The party is fine. It's the idiotic direction the voters are taking that's ruining things. Liberals are the bane of the country.
In my Opinion Sweden is the best country to live in. It's one of the most neutral countries (no wars to worry about or waste revenue on). One of the least religious places on the planet, so no dogma to worry about and society is free thinking. High social and economic equality, socialized medicine, the education system is better than America, paid vacations and pregnancy leave from work for both parents. The list is very long and promising
---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:01 AM ----------
They lost on the candidate and his specific "life experience".
Four years ago, if McCain hadn't picked that idiot Sara Palin he as a Republican would have been President.
The GOP doesn't need to change their ideas, and neither do the Democrats. Both of their ideas haven't changed that much.
Losing a Presidential election isn't that drastic of a thing.
You had two terms of George Bush, and you will have two terms of Barack Obama.
Last edited by sulfuric; 2012-11-10 at 01:12 AM.
I think that they will. At the very least, I think that the Tea Party will split off from the Republican party and nominate their own candidates, like Rick Sanctorum or whatever his name was.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012.
I would have voted for McCain in 2008 sans Palin,
If there hadn't been Gary Johnson on the ballot I would have written in Ron Paul, or voted Obama.
People generally vote the person not the party for President.
Historical data reflects that.
Your premise isn't valid.
While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".
RIFT: Burglar Kisuo the Discordant - 60 Warrior
World of Warcraft: Bloodsail Admiral Paytriot - 90 Paladin
Intel i5-2500K @ 4.6GHz | ASRock Extreme3 Gen3 | 8GB Crucial Ballistix 1866MHz | EVGA GTX 570 HD | Crucial M4 64GB
Look at Ronald Reagan. You really think he would have won the huge margins he did when he ran for President solely on his ideas and not his personal likability?
Whether he would have been Republican or Democrat he would have had the same numbers.
You have to also factor in the campaigns the candidates ran while running for the Presidency.
In the 2000 election Al Gore was much more qualified, experienced and able to run the country than George Bush. Eight years of economic growth under Clinton and Gore, couldn't ask for a better gift as a VP running for President.
Al Gore ran a terrible campaign, and he personally wasn't able to connect with voters. Some how to my disgust Bush was. I never understood. I thought he was just some silver spoon rich kid playing cowboy, but whatevs.
This election cycle you had Obama, born to a poor single woman who achieved and prospered when he had a gigantic hurdle to over come. Then you had Romney, born to a rich and connected family, whose parent's paid for his entire college education, living expanses, and then bought him a house when he graduated.
It is pretty easy to see who most people would rather have as President based on those two contrasting life journeys.
**weird, I have no idea why the above is in red....
---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:33 AM ----------
"Obama phones" are programs started under a different Presidency so low income citizens could have telephone service.
Last edited by Luftmangle; 2012-11-10 at 01:50 AM.
Your premise is the GOP lost because their "message and ideas" didn't resonate with a changing voting demographic and therefore should adapt and change their "message and idea" in order to remain relevant.
I simply disagree with you and say it was the candidates themselves that win or lose elections and not their politics.