Replies

Yes there has to be many communities where social issues are high on the list. I am more concerned about the next presidential election. As many as 4 SCOTUS justices might be replaced. I do not relish the justices Hillary will nominate.

The next GOP nominee must be able to draw voters from more than the 40% conservative block. Winning in politics requires a superb politician! Someone who is able to persuade all class of voters on benefits of free market capitalism.

That is what Narendra Modi was able to do in India. He even carried districts with heavy Muslim populations. Modi did not emphasize his party’s Hindu roots. That is the type of candidate we need to win in 2016.

And one more thing...in this age of 24-7 cable TV, the candidate must be telegenic. Can not nominate a short, pudgy, balding old guy against a young, tall, lean candidate. And do not nominate a mild mannered candidate who is not feisty in debates.

I am more concerned about the next presidential election. As many as 4 SCOTUS justices might be replaced. I do not relish the justices Hillary will nominate.The next GOP nominee must be able to draw voters from more than the 40% conservative block.

Then you better not do what you just did and seem determined to do again, fight to make sure that you get in another social liberal

Romney did smashingly, with independents, wiped out Obama with Independents, and lost to Obama.

Your liberal agenda lost the election, and it was one that Obama could not win.

Winning in politics requires a superb politician! Someone who is able to persuade all class of voters on benefits of free market capitalism.

I think we have a basic disagreement of what a presidential candidate must be to win a presidential election. I come from New England but have spent the last 15 years living in the rust belt states of Illinois and Wisconsin.

The assumption is made that the voters that are in play (that is those who don't come out every election and vote straight party line) do so based on a straight issues calculus, and going towards the middle where possible gets the most votes because those who are more cpnservative will take the lesser evil. Of course the candidate has to be competant and, as you put it telegenic.

Romney actually was telegenic. It didn't help enough. He RAN the kind of campaign you want.

The fact is, our government is already intruding all over the place, and broad bromides about the free market aren't going to play well unless it has the populist tinge that Palin, for example, brings. When Bob Dole or Mitt Romney or George W. Bush talks free market, when the dust settles we have TARP and more H1B visas. No one questions Palin's free market credentials, but she explicitly seeks out those union voters who aren't happy with their representation.

A lot of people who won't vote Republican or won't vote at all, including in the industrial states, but also in pockets of the northeast, think the system itself has been compromised, that those running do not have the country's interests in heart, and will do the bidding of either the Chamber of Commerce (which in turn is largely steered by the very large businesses at the state level) or the Unions and the full spectrum hard left groups that Obama effectively mobilizes.

The candidate who fits your profile best is Marco Rubio. Telegenic, optimistic, articulate, intelligent, energetic. He has also flipped on the immigration issue in a way that has made folks wary of him.

I'm not a hard liner who wants to deport them all, nor particularly anti-immigration, but the "comprehensive immigration reform" that the Chamber of Commerce and Establishment types offer are so nakedly disingenuous, it makes people doubt their motivations on almost everything else. How they are making this an issue in this year shows how completely out of the loop they really are. Yet the drum beat continues, as it has with climate change on the other side.

Voters, especially those who are not doctrinaire, vote for the whole man. Ross Perot attracted a lot of people who didn't agree with his policies (if they even knew them) but bought the persona. Talking just about economics and brushing aside everything else does not make for a mandate.