... oh and I forgot to say, you'll lose EVERY big state with many of the things on that platform. Without big states you lose.
Smaller govt is fine and so are lower taxes. Win the war is good. But all the anti-immigrant talk will sink you. It has already been proven. America is not quite mad enough to make anti-immigration a populist issue.
And conservatives alone CANNOT win an election.
The people of California, one of the most liberal nations in the country, have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and pandering of same. Too bad the liberal courts overruled us. And in a very recent election, the Democrat ran on a pro illegal immigrant platform. The one good thing Arnie did was to oppose that, and he won in a landslide. Don't tell me it won't work. California will go for the platform I posted above. The people are fed up.
Jim's number 4.."Stop the illegal aliens!" Nothing about " anti-immigration"
Are a Mitt or Rudy fan?
But all the anti-immigrant talk will sink you. It has already been proven. America is not quite mad enough to make anti-immigration a populist issue.
And conservatives alone CANNOT win an election.
It's not just the conservatives who are opposed to illegal immigration. The blue collar workers see the effect that the illegals have on their wages.
That is because most Americans don't understand the issue. We need to educate them. FYI: We are not anti-immigration, but anti ILLEGAL immigration.
The impact of illegal immigration has far reaching consequences for the future of this country. It transcends partisan politics. We need to be on the right side of this issue. It will pay dividends down the road.
"But all the anti-immigrant talk will sink you. It has already been proven."
Completely false. First, of course, being anti illegal immigration isn't the same as "anti-immigrant".
The problem is that those who support illegal immigration smear those who oppose it using such formulations. They're able to get away with it because those on the other side don't come out swinging against them.
So, when the WaPo says someone is "anti-immigrant", you don't timidly accept that moniker and then go do penance before the NCLR. You explain why you're right and the other side is wrong, and you don't pull punches doing it.
Very few GOP candidates did the "explain" part, assuming that everyone already knew why it was wrong. And, of course, regarding your "proof", ask Gabby Giffords or all the other Dems who co-opted their opponents' positions.
Looking forward to amnesty, are you?
Of course not!
Why, just look what happened the last time a real Conservative ran for President...
Well, let's see: that was Ronald Reagan, and he got a huge majority...
So maybe there's a flaw in whatever it is you use in place of logic...
I think they are now.
It is ANTI ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - not legal immigration. I would like to remind you of all the LIBS who lost especially in the Northeast.
“... oh and I forgot to say, you’ll lose EVERY big state with many of the things on that platform. Without big states you lose.”
I’m from Texas and take exception to this. Except for the dope-smoking hippy commune known as Austin, we are as conservative as they come. Nothing in Jim’s list would bother us here. Quite the contrary - Texas only comes into play if you run a liberal Republican.