1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Don't Blame Romney

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 12:04 PM
Finally, OH turnout was down compared with 2008 for both parties (in spite of the fact that everyone knew it would be the decisive state). Obama's margin was only 103K votes; Romney received 86K less votes than McCain did in 2008, and Obama got 243K less votes than he received in 2008. Republican turnout would have only had to increase modestly over 2008 and it would have been won. It is completely inexcusible for OH Republicans that voted for McCain in 2008 stayed home in 2012 knowing the importance of the state! The point is, Republicans should never stay home regardless of how blue they think their state is. If it was important enough to vote for McCain in 2008, it should have been important enough to come back for Romney this...
In response to:

Don't Blame Romney

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 11:56 AM
In the case of CA, overall turnout decreased by almost 4.1M votes compared with 2008; Obama got 2.7M less votes than he did in 2008, and Romney got 1.4M less votes than McCain did in '08. If every Republican that voted for McCain in 2008 would have come back for Romney, and if they could have picked off 25% of the 2008 Obama voters that stayed home this time, CA (and its 55 electoral votes) would have gone red too. If Romney could have pulled out surprise wins in those 2 deep blue states (WA would have been a cake walk and CA would've required some effort), Romney would be the next president.
In response to:

Don't Blame Romney

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 11:49 AM
How's this for something that ought to churn the stomach of every Republican: in 2012, turnout was down approx. 10.6M compared with 2008. Much hay has been made of the fact that Romney received almost 2M less votes than McCain received in 2008, and people incorrectly assume that the base was less enthusiastic. Not so if you look at the individual state data. In fact, 4.9M of the decreased turnout was attributable to CA & WA, 2 states that no one would ever consider "in play". Here's the rub: Obama won WA by approx. 271K votes; Romney got 312K votes less than McCain in 2008. If every Republican that voted for McCain would have come back for Romney, WA's 11 electoral votes could've gone red.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:08 PM
Agreed that values are values and the Republican Party should NOT pander to special interests. Reagan still had to deal with plenty of media bias, but had a gift of being able to get around them and to speak directly to the American people. His message would still resonate today, and Romney ran on many of the same themes. But don't underestimate the effect of demographics; Reagan was my hero, and I believe that Romney would have made a superb President today. As many have said, I don't know that even Reagan could have won with today's electorate.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:02 PM
I also think it would be a huge mistake for a presidential candidate to run on social issues, given the limited ability they would have to influence those things. Ideally, they should get themselves elected by running on themes that are important to all Americans (the economy, defense, etc) and then use the power of court appointments to get conservatives on the bench. Unless & until Roe gets overturned, there's little a President or any candidate can do about it. If and when an appointment opportunity arises, that's the time to exert some influence (but NOT during an election when you're trying to win over voters who may agree with you on every other issue)
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:56 PM
True enough. That' s why I referred to those 2 as "the prime examples". By the way, I don't consider being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage as "far right"; the majority of America agrees with those positions. But I think we can agree that forcing a rape victim to carry her rapist's child (something that less than 1% of Americans would agree with) is "far right". Candidates like that need to be avoided like the plague.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:48 PM
Overall, most of the GOP's candidates do embrace God's word. A large % of the country (maybe even a majority at this point) does not, and those people vote. It is one thing to embrace Christian principals as a candidate, but it can be fatal to one's electability in certain jurisdications and nationally to make that a centerpiece of the campaign. They won't be able to govern as Christians if they can't get elected (see Mourdock & Akin, this year's 2 poster children). Being pro-life isn't fatal to one's electibility; going on the record & saying that women who have been raped should be forced to carry the rapist's child is an INSANE position to take if you're going to have a fighting chance of winning.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:48 PM
Overall, most of the GOP's candidates do embrace God's word. A large % of the country (maybe even a majority at this point) does not, and those people vote. It is one thing to embrace Christian principals as a candidate, but it can be fatal to one's electability in certain jurisdications and nationally to make that a centerpiece of the campaign. They won't be able to govern as Christians if they can't get elected (see Mourdock & Akin, this year's 2 poster children). Being pro-life isn't fatal to one's electibility; going on the record & saying that women who have been raped should be forced to carry the rapist's child is an INSANE position to take if you're going to have a fighting chance of winning.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:47 PM
Overall, most of the GOP's candidates do embrace God's word. A large % of the country (maybe even a majority at this point) does not, and those people vote. It is one thing to embrace Christian principals as a candidate, but it can be fatal to one's electability in certain jurisdications and nationally to make that a centerpiece of the campaign. They won't be able to govern as Christians if they can't get elected (see Mourdock & Akin, this year's 2 poster children). Being pro-life isn't fatal to one's electibility; going on the record & saying that women who have been raped should be forced to carry the rapist's child is an INSANE position to take if you're going to have a fighting chance of winning.
In response to:

GOP Turns Sure Victory into Defeat

Mike596 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 1:37 PM
I agree wholeheartedly, and Ronald Reagan is my personal hero. I don't think that even he could have won given today's demographics and the fact that we are past the "tipping point" now. Once > 50% of the populace is drawing goverment support, it'll be next to impossible to reverse that dynamic. I thought we were close but not there yet. Tuesday proved that we are in fact past that point of no return and it is only going to get worse from here. I ask, what % will rely on government support 4 years from now. We went from 30M on food stamps to 47M on foodstamps in the last 4 years. By 2016 Obamacare will be fully implemented and there may not even be private health insurance by then.
1 - 10 Next