I think Rubio would be a good move, but again, could he win the nomination? That is the problem in the Republican party. They have become so conservative dominated that you have to be far right or headed that way to win the nomination.

I'm not buying this. McCain won the nomination 4 years ago and Romney this time. Those are 2 of the most moderate R's I can remember.

I'm not buying this. McCain won the nomination 4 years ago and Romney this time. Those are 2 of the most moderate R's I can remember.

 

The two most moderate in my lifetime.

I'm not buying this. McCain won the nomination 4 years ago and Romney this time. Those are 2 of the most moderate R's I can remember.

 

But the primary pushed both of them to the right of their natural inclinations and it made them look indecisive on lots of issues. The need to go right to win a primary didn't do either of them any favors when it came around to the general.

But the primary pushed both of them to the right of their natural inclinations and it made them look indecisive on lots of issues. The need to go right to win a primary didn't do either of them any favors when it came around to the general.

 

Very good point.

But the primary pushed both of them to the right of their natural inclinations and it made them look indecisive on lots of issues. The need to go right to win a primary didn't do either of them any favors when it came around to the general.

 

That's especially true for Romney. He had a lot of convincing to do after his record in Massachusetts. I don't remember McCain being pushed especially rightward in the primaries, but I think the chief failing of his general campaign was their paranoia that the "base" wouldn't come out for him, which caused him to try to run as a conservative instead of the moderate pragmatist most people had viewed him as. That undermined him a lot I think.

Looking at exit polling, I feel this is more about the female vote than it is the Latino/minority vote.

 

2012 has been like a coming out party. The entire Congressional delegation of New Hampshire (both representatives and both senators) and the governor are all women. Pretty amazing.

This has been fun, reading this thread. All these back and forth ideas of what has to be done by the Republican party in the future, and it all comes down to considering women relevant and important, politically speaking. :lol: Gone are the days when you could count on a woman to vote what her hubby told her to, or even belong to the same party.....or have a hubby. Women are an important demographic, and the Republican platform has ignored it's importantance for quite a while, IMO. McCain felt putting Palin on the ticket would get him the female vote. He didn't account for the fact that we (females) would be offended by his choice because she was a hockey mom and managed to be in politics. He failed to realize we'd see right through her, and realize her situation was far removed from the circumstances most of us live. Romney's campaign has blundered, and I honestly feel like Romney could have established himself with women. He had nice hair. :lol: Seriously...Republicans in other races (Atkins, Murdock) crippled the female view of the Republican party. Romney would have had to have come out strong and hard denouncing their words and distanced himself very publicly....but that would have cost him a lot of white male voters. Difficult position to be in, but would have done wonderful things for his in-roads with the female demographic.

 

Just my thoughts as a woman voter.

But the primary pushed both of them to the right of their natural inclinations and it made them look indecisive on lots of issues. The need to go right to win a primary didn't do either of them any favors when it came around to the general.

 

I'm still not seeing it. McCain didn't go right, and Romney didn't go very far right. The fact is 2008 is a terrible gauge to use because no one was beating Obama. Dude got almost 70M votes.

This has been fun, reading this thread. All these back and forth ideas of what has to be done by the Republican party in the future, and it all comes down to considering women relevant and important, politically speaking. :lol: Gone are the days when you could count on a woman to vote what her hubby told her to, or even belong to the same party.....or have a hubby. Women are an important demographic, and the Republican platform has ignored it's importantance for quite a while, IMO. McCain felt putting Palin on the ticket would get him the female vote. He didn't account for the fact that we (females) would be offended by his choice because she was a hockey mom and managed to be in politics. He failed to realize we'd see right through her, and realize her situation was far removed from the circumstances most of us live. Romney's campaign has blundered, and I honestly feel like Romney could have established himself with women. He had nice hair. :lol: Seriously...Republicans in other races (Atkins, Murdock) crippled the female view of the Republican party. Romney would have had to have come out strong and hard denouncing their words and distanced himself very publicly....but that would have cost him a lot of white male voters. Difficult position to be in, but would have done wonderful things for his in-roads with the female demographic.

 

Just my thoughts as a woman voter.

 

In short, if you want the female vote, don't make them jealous. McCain tags Palin and the President sides with Hillary. President wins the female vote.

 

By your own admission females didn't like Palin because she was a "hockey mom". What the???

 

Lastly, people have some of the dumbest reasons on voting for a particular candidate. (Not you RM, people in general)

This has been fun, reading this thread. All these back and forth ideas of what has to be done by the Republican party in the future, and it all comes down to considering women relevant and important, politically speaking. :lol: Gone are the days when you could count on a woman to vote what her hubby told her to, or even belong to the same party.....or have a hubby. Women are an important demographic, and the Republican platform has ignored it's importantance for quite a while, IMO. McCain felt putting Palin on the ticket would get him the female vote. He didn't account for the fact that we (females) would be offended by his choice because she was a hockey mom and managed to be in politics. He failed to realize we'd see right through her, and realize her situation was far removed from the circumstances most of us live. Romney's campaign has blundered, and I honestly feel like Romney could have established himself with women. He had nice hair. :lol: Seriously...Republicans in other races (Atkins, Murdock) crippled the female view of the Republican party. Romney would have had to have come out strong and hard denouncing their words and distanced himself very publicly....but that would have cost him a lot of white male voters. Difficult position to be in, but would have done wonderful things for his in-roads with the female demographic.

 

Just my thoughts as a woman voter.

What does the GOP need to do to swing the womens (or your) vote to the GOP?

What does the GOP need to do to swing the womens (or your) vote to the GOP?

 

Relate. I have no problem with the pro-Life platform. But they need to be smart about it. There is NO ONE that I know that is "pro" abortion. Not one single person. It also grates when a men try to tell women about their bodies. IMO, get as far away from that line as possible. The other is the way that abortion is trotted out as being only a method of birth control. Again, simply not true. And of course, leave religion out of it, when speaking politically. I believe life begins at conception. However, I don't believe God intends that a victim of rape become pregnant, if that happens. They need to present the image that the Republican party woman is one who can be a single career woman, a smart woman, a working-mom, a single mom. They have not done a good job of courting female voters based upon the varying circumstances women in this country live under. We're not all wives. We're not all stay at home moms. MANY of us have (or had) struggled to put the food on the table for our kids. Quit painting the choices many of us have (had) to make, or choose to make, as anything but what the realities they are. The Republican Party is still clinging and presenting the issues for females as outdated as the 50's! We're not June Cleaver any more. We're Alice.

In short, if you want the female vote, don't make them jealous. McCain tags Palin and the President sides with Hillary. President wins the female vote.

 

By your own admission females didn't like Palin because she was a "hockey mom". What the???

 

Lastly, people have some of the dumbest reasons on voting for a particular candidate. (Not you RM, people in general)

 

Dude, I am not jealous of Palin. I'll take brains over beauty any time. And don't tell me that Sarah Palin's hockey mom is the same as Suzie Single Mom. It ain't. It wasn't that she was a "hockey mom" that they didn't like her. It's because her idea of "hard to deal with the craziness of working, sports for kids and a job" are in no way near the reality of the majority of hockey, soccer, football, etc moms. You can't just trot out someone who fits some stereotypes and expect her to be accepted. Women are HARSH! If you didn't learn that in middle and high school, you have no clue. :lol: The reality is women expect that if a woman has the opportunity to achieve such things as presidency or positions of power, she better step it up. It's not enough for females to just be in these positions, they are carrying the torch for ALL women. Step it up, Represent! You don't have to agree with me or my views. But if you want to campaign on being a working mom, you better have as much trouble as I do coordinating everything. And if you're a woman, you'd better not say stupid stuff.

 

That's just how I feel. I have higher expectations of female candidates than male. Because if they misstep, the risks are huge. It'll be yet another "failure" for men to use later.

Dude, I am not jealous of Palin. I'll take brains over beauty any time. And don't tell me that Sarah Palin's hockey mom is the same as Suzie Single Mom. It ain't. It wasn't that she was a "hockey mom" that they didn't like her. It's because her idea of "hard to deal with the craziness of working, sports for kids and a job" are in no way near the reality of the majority of hockey, soccer, football, etc moms. You can't just trot out someone who fits some stereotypes and expect her to be accepted. Women are HARSH! If you didn't learn that in middle and high school, you have no clue. :lol: The reality is women expect that if a woman has the opportunity to achieve such things as presidency or positions of power, she better step it up. It's not enough for females to just be in these positions, they are carrying the torch for ALL women. Step it up, Represent! You don't have to agree with me or my views. But if you want to campaign on being a working mom, you better have as much trouble as I do coordinating everything. And if you're a woman, you'd better not say stupid stuff.

 

That's just how I feel. I have higher expectations of female candidates than male. Because if they misstep, the risks are huge. It'll be yet another "failure" for men to use later.

 

Not "you", the collective "you". I also learned in MS, HS...and adult life, that women are jealous. Of course that is a blanket statement and most likely a small, small minority but...it's there. I think those expectations are a bit much. Do you really think any of those male candidates (politicians) live like me?

 

I got it, RM. In short, women are crazy. Point made.

Not "you", the collective "you". I also learned in MS, HS...and adult life, that women are jealous. Of course that is a blanket statement and most likely a small, small minority but...it's there. I think those expectations are a bit much. Do you really think any of those male candidates (politicians) live like me?

 

I got it, RM. In short, women are crazy. Point made.

 

That's a great point. And no, they don't. But think about this...men have RULED our political landscape since it's inception. White males (in particular) have decided what direction the country goes in. Women have made great strides, but in no way are equally as represented as a % of the elected officials. If we want to keep putting women into those positions, they have to be respected, savvy, and produce results BETTER than men.

Relate. I have no problem with the pro-Life platform. But they need to be smart about it. There is NO ONE that I know that is "pro" abortion. Not one single person. It also grates when a men try to tell women about their bodies. IMO, get as far away from that line as possible. The other is the way that abortion is trotted out as being only a method of birth control. Again, simply not true. And of course, leave religion out of it, when speaking politically. I believe life begins at conception. However, I don't believe God intends that a victim of rape become pregnant, if that happens. They need to present the image that the Republican party woman is one who can be a single career woman, a smart woman, a working-mom, a single mom. They have not done a good job of courting female voters based upon the varying circumstances women in this country live under. We're not all wives. We're not all stay at home moms. MANY of us have (or had) struggled to put the food on the table for our kids. Quit painting the choices many of us have (had) to make, or choose to make, as anything but what the realities they are. The Republican Party is still clinging and presenting the issues for females as outdated as the 50's! We're not June Cleaver any more. We're Alice.

I think that your view, of the GOP view of women, is very narrow and skewed to the talking points. IMO. I don't think that is anyones actual view of todays woman but I could be wrong.