Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[someotherguy]

Republicans still have a card that 'Everyone who voted for Obama just want free stuff'.
I don't buy it, because lately Democrats were the ones to balance budget (yes, even Obama compared to second Bush - at least he put war on budget).
But it's still a card they have, and they got videos of crazy 'free phone lady' and the like to prove their point.

So they don't have to admit defeat. They can say that there are more freeloaders than honest-working people, and keep on battling. They can block all legislation with those comments, and republican voters will support them (I think).

So I think they can be successful (politically at least - in a sense of getting more seats next time) by doubling-down on 'Obama is a socialist' message.

[Roose]

The people drinking the kool-aid will keep chugging that shit down. At least that is what I hear from folks around here.

Conservatism and Baptists are pretty much an unbreakable bond. Kids get indoctrinated young.

The only way I see the Republican party survive is if they adopt a more liberal social stance. That will not happen in many areas. It would be like asking them to go to church on Saturday.

[Wells]

Very astute. I don't have the time but will respond to this thread in due time with pretty good analysis. Both the Rs and Ds will not like what I will say.

btw....glad to be back from my pre-election ban the mods drummed up for me.

I'm really fascinated to find out what you're going to say since you were one of the loudest drummers for a Romney victory.

[Northern Goblin]

Republican policy is tied to their financial powerbase.

Unless they can find a more moderate source of income, they're indebted to the far right to keep running an outdated platform.


Personally, I find the most interesting thing that came out of this election to be a comment by Jon Stewart, Romney won "most of the Confederacy" (and a good chunk of that is turning into battleground states within 20 years at this rate) and that's the only place a far right mindset still seems to apply, as opposed to a more moderate "right of centre" viewpoint. Some places picked out as "key battleground states" weren't much of a battle at all in the end.

Ironically, the best chance for the Republicans would be for a third party to rise up that's left of the centre, who'd be competing with Democrats for votes in more socialist mindset states that the Republicans don't get a look in on. Seeing a left-wing party be the best chance for a far right group to win power would be amusing, if it wasn't for the worrying implications of the far right being in power.

[Rukh]

If they had that sort of insight they wouldn't have lost so terribly this time around. Does that answer your question? ; )

[Bad Ashe]

What exactly is he in denial of? It's easy to say that someone is flat out wrong...it's harder to say why. But unless you have a basis for your claims, you have nothing to claim.

Tell me how there is two sides to a FACT? Then I will allow you to continue telling me that I am in denial.

stop putting words in my mouth and go back to page 1, i stand by what i said in my original post

[Northern Goblin]

A 3 million difference is not "just as many" It's 2.6% of the total votes.

Considering there's roughly 10 million less votes this election than last time, people decided to simply abstain from voting than vote Republican, so I'm not seeing where your idea of "just as many" comes in.

[sulfuric]

stop putting words in my mouth and go back to page 1, i stand by what i said in my original post

You need to clarify then, you're dead wrong. Facts only have one side.

[Ausr]

No. They're not going to blame themselves at all. They're going to blame everyone else in the room. They're going to keep doing what they're doing and nothing will stop them as they fade into irrelevancy as their main power base: old, white people die.

[Chloral]

Knowing them, they will blame every single "abortionist" and person of color instead of realising that their ideas are way too outdated.

[Gheld]

Neither of them would have won. I'm tired of seeing the people on the internet delude themselves into thinking they are some sort of messaihs. The only legitimate candidate the Republicans had this cycle was Huntsman and he got no votes.

I don't know. I really liked Herman Caine, but his first mistake was letting his past catch up with him. Which is survivable, if he didn't make the second mistake which was to deny it.

[artemishunter1]

There is no hole. It wouldn't be a theory if it had a hole.

It would be theory. Scientific does not have to be perfect. It just have to reasonable amount of data that makes the conclusion reasonably correct, but not written stone.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:12 AM ----------

you people are actually fight for the theory of evolution?
that even the Vatican is taking a "well it might be true but it is compatible with religion" stance?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...istianity.html

and as for climate change...well if its not true why one of the biggest company that destroys environment pays huge money to prove it doesn't exist and go as far as to falsify reports from the US congress?

just search coch brothers and you will see...

but then again some of you voted for an agenda promoting rape and discrimination on women.

Well, if a person wants to fight evolution theory that he or she is free to do so. The supporters too have to keep in mind, evolution has not been observed in the laboratory, so far its unproven (might be proven in few decades, as scientists thinking polar bear is adapting to water, and becoming something like water bear if such thing can be called). For now, we do not have physical data to prove it completely. The big bang theory was once thought to be absolute, but now legitate scientists are debating it even though we had just as much proof for it as evolution.

Secondly, these things should not concern average people like us, since we do not fully understand science, and will never be able to since we do not have the critical brain needed for abstract science like this. Supporting any theory like this over another is like clergy reciting Latin in a mass without knowing its meaning.

[Linkedblade]

It seems that the republican party has been in denial for a very long time on a number of issues. Denial about education, denial about America no longer being the "greatest country on earth", America being a Christian nation (it isn't), Denial about evolution, Global warming, the age of the planet, and a plethora of other scientific issues.

Watching the GOP play the blame game and scapegoat everything from the hurricaine, to Romney being a weak candidate, to America full of black and latino voters who "want free shit" has made me realize that they are still in denial. Do you guys think the republican party will admit that they lost based on their ideas being out of touch with the country and change their platform to be more inclusive instead of exclusive? Or will they continue business as usual and further alienate women voters by promising laws limiting their control of their bodies, pressing more de-regulation of banks and big business, and further pursuing their losing platform of 2012?

On the topic of education I have no idea what you are talking about. What is "denial of education?" If you mean they don't believe in the public education system, that would make sense. Public schools are entirely a waste. They undereducate the youth and they suck too much money out of already high taxes. Which leads to a contradiction because the Bush administration DOUBLED the size of the Department of Education.

We still are the greatest coutry on Earth. Granted there may be some dust and grime on this diamond.

There's a big difference between the Republican Party and the Christian beliefs of those in the party. If you knew some recent history of the party you would know that there was an influx of Christian conservatives in the '70's and '80's. That would lead to the disbelief in certain scientific fields.

Romney was a weak candidate. So was Gingrich and Santorum. Early in this election year all the pundits were saying that the Republican Party could run Mickey Mouse against Obama and win. So what do they do? They find a handful of the silliest people they could find. Romney is a serial flip-flopper. He also AGREED with a lot of Obama's policies. (Re: Obamney) Santorum thought he was the perfect the conservative, and when asked what a conservative is he gives the exact definition of socialism. Gingrich thought he was perfect and was actually a moron. John Huntsman? Herman Cain? Tim Pawlenty? McCotter? Does anyone even know those names?

The only person that is an actual conservative is Ron Paul. He was the only one that polled better than Obama, and he had the independents on his side. If he had won the RNC candidacy, we would have a Republican in the white house come January.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:19 AM ----------

No. They're not going to blame themselves at all. They're going to blame everyone else in the room. They're going to keep doing what they're doing and nothing will stop them as they fade into irrelevancy as their main power base: old, white people die.

Conservative Northern Republicans was what freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Oh, hey look at that he was old and white. Learn history and poltics before trying to make a point.

[sulfuric]

Conservative Northern Republicans was what freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Oh, hey look at that he was old and white. Learn history and poltics before trying to make a point.

The only thing the republican party of today has in common with the republican party of Lincoln is the name. I was referring to their denial of our LACK of education in this country.

[Sayl]

Well, if a person wants to fight evolution theory that he or she is free to do so. The supporters too have to keep in mind, evolution has not been observed in the laboratory, so far its unproven...

That's not true.

The big bang theory was once thought to be absolute, but now legitate scientists are debating it even though we had just as much proof for it as evolution.

Also untrue. A cursory review of the history of cosmology shows how preceding and competing ideas developed and were eventually discarded. If a new model comes along which can improve upon the big bang's successful predictions while better explaining existing observations, things may move in a significantly revised or entirely new direction. Perhaps more importantly though: no scientific theory is ever thought to be or presented as an absolute.

[Fuzzzie]

It's a loss yes. It's also an opportunity to move forward. So much damn data has been collected about the voting public that they should really look at.

The religious right isn't going to win you an election. Pandering to special interest that favor ultra right wing abortion laws or anti same-sex marriage legislation is not the direction of a modern conservative movement. Many of good points that conservatives offer are drown in this 1950's social dogma. If the republicans can break this cycle between now and the next election then they will 100% be the party in power.

[Oldsaidfred]

Conservative Northern Republicans was what freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Oh, hey look at that he was old and white. Learn history and poltics before trying to make a point.

Lincoln was a tyrant, who trampled on the Constitution, and didn't care about slavery. Sure, he was a good man, and loved the union, and had very strong personal morals. But tyranny has many forms. Also, there evidence to support that the railroads went all the way up to Canada - not just, or at all, New York. The North was no ally of slavery, and Lincoln did not try to end slavery in the north - only the south.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. - Abraham Lincoln

Please don't criticize others for not knowing history when just perhaps, you also don't know it. :\ Education makes for a better argument than put downs. I don't care if they are rude first - be the better man.

Now, I am a Ron Paul supporter and I agree to Ron Paul beating Obama as well, but lets not glorify Lincoln as some kind of hero. The fact that Lincoln was a Republican, and did what he did, and violated the states' rights, in my mind, only strengthens the connection between Republicans then and now, but in a negative way.

The GOP needs to collapse, or restructure itself into something else. The simple name of Republican does not suggest Republic firstly, and secondly, denotes only negative feelings towards themselves. Fox news especially is responsible for alienating those who are not already Republicans. They are more conservative, like me, but they do not behave that way. They lie, cheat, deceive for their own profit, etc. They stoop to their level, and play their game when they're supposed to be the better group. Not that the left media doesn't do the same, but they do it less often, or with better resources, and arguments. I have more respect for left media anyway. After watching what Fox did to Ron Paul, I now view them as an enemy.


Tl;dr

1, Lincoln was no hero, but a Tyrant, and while I may not agree with how it was carried out, he got what was coming to him.
"sic semper tyrannis"
2, You're trying to use Lincoln as a reason to support Republicans I think. Am I wrong? If I'm correct, then you're using a bad example because he was just a tyrant.

Abandon your struggle to try to redeem the Republicans. Their name brings too much of a negative connotation towards themselves. It'll take a lot of work, and time to get there. And it may even be impossible with their current name.

[Wells]

It's a loss yes. It's also an opportunity to move forward. So much damn data has been collected about the voting public that they should really look at.

Hopefully they get over thinking Karl Rove is good at his job.

[Balazaar]

I'm only one voter, but here's what I based my decision on ...

I was not totally happy with Obama. However, Romney's policies - cut taxes on the wealthy to stimulate the economy - simply doesn't work. We have tried this, and we have actual data to show this is true.

Romney favored vastly increased military spending. Why? Isn't spending more than the next 20-something countries combined enough? Most of those are allies of the US. We could cut our military in half and be perfectly safe.

I'm also pretty liberal when it comes to social policy, even though abortion and gay marriage do not affect me. I don't vote social issues but it was a bonus that I didn't have to accept Romney's social stances to get the economic policy I preferred.

--------------

To that person who doesn't think evolution has been observed in the laboratory ... oh so wrong. We've all seen evolution in action. Why do you think you need a new flu shot every year? The virus evolves and changes rapidly. Bacteria are evolving to become resistant to antibiotics. Evolution in action.

-------------

Will the GOP adapt? Who knows, but what I do know is reality is a harsh mistress and it will return to knock sense into those who refuse to face it every time.

[Wells]

Popular vote results are looking nastier for the GOP as the counting continues.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results