Posted on 11/11/2014 6:15:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
“Run Romney on us again and see what happens...again.”
Exactly. Four MILLION Republicans/Independents/Buttheads sat on their hands in 2012 and we got another round of 0bama!
Everyone? Please do what I’m doing. I am making all of the newbie Republicans my New Best Friends, whether they were from my state or not. I sent money - which I NEVER do - to Joni Ernst, Mia Love and Scott Brown. Yep. A whopping $10 each - but as far as I’m concerned, they need to hear from us ALL on a regular basis so they don’t get sucked into the GOPe Swirling Vortex of Stupidity.
At least not right off the bat! :)
`64 was an anomaly due to the nation mourning the death of JFK less than one year prior. LBJ spent 1964 ramming through JFK initiatives he was lukewarm on but it gave him a platform to pronounce “It’s what Jack wanted!” The fawning media (”Camelot lost”) carried the water-including coordinated attacks in Goldwater.
With no alternative media at the time, Goldwater was a non-starter in that atmosphere. Any GOP nominee was a non-starter.
I don't think any conclusions about what type candidate to run can be drawn from W's two wins. Those were two of the narrowest wins in recent history and he had the significant advantage of huge name recognition on his side.
Who can say if the Rove strategy of pandering to groups won more votes for W than it lost? If he'd run as a more consistent conservative rather than a "compassionate" conservative, and left off the pandering, he might well have won by larger margins, and actually won the popular vote in 2000.
There were libertarian streaks, but he did not embrace that label, and a lot of what got his voters fired up was just his firebrand conservative pragmatism about what government should and should not be doing.
Yes, you are right - the squishy Norm Coleman was the GOP nominee - and a far left Minnesota wacko was the Dem - Jesse was far and away the most conservative (campaigner) of those three - and one of the most conservative (campaigners) anywhere in 1998. Yes, he embraced “Lowell Weicker” as his role model like an idiot and he crashed and burned as governor.
The 1964 election was following an assassination of a President so all “normal” guidelines were thrown out the window.
Add to that, JFK was staunchly anti-Communist and enacted a tax cut so the voters were also voicing a continuation of those policies. Sadly, LBJ began the turn to hard left communism by the DemoKKKrat party that has been completed by Comrade obamatollah.
Bottom line, a conservative will ALWAYS provide the best chance to defeat a leftwing socialist...except in rare, unusual circumstances - i.e. following an assassination.
Why would we WANT it with other than a conservative?
TERM LIMITS would help to solve that part of the problem.
And while the Contract with America wasn't used in a presidential election it was very successful in 1994.
The sad fact is the GOPe wants Big Government and plenty of opportunities for graft instead of winning elections.
W was conservative compared to the field and opposition
...
W fooled some people into believing he was a conservative. His two very close elections against a couple of bozos shows that he wasn’t all that successful at it.
Conservatives dominate in America.
Check the following link and choose Conservative Advantage in the drop down box.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx
The only thing standing in the way is the crooks in the GOPe.
Neat. Thanks!
No republican on the ticket had a chance in 64. Had Kennedy not been assassinated he would have been in for a tough row to hoe in 64. Plus you had the wonderfully loyal and supportive GOPE establishment doing so much for Goldwater, you know calling him a warmonger, crazy, shooting him the bird, etc... the usual fair for the low class trash that comprises the GOPE.
I don’t agree with that. I’m not sure that Phil Crane (good man that he was) would have won against either Carter or Kennedy in 1980.
Precisely. It takes more than just “being a good conservative” to win the presidency. There are uncontrollable events, the strength of the opposition and the political/persuasive skills of the candidate that affect the outcome of an election.
I wrote up W’s visit to our little town here in NH on this site in July 1999.
I wish I had saved it. It was severe criticism based on his presentation and his speech, and my last line was “he is our Clinton”.
He was in no respect a conservative.
Phil? Phil who?
Sheeesh, basic common sense says one needs a modicum of name recognition to successfully run for President.
Phil Crane? Really????
Frazier Crane would have a better chance than your Crane.
LOL!!!!
That’s the point I’m making. It takes a special person to win the presidency plus a lot of non-ideological factors have to come together in order to win.
That was the best I could recall five years ago.
The original (1999) was better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.