Romney got more Republican votes than any Republican ever, except Bush in 2004. And Bush 2004 only received 1 million more than Romney.

 

So Romney got more Republican votes, more African American votes, more white votes and more women votes than McCain and still lost.

 

Wow. That is some great info. Thanks VOR.

I'm voting for whoever Randy Parker votes for. I trust his brain to make the right choice for me.

I'm voting for whoever Randy Parker votes for. I trust his brain to make the right choice for me.

 

Now that's a dangerous thing to say. :lol2::lol2:

And that growth is happening in demographic groups that are not voting Republican. Obama not only gained percentage with Hispanics, the Hispanic vote grew from 8% of the total to 10%. The next Republican candidate can get out the vote and win a higher percentage and total of that number and lose by an even wider margin than McCain. George Will was one person who was talking a lot about this after the 2012 election.

 

Here is what Karl Rove said after 2012: "If we're gonna win in the future, Republicans are gonna have to do better among Latinos and among women," Rove said.

Yes, it is pretty obvious that Republicans need to do better among Hispanics to win in 2016 but the way to do that is not to become more like Democrats.

 

If Republicans run like Democrats and assume that Hispanics only care about amnesty for illegals and government handouts, then they will lose the election and also lose support among conservatives as well. That strategy has served Democrats well at the ballot box but it is also the reason that our country's foundation is crumbling. Either a majority of Americans will wake up and realize what is being done to them or elections will become as meaningless as they were in the old Soviet Union.

My argument would be that the 2012 GOP field had several more conservative candidates than Romney, but none of those people stood a chance against Obama. I didn't vote for Romney (or Obama), but he was the most electable GOP candidate in that sorry field.

 

I don't think the Republicans have to nominate a moderate in 2016 at all, but neither do I believe that it would be a guaranteed loss if they did. Whoever the nominee is, that person has to connect with voters & put together the necessary organization to win. Say what you want about GWB & Obama, but both of those guys could do that (even though I think both stunk/stink as Presidents).

 

I've always held the belief that America elects its Presidents based primarily on style & not substance. The two parties don't always nominate candidates that way, but in the general election, America always goes with the more personable of the two candidates. I think style has much more to do with it than moderate/conservative/liberal.

Romney would also have been the Republicans best hope in 2008 but the party's first choice was Giuliani and when he faltered out of the gates, they turned to McCain.

 

Obviously, Obama was not elected on substance but look how that has worked out for this country. Both George Will and Karl Rove want to see Republicans copy the Democratic model for electoral "success," and if they get their way, a Democrat-lite candidate president will not get my vote. The country is on the road to bankruptcy and we do not need to entitlement candidates running in the general election.

He is right.

Karl Rove is also the guy who made a fool of himself on election night in 2012 by insisting that Romney still had a shot to win Ohio because the thousands of votes in the Cleveland area had not been counted. I have lived in the Cleveland suburbs and knew better. Fox made a big mistake not firing Rove for his clownish performance during the 2012 campaign.

Karl Rove is also the guy who made a fool of himself on election night in 2012 by insisting that Romney still had a shot to win Ohio because the thousands of votes in the Cleveland area had not been counted. I have lived in the Cleveland suburbs and knew better. Fox made a big mistake not firing Rove for his clownish performance during the 2012 campaign.

 

Fair and good point. But he orchestrated two Bush victories too.

I'm voting for whoever Randy Parker votes for. I trust his brain to make the right choice for me.

 

Given up on pulling the party-line lever?

Given up on pulling the party-line lever?

 

He voted for Bush as least once, if memory serves me right. And plans on voting for McConnell too, I think.

Karl Rove is also the guy who made a fool of himself on election night in 2012 by insisting that Romney still had a shot to win Ohio because the thousands of votes in the Cleveland area had not been counted. I have lived in the Cleveland suburbs and knew better. Fox made a big mistake not firing Rove for his clownish performance during the 2012 campaign.

 

I thought I remember him indicating on election night that since Cayuga precincts had not reported he was calling Ohio for Obama. But maybe it was other functions at FOX.

 

I hate to say it but Cayuga County is now Chicago-east when it comes to elections shenanigans. I remember them saying the Obama 'left their election machinery in place' after the 2008 election. Its probably 'still in place'.

The only one that has a chance at my vote is Senator Paul. Otherwise, I'll be casting a vote for the Libertarian nominee.

I've always held the belief that America elects its Presidents based primarily on style & not substance. The two parties don't always nominate candidates that way, but in the general election, America always goes with the more personable of the two candidates. I think style has much more to do with it than moderate/conservative/liberal.

 

I agree and I think that's always been true. We get lucky from time to time with a man that has both... and even then left and right hardly agree on whether that substance is good or bad... but for the most part, an ability to connect with the candidate is important. It's the same reason every president has to harp on his "humble beginnings" and every one (at least in the 19th century) was somehow born in a log cabin. We eat it up with a spoon and always have.

I'm not crazy about any of them. Show me a list of the democratic candidates and I'll show you another list of people I'm not crazy about.

 

Can't I just get a candidate who believes government should get out of the business of trying to over-manage the economy while at the same time respecting the idea that social welfare programs are a useful and indispensable part of a modern democracy?

 

What?

 

No?

 

Ok... back to the cave...

I thought I remember him indicating on election night that since Cayuga precincts had not reported he was calling Ohio for Obama. But maybe it was other functions at FOX.

 

I hate to say it but Cayuga County is now Chicago-east when it comes to elections shenanigans. I remember them saying the Obama 'left their election machinery in place' after the 2008 election. Its probably 'still in place'.

Actually, Romney did a better job of energizing his (smaller) base in Cuyahoga County than did Obama. I know that ruins your Chicago-east narrative, but so be it.

 

Barack Obama won big in Cuyahoga County despite low turnout in his base areas | cleveland.com

Actually, Romney did a better job of energizing his (smaller) base in Cuyahoga County than did Obama. I know that ruins your Chicago-east narrative, but so be it.

 

Barack Obama won big in Cuyahoga County despite low turnout in his base areas | cleveland.com

 

As they say in Chicago...."vote early - and often"