How Romney Could Have Won. A changed system = changed results.

National Review ^ | 01/08/2013 | Katrina Trinko

[palmer]

140% of registered voters voted

Completely wrong. 70% with two page ballot.

100% of all votes in numerous counties nationwide voted for Obambi

Wrong again. Those were black precincts with 100% Obama votes. There were 59 (about 10% of black precincts or divisions) in Philly that made 100% although more than that tried to. It is true that Romney should have gotten 5 or 10 votes in each of those but did not. But it would have made no difference.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

New Law:

If you are on welfare (IE: A Ward of the state or country), your right to vote is rescinded until such time as you are a producer, not a taker.

In this way, those who are on the government dole do not have a say in maintaining and increasing their own largess, and politicians will stop playing to them as they would no longer be a voter-block that they can buy with OPM (ours, the producers).

[RIghtwardHo]

Romney could NOT have won. He was, after all, Romney. In fact, what is being said here is that someone else could have won. With that I agree. However, NOT Romney. I said that back in the early Primaries that Romney would lose in a landslide and take the Senate & House down with him. While I was a bit off on the House, anyone with a lick of sense could see that Romney was going to get slaughtered.

[xrmusn]

Some good points here but it could turn around and bite you just as well.

I am sure it has been mentioned here before but I got to thinking this AM how many ‘fence straddlers’ didn’t vote because ‘WE’ were duped into thinking Romney had a huge lead and BO was faltering?

When you think about it, the Dems didn’t panic as BO’s #’s were supposedly going down and with the ‘conspiratorial’ theory - MAYBE they knew something and figured no sense showing concern??

It (supposedly) happened in FL when the state was called and people just didn’t leave the house to vote for Bush - in the part of the state he was strongest overall.

[joesbucks]

Works until some additional governors from the D side are elected and house districts get gerrymandered more to the D side than to the R side as they are now.

[EternalVigilance]

Those who think the problem is only a process problem are deluding themselves.

[Servant of the Cross]

With his weak, uninspiring and unconservative record, and all that Romney did wrong in his POTUS campaign strategy ... JUST 333,000 VOTES IN 4 SWING STATES WOULD HAVE GIVEN ROMNEY THE PRESIDENCY

[pallis]

Democrats have eliminated the problem of Republicans attracting more Hispanics by opening the border and assuring more Hispanics will come. Republicans are beaten by simple math and the grind of being on the low side of a percentage. The Republican Party needs to concentrate its efforts on winning state and local elections to buttress itself against the single party control of the Democrats nationally.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Yet another story about “How To Fix The Republican Party’s Issues” that doesn’t use a key word.

“Conservatism”.

[TomGuy]

the demographics ARE changing. We need to find a way to make our message more appealing to those changing demos.

An even bigger problem the Republican have is finding an effective way to get their message out.

Sure, the loyalists know it.

Sure, the FReepers and those on other conservative websites know it.

But, the GOP does not know how to reach the low information voters or those who are busy taking the fixing kids lunches, taking kids to school, picking kids up and taking them to after-school affairs, fixing dinner, etc. In some former lifetimes, many of them have also been called Soccer Moms and Walmart Moms.

The GOPe run their candidates the same way they did in 1992, 1996, and 2008. Even the major networks have lost more than half of their viewership in that time.

The GOP needs to develop a more effective message and needs to develop a more efficient way of delivering it.

The GOP seems to be a lost party in the wilderness. They say they want to be a big ticket party, but that means they have to move even further to the left. They continue to evolve into Dem-lite or even Dem II.

Why support them when it is difficult to distinguish them from the Democratic Party?

Even they can't answer that -- and therein lies their quandry.

[PeterPrinciple]

It is the message:

Free stuff (until it runs out)

Stuff you have to work for (but there is plenty)

Which line will be longer?

[Obadiah]

With everyone fleeing California at some point Congressional seats will be lost as will its electoral affected.

[TomGuy]

If you are on welfare (IE: A Ward of the state or country), your right to vote is rescinded until such time as you are a producer, not a taker.

Such ideas won't work because they create class or caste systems, and those systems can change with future moods.

Restrict welfare recipients? Why not also restrict those on unemployment? Of those who do not hold a job that is recognized as an income-producing job by the state?

Or, reinstitute poll taxes. Except that the Dems would find a way to make the rest of the taxpayers pay the tax for those on welfare or those getting Food Stamp cards, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. ...

[SoConPubbie]

I know! I Know!

Actually be a conservative.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Amen laweeks. You could say it a few more times apparently as well, since nobody seems to notice.

Really, the only things that could help going forward need to address two issues.

The first is to cut down voter fraud.

The second is to reduce media bias.

The only other thing is to hope that things get really bad, I think that is a given however.

Everything else is just bluster.

[MS from the OC]

Unfortunately, not everyone is fleeing. We have a huge population of illegals, and so we’ll probably see a somewhat stable population. Also, stories today are talking about how California is getting older.

It will be interesting to see what happens, but electoral votes by Congressional District is a good idea.

[Strategerist]

In VIrginia the motivated R counties (war on coal counties) only managed 50% of adults

The population is so low in those counties they don't matter all that much.

Romney losing women in the DC suburbs was of far greater importance.

[Strategerist]

There were precincts in Utah with 100% Romney votes, as well.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The problem was the GOP nominating a Socialist-statist fraud like Willard in the first place.

[Lazamataz]

So, in other words, if the entire system was different, Romney would have won.

If chess was a contact sport, I'd win more often.