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 bitching 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 bitching 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-Governm...ower-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.