“Social conservative issues took a back seat in 2010”
Like I said. You have an agenda here. You have an enemy and that enemy is social conservatives.
“If only we ditched all that horrid social conservativism neanderthal principles, we might actually win us some elections!”
“They have to build a coalition.”
Only 50 percent of eligible folks actually vote. You’re right that we need to build a coalition. Of traditional marriage supporters, prolifers, 2nd amendment folks and border security. That along with cutting entitlement pork, and strong military will win elections.
We don’t need you, unless your willing to work with the coalition. You seem to believe that the party must change to you rather than you to the party.
“He wouldn’t have made much progress on social issues”
Right, because you can only win elections by ditching social conservativism and taking up the holy trinity of abortion, gay marriage, and free dope.
I don't have an agenda. I stated an observation. You are the one projecting that onto "social conservatives are my enemy".
I have no problem with social conservatives. I agree with them in many ways, and not in others. Ditto for economic conservatives.
I don't generally consider anyone that isn't shooting at me to be an enemy. But, if I were to consider anyone else to be an enemy, it would be you, personally. Not social conservatives, but YOU. Just you, simply because you seem to be completely unable to conduct yourself in a civil manner. I'd use a more succinct noun that accurately describes you, but that would justifiably get me banned.
Only 50 percent of eligible folks actually vote. You’re right that we need to build a coalition. Of traditional marriage supporters, prolifers, 2nd amendment folks and border security. That along with cutting entitlement pork, and strong military will win elections.
Have you considered why only 50% of people vote? A large portion of them are low-information citizens, who don't know or care about the issues enough to vote. Another large portion don't think their vote matters, perhaps because their state or Congressional district always goes for one particular kind of candidate.
The only additional voters you are going to bring in are the ones that have felt that no candidate or party adequately represents all of their views. They don't want to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. You aren't going to bring in those voters by doubling down on the same positions that are scaring them off.
We don’t need you, unless your willing to work with the coalition. You seem to believe that the party must change to you rather than you to the party.
Right back at you. Maybe if you were to stand in the mirror and say that to yourself over and over, you might finally understand the problem. It's you, not the libertarians.
You don't get it: the Republican Party is changing, and you are getting marginalized. And I suspect that's why you are getting so angry. You want to blame someone for your diminishing influence, and libertarians are only a convenient target.