Replies

No way. You don’t win by losing, you win by winning. If Romney lost (he is going to win thankfully), you could expect the next nominee to be Chris Christie, who is far more to the left. Neither party goes more to its flank when it loses, that is just wacky.

“No way. You don’t win by losing, you win by winning. If Romney lost (he is going to win thankfully), you could expect the next nominee to be Chris Christie, who is far more to the left. Neither party goes more to its flank when it loses, that is just wacky.”

If Romney wins, you’ll never see another prolife nominee for either party ever again.

You don’t win by losing, you win by winning.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In 2004, Republicans won big, but George W. Bush squandered his mandate and got entangled in things he should never have bothered with, including amnesty for illegal immigrants. That caused a defeat in 2006 and a huge loss in 2008 because Bush, like his father, was viewed as someone who had betrayed those who put him in office. That's one way you lose by winning.

In 2012, we are faced with the prospect of electing a Republican whose record indicates that he will begin betraying conservatives on day one after he's inaugurated. His record in Massachusetts is also one of causing party discord by promoting liberals and snubbing conservatives. Based on what we've seen from recent history, if Romney is president, we can therefore expect a catastrophic legislative defeat in 2014 and further losses in 2016 including the loss of the presidency--conservatives will not vote for a Judas once he is known as such. The Democrat coming into power in 2016 will have full control of everything with no hope of stopping him/her.

Now do you get it? This is not as simple as "you don't win by losing." Sometimes, in the long run, you do just that.