republicans have to start appealing to Hispanics more, I don't see any way around it.

You can vote liberal on social items (marijuana, gay marriage) and still be libertarian, because you know the libertarian ideal is socially liberal and economically conservative...

So you're saying what, that these libertarians came out to vote liberal for the social ballot measures and then....what? Voted for Obama because they're so economically conservative?

Do you know what every libertarian voted for? You can vote liberal on social issues and still vote for a conservative candidate. Of course, they can still vote for a liberal candidate if they deem the social issues to be more important than the economic ones.

[NotAJerry]

Marijuana and gay marriage aren't liberal social items. The first one is a prime example of libertarian ideals and the second one fits into libertarian beliefs as well since both are considered personal choice issues that the Constitution does not address. Making them federal issues is a liberal social position. Allowing them to be decided at the state level is libertarian.

[El Scorcho]

Things are moving in a definite direction, but it's not in a Libertarian direction.

I guess that depends on if you think Obama was re-elected completely because so many people are now dependent on government (as conservative sources would have you to believe). I believe that may partially explain it, but I also think a part of his re-election has a lot to do with social issues. I don't think there's any getting away from that.

The social issues are where things have and are moving in a Libertarian direction. The funny thing is that the Democrats pander on these issues (Ex: watch what happens now in CO and WA), so there's a real opportunity for the Republicans to make significant gains because of it.

It won't happen, though. The GOP base (the views of which are represented well on this board) has proven that regulating other people's freedom through government is crucial to keeping them on board. Too many people care too much about what others are allowed to do with their own bodies and that's going to keep giving Democrats votes, as long as they keep producing remotely electable candidates.

[El Scorcho]

...since both are considered personal choice issues that the Constitution does not address.

Yeah, you can't just equivocate those two things, but I know I'm not going to convince anyone here of that. I'm not looking to have those arguments here.

[NotAJerry]

BTW, Romney went 0-8 in the "battleground" states. That's not because everybody, everywhere is looking for a handout. It's because he was un-electable against any decent offering from the Dems.

[jbock13]

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is closing though. My county is 70% Republican. Every elected official is a republican. But when tax revenue decreased, what did they do? Cut government? Of course not! They raised taxes. And of course, they fell short of the revenue they expected the tax to generate.

Now, how's that any different from any Democrat locality?

[TH Spangler]

The lack of good paying, blue collar, manufacturing jobs for the working class opened the socialist door. Those jobs are in China. Romney had a plan to bring those back. I don't think Obama wants to bring them back .... I hope I'm wrong.

[SuperJon]

Blue collar manufacturing jobs were mostly unionized and leaned Democrat.

[TH Spangler]

Blue collar manufacturing jobs were mostly unionized and leaned Democrat.

Most of them are in China .... By the way the stock market is tanking today?

[SuperJon]

What I'm saying is that the idea of "no blue collar manufacturing jobs means things go left" is a wrong idea.

[TH Spangler]

No blue collar jobs, leaving the working class unemployed or under-employed and on welfare leads to socialism. Government dependency.