Kilmer17's roadmap to fix the GOP

[Predicto]

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.

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-Governm...ower-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/...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-...-13564462.html

Don’t get cocky, 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.

[SnyderShrugged]

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.

I cant say what you believe is way off, because the GOP has shown over and over its unwillingness to change.

That said, I hold some small hope that the stings of consecutive loses cause some introspection and maybe embrace some new ideas.

[thebluefood]

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-...-13564462.html

Great article. I enjoyed it especially as someone who's growing to love the history of party politics in America.

One of our city council members in Greenville (a bleeding heart liberal and a personal friend) said to me that, while she seldom agreed with them, the Republican Party was always the party of reason. Somewhere down the road, the GOP seemed to forget that and I think someone like Rand Paul who acknowledges that the party needs help is exactly what the GOP needs.

This article is also a reminder that both parties are at their best when they're in the middle. Bill Clinton was able to guide his party to the center after decades of left-wing rhetoric, now someone has to do it from the Republican Party. My pick has been, and continues to be, Jon Huntsman; but I know that will never happen.

[Predicto]

One of our city council members in Greenville (a bleeding heart liberal and a personal friend) said to me that, while she seldom agreed with them, the Republican Party was always the party of reason. Somewhere down the road, the GOP seemed to forget that and I think someone like Rand Paul who acknowledges that the party needs help is exactly what the GOP needs.

Problem is, many of us don't think of Ron and Rand Paul as the voice of reason. They are ideological extremists, just ones who hang out on their own third branch of extremism.

[SnyderShrugged]

Problem is, many of us don't think of Ron and Rand Paul as the voice of reason. They are ideological extremists, just ones who hang out on their own third branch of extremism.

and Well of course many of you couldnt be wrong.

[thebluefood]

Problem is, many of us don't think of Ron and Rand Paul as the voice of reason. They are ideological extremists, just ones who hang out on their own third branch of extremism.

Yes, maybe their ideals are a bit extreme. Perhaps they're not even realistic; but at least he and his father are trying to steer the party toward a pro-civil liberties, non-interventionist (from a military standpoint) platform. I've thought left-leaning members of our country's electorate would embrace that kind of rhetoric, especially when it's the opposite of what the bulk of Republicans are talking about today.

I don't agree with Ron and Rand (especially Rand) on everything, but I do agree that the GOP needs to make a change or else it may never recover.