dduncan4163
Have at it Hoss
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 21,471
- Likes
- 43,976
The main takeaway I got is that republicans have got to pull back on social issues if they want to stay competitive in presidential elections. Gen X and Millennial voters tend to be pro gay marriage, pro weed legalization, pro choice, and are mostly secular. The GOP really needs to stop pandering so much to the religious right and embrace a Libertarian view on social issues.
Rand Paul imo is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hilliary in the general.
Did McCain and Romney run on social issues? If they did I missed that part of their campaigns. Republicans losing has zero to do with social issues and more with them nominating Dem light candidates and when over half of the American people only want to know who will give them the most free stuff Dems will usually win that battle.
Did McCain and Romney run on social issues? If they did I missed that part of their campaigns. Republicans losing has zero to do with social issues and more with them nominating Dem light candidates and when over half of the American people only want to know who will give them the most free stuff Dems will usually win that battle.
Romney didn't run on social issues, but it ultimately cost him the election anyway. I think that's the difference.
And no, it's not just "giving people free stuff."
Well, that too, but that "47 percent" comment screwed him.
The changing demographics diluting the voting power of the GOP are undeniable. And it is leading to two things:
1) It causes the GOP to resort to things like voter suppression to try to minimize the damage. ID laws, cutting early voting. These are both things that are designed to reduce voting by groups more likely to vote for Dems.
2) It causes more shrieking and stomping of feet by the hard core Republicans. As they see their power inevitably shrink, it causes them to resent everyone else, and it makes them increasingly vitriolic in their rhetoric. Out of desperation they think the answer is to go further right, not to the center to attract more moderates.
Which just makes it worse.
Consider the electoral map. The population centers voted for Obama. The GOP barely won at all with Bush, and even that was questionable of course. In the Senate, the GOPers are by and large far more moderate than their counterparts in the House, because they have to appeal to an entire state. In House districts, the populations tend to be more homogenous of course, and so the far right types can win those seats. But they have a harder time competing at the state level, and a virtually impossible time competing at the national level.
It wasn't good but it wasn't the nail in the coffin. It was the fact he never once laid out any details of his tax plan. He had many opportunities to put Obama away after the first debate but wouldn't give any details, hell he could have said almost anything true or not. He could have hammered Obama during the Candy debate but chose not to.
Social issues didn't cost him.
Did McCain and Romney run on social issues? If they did I missed that part of their campaigns. Republicans losing has zero to do with social issues and more with them nominating Dem light candidates and when over half of the American people only want to know who will give them the most free stuff Dems will usually win that battle.