Posted on 02/18/2015 12:43:12 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue
Agreed.
They have to convince the black middle class to return to the Republican party by hammering at the failure and hypocrisy of Democratic social policies.
Run a positive, moral campaign...(think Reagan) and national defense (call evil by its name) and jobs.
Let your staff loudly run against Obama.
Continue to stick Hillary to Obama.
None in presidential election years. Mid-term elections always have lower turnout. Walker's may be favored to win Wisconsin but he's not a lock. After all Ryan didn't help Romney.
I’ll buy your 2% vote fraud figure. The real problem is the # of fraudulent vopters in 2012 is the floor for 2016. it’s only going to be worse.
You make it sound like the GOP ever had them to begin with.
The good thing about Dick is that he is always wrong. :-)
Obama won in 2012 for three reasons:
1) The black turnout. The Democrats have a turnout machine, and they were able to get a similar black turnout to 2008. Will they be able to do the same with a white Democrat candidate in the future?
2) The youth vote. The Millennials are very liberal, and were excited to vote for the hip, young, cool Obama in 2008. Millennials are also narcissistic, and were able to be a part of history by voting for Obama in 2008. Somehow, they also turned out in 2012. Will Millennials turn out for an old Democrat candidate in the future?
3) The lack of conservative turnout. Somehow, there were conservatives who refused to come out because Romney was not conservative enough, despite the fact not turning out would result in Obama’s reelection. Mathematically, this would be called “Division by 0”. Division by zero is impossible, but division by a number very close to zero results in a very large number. In other words, move the smallest increment from zero and you gain infinitely. Politically, what happened was “Division by 0bama”. Moving the smallest increment away from 0bama would be an infinitely better. But too many purists would not budge. Will a better conservative candidate result in a strong conservative voter turn out in the future?
The wild card in 2016 are changing demographics. There can be no doubt Obama is trying very hard via shamnesty and other actions to stack the deck in the Democrats favor. Hillary will need all the help she can get, as she only inspires the big pocket donors. Elizabeth Warren could promise to forgive student loan debt and energize the Millenial vote. Cory Booker would be another cool, young black candidate. Beyond those three, I do not see a strong Dem candidate.
That is kind of my and the articles point. They can count on that at a minimum and we have to flip ALL - 100% - of the remaining swing states. It’s a tall order and based on this - at least at first blush, makes it appear that Walker would have a good chance. (he looks dorky though)
Like it or not, a Mormon candidate is going to be rejected by huge numbers of conservative voters, period. Romney was fortunate to have won as many ‘compromised’ votes as he did.
In 2016 and beyond, a Republican candidate who does not espouse consistent conservative principles will absolutely be rejected by even more than the estimated 4 million who sat out 2012.
This is a problem. I voted for Perot in 1992 which at the time seemed a principled vote. I regretted it almost at once as Clinton ascended.
Still, I simply cannot see myself voting for Bush, Christie, or any candidate who holds positions contrary to my own when it comes to immigration, health care, energy, taxes, or sound foreign policy.
It is all or nothing for me when it comes to the big issues. It was wrong in 1992, but it will not be wrong moving forward.
They reignite the young black vote with someone like Corey Booker as VP. Not only is he young and black, but he is actually charismatic and not effeminate (a step up from Obama.)
Ted Cruz is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary or Elizabeth Warren.
It will never get better if the stupid Republicans insist on beginning their primaries in two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, that they lost in two consecutive elections. Is it really smart to allow those states to get a head start in determining who the next candidate will be?
The Republican turn-out was low, but I must have missed the breakdown of the purported Conservative no-shows.
Can you point me to a source? TIA
Just wrong, dead wrong. The electorate changes a lot, and swings from right to left with the winds.
Really stupid piece. It is easy to win in 2016 if done right.
And demographics aren’t destiny.
New Mexico flips back and forth.
Bingo. And that is why the Dems are hell bent on turning Texas and Florida to their majority. Amnesty is a guaran-dang-teed game changer.
Now if only we could wave a magic wand and boot the Yankees out of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
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.