Posted on 04/05/2007 5:29:36 PM PDT by no dems
Our latest electoral college map shows that regardless of candidate, if the election were held today, a Democrat would be elected to the nation’s highest office. Red states that would flip include: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio and West Virginia. No Blue state would become red. The count would be: Democrats, 306, Republicans 232.
;-)
This was mentioned last week on The Savage Nation. If al runs as a Green (and he may), that’s the best thing that can happen to the GOP.
The RNC.......and the nation........are a bunch of idiots.
why would Gore do that?
Help out the green party stature, screw over the Clintons who has has personal animosity against, and maybe he thinks he has an outside chance of winning a 3-way race.
why not just enter the Dem primary and win it?
Conventional wisdom is that he feels he can’t beat Hilly in the dem primary, but has a chance in a 3-way race.
That's not even close to being true. The only way that the Democrats won the governorship in Pennsylvania was by running the son of their last, prominent, pro-life governor. A pro-abortion extremist like Rudy Giuliani would never be able to swing the "Reagan Democrats" who are the key to any Republican victory. Pennsylvania is also a state with a huge number of hunters and gun enthusiasts. If they must choose between an extremist anti-gun Republican and an extremist, anti-gun Democrat, they'll vote for the Democrat.
There are many independents who are not liberals or moderates and are not against the Republican party because of conservatism. They are against the Republican party because they believe that Republicans don't care. They will see Rudy Giuliani as just more of the same.
Rudy Giuliani cannot win in the general election. His liberal extremism will play no better than the supposed conservative extremism that his supporters accuse real Republicans of having. If we nominate Rudy Giuliani, we will lose the general election and lose even more seats in Congress.
Bill
Nonsense! If you don't want people abandoning the GOP, don't nominate a liberal extremist. The guilt will belong equally to those who could have abandoned the RINOs and refused to do so.
If the GOP isn't going to stand for what I believe, I have no reason to care whether it ever wins another election. Two liberal parties racing to see who can be more liberal doesn't interest me at all. If that's the only option, I'll stop trying to participate in politics in any way. There's no point in voting if both parties are leading us to the same results.
As long as I believe that there is some hope of changing things for the better and slowing the change for the worse, I will fight against policies that are wrong. I will fight against them whether they are advocated by people with an "R" behind their name or a "D" behind their name. At this point, I see more hope that the Republicans will stand for what is right, but I will go elsewhere if that situation changes.
Bill
If the choice boils down to throwing away conservative principles, and getting less votes from "this demographic"---YES.
Reagan got less votes from Hispanicss and managed to get more from other demographics (remember the "Reagan Democrats"--those folks are still out there).
No--the answer is to go BACK to those conservative principles, not become more like the Democrats.
Because there were less hispanics in the country in the 1980s. You can’t afford to “toss off” all Hispanic voters in the US. There are no more untapped pool of white evangelical voters to get.
Kerry and Gore won PA, or did you forget that?
and the reason Republicans no longer can win in PA - is because they are destroyed in the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs. not the inner cities mind you - the mostly white middle class suburbs, are voting increasingly for the Dems. there aren’t enough “gun loving, pro-life” republican votes in the rest of the state to make up for those losses. so if a republican candidate can’t do better in those metro suburbs, he can’t win PA.
Sure there are. They're called "Reagan Democrats", who are basically conservative on social positions. They got pissed off by the failure of the Republicans to properly pursue the war in Iraq and voted in droves for the "end of the war"---not because the war was "wrong", but because it was handled incompetently. They're also sometimes called "Jacksonians".
But I know what you really are---you're and "open borders" type who want so let the floodgates open for any and all Hispanics, legal or not.
Gore and Kerry won PA in their presidential election races. where were these voters? there aren’t enough of them to win. that’s why Gore won PA, and Kerry won PA, and Santorum was crushed in PA.
Not true at all. Clinton turned the country blue as evidenced by the worst candidate in a lifetime (Gore) nearly winning by missing only a few hundred votes in a swing state. Bush saved us from 8 years of a Dem administration and is clearing the decks of terrorists in the world that proliferated under Dem rule.
You should be on your knees giving thanks to God and grateful to W in that Bush was able to keep Gore out. We would definitely be in terrible shape had that happened.
BS. There is no evidence for any such "shift to the center". The Democrats won for two reasons---disgust with the war in Iraq, and because Rahm Emmanuel found a bunch of Democrats to run as social conservatives ("pro-life" and "pro-gun").
Once those voters realize that said "socially conservative Democrats" will STILL toe the liberal party line, they'll be voted out.
your denial is actually worse than I thought.
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.