1. I don't refer to takers as only those on welfare. That includes government workers, and private sector worker's whose job depends on funding from the government. The majority of these workers voted for Obama out of a fear of reduced spending and how that would affect their job. It's understandable, but it doesn't mean that they are not takers just like those on welfare. A taker to me is anyone who votes for a politician because of that politician's promise to give them some economic benefit.

The problem really isn't with the immigration act of 1965. The problem is with the welfare state. When poor immigrants came at the turn of the 20th century, there was no welfare state so they had to work. Working to provide for oneself has a strong tendency to make one conservative. When new poor immigrants come, they are presented a welfare state that promises to give them everything. They no longer have to work and still live better than where they came from. This has the tendency to make one liberal. We have crossed the tipping point. Had Romney won, perhaps we could have addressed the welfare state. I don't think it is possible anymore as the takers apparently outnumber the makers.

Then those 3 million conservatives are losers. What crying babies. Since they don't have the intelligence to actually learn what Romney was advocating is their fault. If those "conservatives" can't see the difference between the 80 page Romneycare and the 2000 page Obamacare, or the difference between allowing states to enact certain policies vs having the federal government force them on the states, then they are not conservatives. So, rather than voting for someone to repeal Obamacare because it doesn't "smell right", they'd rather let Obama win who promises to expand government spending and power. Stupid is what they are!

That's a silly "what if" game. What if by his not resisting, someone had been injured or killed? It cuts both ways. That's why you can't play the "what if" game.

Unfortunately, there is a large portion of the electorate that still only gets their news from the basic news channels ABC, CBS, or NBC. Those people also need to know what is really going on.

The fact that you did not vote for Obama just to get a gift does not in any way deny the fact that a substantial portion of those who voted for Obama were voting for some special benefit that Obama promised, whether it be in the form of welfare, obamacare, or government employees afraid of cuts to their program which Obama promised to keep.

Your comment makes no sense. If giving aid to Israel is supposed to be pandering it would be pandering to the Jewish vote which votes Democrat. Besides, if there are issues that evangelical Christians agree on it is social issues. The evangelical group is not a special interest group for foreign policy or aid to Israel. Aid is given to Israel because they have proven to be one of our strongest allies and they are constantly under threat of attack from other nations who have proven to be some of our most ardent enemies.

I have a hard time remembering when Bill Kristol has supported a conservative candidate. His MO seems to be making a name for himself by being the "conservative" who criticizes conservatives and conservative positions.

You have to make a decision based on which of the two options is best and vote for that candidate. Otherwise, you will get the worse of the two options.

I agree that we shouldn't be focused on trying to "reach out" to the same groups as the Democrats. We can never promise more than the Democrats without becoming as big government as them. If we offer legalization, the Democrats offer citizenship. If we offer citizenship, the Democrats offer citizenship plus more benefits. You can never beat them at this. You can only win by convincing people that the way to prosperity is through the free-market. However, I disagree with not going out to vote. The turn out for Romney should have been higher. There will rarely be a candidate with which you agree 100%. And even if that candidate comes along, there will be other voters who don't agree with that candidate 100%.

I'd agree that Romney did not articulate a message on the social issues. In hindsight, perhaps that was an error. However, he wanted to focus everything on the economy. Many believed that was the best strategy because if the election was about the economy, Obama shouldn't have been reelected. All the things you mentioned are social issues. They don't explain how over half the country blame Bush for the past 4 years. Perhaps Romney should have hit the social issues more. Who knows?