In response to:

How Republicans Can Find Themselves

rauljg69 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 1:38 PM
Wow in a heap of trouble if your Monday morning quarterbacking is thinking Cain or Paul could have won.
Texas Chris Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 2:20 PM
Paul was the only candidate that consistently beat Obama in polls. Cain... Not so much.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 3:35 PM
Paul appealed to many disaffected Democrats - something Mitt didn't offer. He appealed to the anti-war and pro civil liberties (anti Patriot Act, drug laws) Democrats who are disappointed in Obama.

And not being a supporter of government bailouts and subsidies to business (something Bush, McCain, Romney and Ryan all supported), many other Democrats would have voted for him seeing how Obama is a corporatist. Paul/Johnson are likely the only candidates who can accuse Obama of that, while being immune to the charge.

Mitt was a statist candidate, as was Obama. Which explains the low turnout (who wants to vote against their interests?).
jsmith541 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 8:46 PM
If he attracted so many democrats then he should have run as a democrat, cause he could not get over 30% in the republican primary and won 0 states.
BamaPaleocon91 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 1:45 PM
Ron Paul would have won. The margin of defeat for Romney in FL, OH, CT, NH, and VA was equal or less than the number of votes Paul got in the primary. But, if you want to keep on losing. Enjoy four more years of Obamao the Commie.
Ross83 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 1:59 PM
ericynot Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 2:04 PM

Here's a tip -- if you want the Republicans to have a chance to win the next time around, it's probably not a good idea to gratuitously insult a large group of people that're going to be needed to win, especially after the fact when there's absolutely nothing to be gained by the insults.
Ross83 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 2:18 PM
Many paulbots fall into one of two categories. They are goldbugs who are obsessed with the federal reserve board (some of whom see it as a huge Jewish conspiracy of some kind), the others are right wingers and gun nuts who want to smoke pot. Neither group is going to be a solid republican voting bloc.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 2:25 PM
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself on a national site Ross? I'm hard put to think of a more shallow and vapid poster here.

What part of smaller government do you not understand?
Tincan Joey Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 2:47 PM
Ross is a clear example of how the GOP will never learn and return to its principles. Might as well get ready for McLame part 3 in 2016..
Ross83 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 3:21 PM
Better be quiet or those black helicopters will come and get you
MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 3:29 PM
But both groups are solid supporters of less government and more freedom. Something the RINOs don't care for (see the Bush II spending record). It's no wonder people like Ben Afflak support Obama, after all he said "The Republicans had their chance" and look what they gave us. More warfare (two wars), more welfare (Prescription drug benefit), more government (the TSA, record spending and record deficits - until Obama).
jsmith541 Wrote: Nov 12, 2012 7:45 PM
And Obama made more record deficits and mad the TSA worse.

Soul-searching is not in the GOP’s blood. Many Republicans see themselves as stoic, rugged and hardworking individuals. But after twice losing the White House to an ex-community organizer and failing to mobilize the base, Republicans need to take a trip to a mountainous valley, sip some tea and meditate.

In the quiet of nature, I think Republicans would find that the solutions to winning lie within themselves. After my own reflection, I developed three key insights into how the GOP can win presidential elections going forward:

#1 Keep an open mind

Early on, talking heads like Ann Coulter disparaged Romney...