In response to:

GOP Solution: Stick to Values, Pick Better Candidates

Doug4749 Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 8:10 PM
Mitt was a much better candidate than John McCain, and an infinitely bettercandidate/person/leader than zero. As far as getting fewer votes, in places like NY, CN, CA, and MI it's a waste of time to even go to the polls because it's a foregone conclusion that the electoral votes will be going to zero. If that wasn't the case (electoral college skewed toward a one-candidate-takes-all outcome), I'm sure the turnout would have been a LOT different. Don't blame Mitt, or even the Republican party. We owe it all to the gimme-gimme's with their hand-out, the 47%, who are going to vote for whomever will give them the most. They don't care if the taxes go up - they're not paying taxes in the first place.
Texas Chris Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 1:23 PM
While I disagree that Romney was a better choice than Obama, I do agree that Romney was better than McCain. There is no way that Romney got 3,000,000 fewer votes than McCain, given Obama's reversal in popularity, and Romney's edge over McCain's.

I'm calling fraud.

These are days of hindsight and second-guessing for Republicans, which is human nature after a trauma like this election loss.

There are million “why” theories out there, from the Hurricane Sandy effect to pernicious media bias. Wringing our hands over those factors gets us nowhere.

We can’t stop hurricanes, and media bias is always there. Reagan and Bush 43 won twice against waves of poisonous bias, so that is not an insurmountable obstacle.

What Republicans need is a slate of candidates that can energize the base while expanding the appeal of a conservative message.

Easy...

Related Tags: Mitt Romney