Kilmer17's roadmap to fix the GOP

[mistertim]

So Republicans =

[War Paint]

Hmmm, two times in a row the GOP nominated a RINO. Both lost. Perhaps they should try to nominate a true conservative and quit listening to the left saying they aren't left enough. Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. However, Romney received less votes than McCain did, as did Obama in 2012. As you can see, Obama didn't gain any ground. He lost ground. Romney couldn't even excite the base enough to match McCain's level. In 2008, Obama received 69.4 million votes. McCain received 59.9 million. In 2012, Obama received 59.8 million votes. Romney received 57.1 million. If Romney could've just excited his base to match McCain, we could be talking about something different today.

Nominate a true conservative. The left will never be satisfied with any compromise. If the GOP softens it's stance on immigration, it will never be enough. If the GOP softens it stances in other areas, it'll never be enough. What's the point in the GOP ****ing about entitlements, if they still want to spend on things like defense? The GOP also needs to quit crapping on Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters.

Keep nominating RINOs and continue to lose. Nominate a true conservative, the party should win, especially after Jimmy Carter's third term. You have liberals whining about how extreme candidates like McCain and Romney were. If the GOP buys into that BS, enjoy losing for years to come.

[RedskinsFan44]

So to revisit the OP:

1: Quit nominating idiots - possible

2: Give up on abortion - highly unlikely, many people are one issue voters and for an important contingent of the conservative coalition this is theirs.

3: Immigration - not likely for the reason above, Rush is spouting nonsense daily about how Reagan granting amnesty did not win over Hispanic votes. I would argue that the Republican's general attitude towards the poor (it''s your fault you are sitting around waiting for Santa and he has not come) and jingoism prevalent among a significant portion of their base explains the party's problems with Hispanics.

4: Spending / Deficit / Simpson-Bowles - The Republicans can hold the line on spending but to embrace Simpson-Bowles they need to abandon the Norquist pledge. I will applaud the first R to do so.

The thing that is amazing to me is that a significant portion of the right is accusing the 51% of Americans who voted for Obama of being moochers rather than admitting that there is room for improvement in their party. It's like they are hell bent on upping the 47% rhetoric ante. This does not seem like a winning strategy.

I do not count the Rs out however, politics are cyclical and world events are unpredictable.

Edit: Jingoism looks like it is not exactly what I mean, and I think racism is too strong a term for most. Perhaps a Euro-centric (or America-centric) view of the world expresses it better.

[The Evil Genius]

To me, it's way too convenient to label losing candidates as RINO's.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[War Paint]

To me, it's way too convenient to label losing candidates as RINO's.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

No, it's not convenient. It's the truth. Both McCain and Romney were "hold your nose and suck it up while you vote" candidates for true conservatives. It's not surprising that those who held their nose in 2008 sat at home for Romney.

The talk about the GOP being dead is silly. The Dems went through the exact same thing in 2004, after Bush got re-elected. I remember the talk of how the Dems liberal ways are ancient history and they'll have to become more conservative if they want another shot. Four years later, we have Obama.

[Larry]

Hmmm, two times in a row the GOP nominated a RINO. Both lost. Perhaps they should try to nominate a true conservative and quit listening to the left saying they aren't left enough.

I agree. The GOP lost because they didn't display just how far right they actually are. They need to move even further to the right, and nominate people who reflect that.

I'm thinking Sheriff Joe and Sarah Palin.

[Bliz]

Hmmm, two times in a row the GOP nominated a RINO. Both lost. Perhaps they should try to nominate a true conservative and quit listening to the left saying they aren't left enough. Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. However, Romney received less votes than McCain did. As you can see, Obama didn't gain any ground. He lost ground. Romney couldn't even excite the base enough to match McCains level. In 2008, Obama received 69.4 million votes. McCain received 59.9 million. In 2012, Obama received 59.8 million votes. Romney received 57.1 million. If Romney could've just excited his base to match McCain, we could be talking about something different today.

Nominate a true conservative. The left will never be satisfied with any compromise. If the GOP softens it's stance on immigration, it will never be enough. If the GOP softens it stances in other areas, it'll never be enough. What's the point in the GOP ****ing about entitlements, if they still want to spend on things like defense? The GOP also needs to quit crapping on Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters.

Keep nominating RINOs and continue to lose. Nominate a true conservative, the party should win, especially after Jimmy Carter's third term. You have liberals whining about how extreme candidates like McCain and Romney were. If the GOP buys into that BS, enjoy losing for years to come.

So many flaws with this post, it's hard to know where to start.

Where is the evidence that the votes Romney DIDN'T get came from the base, instead of from the middle? I don't think I've heard anyone make that assertion and back it up with facts. It's difficult to do, given how many Pubs were self-identifying as "independent" this go around.

Raw vote totals don't really matter. It's all about the electoral college. Where states did those lost votes come from? Who says that an extra couple million popular votes would have changed even 1 EV? Where's the analysis?

Your numbers are low. Probably from before Florida was fully counted. In 2012, Obama received 62.3 million votes, and Romney 58.9 million. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president So Romney was only 1 million votes behind McCain. Half a million of Romney's lost votes were in New York and New Jersey. Which he wouldn't have won anyway. And you had suppressed vote totals from Sandy, which further undercuts your "failed to excite his base to match McCain" theory.

Very very few people, other than true believers, complained that Romney was extreme on anything other than immigration. And his position in the primaries was precisely that, so that was a fair criticism. Romney didn't lose because he wasn't a "true conservative." He lost because he couldn't sell his narrative, so it ultimately became only a "vote against that guy" campaign, not a "vote FOR ME" campaign. And he lost because of himself. Plenty of unforced errors. Like the fiasco with the Jeep ad right at the end of the campaign, which only hurt him in Ohio.

What the GOP needs is better politicians (just like the Dems needed in 2000 and 2004). Which "true conservative" that was in the primary could have beaten Romney's EV count? Bachmann? Santorum? No way.

[mistertim]

I agree. The GOP lost because they didn't display just how far right they actually are. They need to move even further to the right, and nominate people who reflect that.

I'm thinking Sheriff Joe and Sarah Palin.

I'm actually rather curious what the definition of a "true conservative" is at this point. It seems sort of nebulous but I've certainly heard about it a lot.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm actually rather curious what the definition of a "true conservative" is at this point. It seems sort of nebulous but I've certainly heard about it a lot.

Don't you know? The ones that won their elections are true conservatives. The others - well their just RINO's. Despite voting 95% or more in line with their fellow GOPers.

[SnyderShrugged]

and so it begins...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737.html

At least one potential candidate for 2016 seems to get it.

[The Evil Genius]

But, haven't you heard? From what I hear, Republicans made up less than 40% of the voters, on election day.

This proves that the election was biased, because it oversampled Democrats.

A real, unbiased, election, would have compensated for the small number of people who are willing to admit that they're Republican, by making their votes count more.

I blame the Black Panthers. They scared the white folks from all that voting.

[Larry]

Where is the evidence that the votes Romney DIDN'T get came from the base, instead of from the middle? I don't think I've heard anyone make that assertion and back it up with facts. It's difficult to do, given how many Pubs were self-identifying as "independent" this go around.

But, haven't you heard? From what I hear, Republicans made up less than 40% of the voters, on election day.

This proves that the election was biased, because it oversampled Democrats.

A real, unbiased, election, would have compensated for the small number of people who are willing to admit that they're Republican, by making their votes count more.

[War Paint]

So many flaws with this post, it's hard to know where to start.

Where is the evidence that the votes Romney DIDN'T get came from the base, instead of from the middle? I don't think I've heard anyone make that assertion and back it up with facts. It's difficult to do, given how many Pubs were self-identifying as "independent" this go around.

Raw vote totals don't really matter. It's all about the electoral college. Where states did those lost votes come from? Who says that an extra couple million popular votes would have changed even 1 EV? Where's the analysis?

Your numbers are low. Probably from before Florida was fully counted. In 2012, Obama received 62.3 million votes, and Romney 58.9 million. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president So Romney was only 1 million votes behind McCain. Half a million of Romney's lost votes were in New York and New Jersey. Which he wouldn't have won anyway. And you had suppressed vote totals from Sandy, which further undercuts your "failed to excite his base to match McCain" theory.

Very very few people, other than true believers, complained that Romney was extreme on anything other than immigration. And his position in the primaries was precisely that, so that was a fair criticism. Romney didn't lose because he wasn't a "true conservative." He lost because he couldn't sell his narrative, so it ultimately became only a "vote against that guy" campaign, not a "vote FOR ME" campaign. And he lost because of himself. Plenty of unforced errors. Like the fiasco with the Jeep ad right at the end of the campaign, which only hurt him in Ohio.

What the GOP needs is better politicians (just like the Dems needed in 2000 and 2004). Which "true conservative" that was in the primary could have beaten Romney's EV count? Bachmann? Santorum? No way.

The number came from this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/07/2012-Turnout-Dramatically-Lower-Than-2008

And you are wrong. RINOs will lose. Period. Bachmann? No. Unfortunately, conservative women are demonized to the point where it can't be overcome and Bachmann makes too many gaffes. Santorum? No, he's too much of a neocon, such as representing the "if you don't want to bomb Iran to protect Israel, you are a nut" crowd. Which leads me to my other point that I forgot to mention before. The GOP needs to quit sabre-rattling with countries like Iran and quit putting Israel on a pedestal. It's nothing against Israel. They are our allies, but at the same time the GOP is constantly putting them in a frame of importance, even surpassing people in the country they are supposed to represent, the US.

[Larry]

Don't you know? The ones that won their elections are true conservatives. The others - well their just RINO's. Despite voting 95% or more in line with their fellow GOPers.

Well, that's part of the definition.

But there's more.

For example, you have to be able to slash taxes, increase defense spending and reduce the deficit. (If you slash taxes, increase defense spending, and the deficit goes up, then obviously you weren't a True Conservative.)

(It is especially helpful if you slashed taxes, increased defense spending, the deficit went up, and you are ineligible to run again. That way, all of the other Conservatives who voted to slash taxes, and increase defense spending, and the deficit went up, but they are eligible to run again, can still be True Conservatives.)

[Predicto]

Keep nominating RINOs and continue to lose. Nominate a true conservative, the party should win, especially after Jimmy Carter's third term. You have liberals whining about how extreme candidates like McCain and Romney were. If the GOP buys into that BS, enjoy losing for years to come.

From my point of view, the biggest reason that Romney lost was because he couldn't fully escape his association with the true conservatives that dominate his party. If the GOP had nominated a true dyed in the wool 100 percent right winger, he or she would have been shellacked much, much worse.

[Predicto]

The number came from this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/07/2012-Turnout-Dramatically-Lower-Than-2008

And you are wrong. RINOs will lose. Period. Bachmann? No. Unfortunately, conservative women are demonized to the point where it can't be overcome and Bachmann makes too many gaffes. Santorum? No, he's too much of a neocon, such as representing the "if you don't want to bomb Iran to protect Israel, you are a nut" crowd.

Who is this potential true conservative candidate of whom you speak? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor? James Inhofe? Duncan Hunter?

[DjTj]

The number came from this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/07/2012-Turnout-Dramatically-Lower-Than-2008

This article are six days old, and is based on old numbers. So the premise of the article (that turnout was dramatically down) is wrong, and the idea that all Romney needed to do was match McCain is wrong.

In any case, here is a Washington Post writer's take on this question:

1. Stop running against things and start running for things: “We have entirely defined ourselves over the last several years as the ‘not Obama’ party,” said Todd Harris, a veteran Republican consultant. “At the same time, few GOP candidates have given people any positive rationale to vote Republican, beyond that we’re against Obama.”

2. Find a way into the Hispanic community: Perhaps the most daunting demographic data point coming out of the 2012 election was that Romney lost Hispanic voters nationwide by 44(!) points. Given the rapid growth of the Latino population — and the relative youth of that community — there are increasingly few paths to the presidency for Republicans unless they can reverse the party’s downward spiral among Hispanics. (John McCain got 30 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, while George W. Bush won 44 percent in 2004 — though some have suggested the latter number skewed high.)

3. Innovate on voter contact: The 2012 election proved that the Obama campaign’s neighbor-to-neighbor grassroots targeting and mobilization approach was vastly superior to the more traditional GOP turnout operation, which relies heavily on a series of automated phone calls to voters. (The failure of the Romney campaign’s ORCA program simply highlighted the huge gap between Democrats and Republicans in terms of ground operation.)

4. Vet and select candidates in a more rigorous manner: The last two elections at the Senate level have exposed the problem with nominating the wrong person. In Nevada, Delaware and Colorado in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012, Senate Republicans got the least electable general election candidate out of the primary process and watched as five very winnable races were lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/13/how-the-republican-party-can-rebuild-in-4-not-so-easy-steps/

[The Evil Genius]

Interesting article. I'm not sure the GOP can get out of their own way though. At least, not with the drug addled radio blowhard at the throne and still making people kiss his ring.

http://news.yahoo.com/don%E2%80%99t-get-****y--democrats--the-post-romney-gop-looks-just-like-you-did-two-decades-ago-13564462.html

Don’t get ****y, Democrats: The post-Romney GOP looks just like you did two decades ago

Yahoo! News – 2 hrs 30 mins ago

In his final debate with Obama, Romney played it safe. Was that what voters want …

You’re looking at a political party that has lost the popular vote in five of the past six elections; whose one winning presidential candidate achieved the White House thanks to a fluke; and whose prospects for the future seem doomed by demography and geography.

No, it’s not today’s Republican Party you’re looking at—it’s the Democratic Party after the 1988 elections. And the past (nearly) quarter-century is an object lesson in the peril of long-term assumptions about the nature and direction of our political path.

Consider where the Democrats found themselves that November. They had just lost their third straight presidential election, and not to the formidable Ronald Reagan, but to George Herbert Walker Bush, a WASP aristocrat prone to sitting down at a diner and asking for “a splash of coffee.” They’d lost by more than seven points in the popular vote, and by 416-111 in the Electoral College, winning only 10 states.

The most enduring element of their geographic base had vanished. The once-solid Democratic South was now solidly Republican and, for the second straight election, their candidate had not won a single state in the region.

But that was only the start of the wretched geographic picture. Four of the six New England states had gone Republican, and the Plains and the Mountain West were all in the GOP camp. Most daunting, three big states—New Jersey, Illinois and California, with 87 combined electoral votes—had gone Republican for the sixth consecutive election. The weakness of Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis could not explain away a recent political fact: The Republican Party appeared to have “an electoral lock” on the White House.

What had happened to the Democrats? What changed? And why is this relevant to Republican woes today?

MORE AFTER LINK

[War Paint]

and so it begins...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83737.html

At least one potential candidate for 2016 seems to get it.

I think he would be a very good choice. He will still be labeled a "tea-bagger" by the left. The good news about Obama winning is that many Republicans will probably be more opened to what Ron Paul is about instead of holding the Sean Hannity "if you don't want to bomb Iran, you are a loon" idea. I also think Rand's youth will help him sell his dad's idea better and with more energy. I hope Rand doesn't sell out though.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think he would be a very good choice. He will still be labeled a "tea-bagger" by the left. The good news about Obama winning is that many Republicans will probably be more opened to what Ron Paul is about instead of holding the Sean Hannity "if you don't want to bomb Iran, you are a loon" idea. I also think Rand's youth will help him sell his dad's idea better and with more energy. I hope Rand doesn't sell out though.

In some ways, I think many feel he did sell out some, but thats water under the bridge.

In specific terms regarding the OP, I think Rand Paul is ahead of all other potential 2016 candidates in realizing the need for change in the GOP.

Now I just wonder if the GOP grassroots are ready to accept him or will they stay with the losing neo-con formula again?

[War Paint]

Who is this potential true conservative candidate of whom you speak? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor? James Inhofe? Duncan Hunter?

Ron Paul! Of course at his age, he is obviously not the choice. His son is a good choice, if Rand stays true to his self and doesn't sell out to the establishment. If Rand was the choice and wants to continue or add on to what his predecessors have done, then that would be a disappointment.

[Predicto]

Ron Paul! Of course at his age, he is obviously not the choice. His son is a good choice, if Rand stays true to his self and doesn't sell out to the establishment. If Rand was the choice and wants to continue or add on to what his predecessors have done, then that would be a disappointment.

Ah. I was wondering how you were defining "true conservatism." Gotcha.

[War Paint]

In some ways, I think many feel he did sell out some, but thats water under the bridge.

In specific terms regarding the OP, I think Rand Paul is ahead of all other potential 2016 candidates in realizing the need for change in the GOP.

Now I just wonder if the GOP grassroots are ready to accept him or will they stay with the losing neo-con formula again?

Yeah, that all started when Rand endorsed Mitt. We'll see how that plays out in the future.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, that all started when Rand endorsed Mitt. We'll see how that plays out in the future.

Honestly, I felt he strayed some on foreign policy stuff in the past too. He's a little too "bomb happy" for me at times, but I have this problem with always comparing him to his Dad. No one will ever be that good again.

[mistertim]

Unless 1) there is some radical shift in GOP ideology or 2) he completely changes his tune and becomes part of the traditional GOP, there is no way Rand Paul even sniffs a presidential nomination.

Though he has actually gotten pretty close on the 2nd one already so it is possible, I suppose.