You won, it's your country now.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by nyctomjetsfan

The people simply don't like flip floppers who try to win their vote with used carsalesman tactics.

The mans entire economic plan was "I'm a businessman, I can fix it, trust me". Everytime he was asked for specifics he gave none because he knew the crap he was throwing at the wall won't stick.

To add to thar Romney had no plan for anything. The guy spent 2/3 of his campaign pandering to lunatic teabagger ideologies. Then when it came time for the debates he became a moderate. It was downright comical how he practically agreed with Obama on everything in that foreign policy debate.

Sigh, how can you blame him. A big part of me thinks he deserves a lot of credit. How a true moderate was able to come out of that primary as the candidate, I dunno. All fair points though.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by nyctomjetsfan

The people simply don't like flip floppers who try to win their vote with used carsalesman tactics.

The mans entire economic plan was "I'm a businessman, I can fix it, trust me". Everytime he was asked for specifics he gave none because he knew the crap he was throwing at the wall won't stick.

To add to thar Romney had no plan for anything. The guy spent 2/3 of his campaign pandering to lunatic teabagger ideologies. Then when it came time for the debates he became a moderate. It was downright comical how he practically agreed with Obama on everything in that foreign policy debate.

If you would do more than watch the news you would have been able to read the specifics on Romney's plan. Again, what is Obama's plan other than playing Robin Hood?

Also if you knew anything, Romney's foreign policy plan was pretty much identical to Obama's other than the policy of bombing everyone and apologizing for previous American success and autonomy. They both planned to stick to the 2014 timeline on Afghanistan.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Trades

I think the smart money will end up off shore and underground through barter.

In fact, many companies hedged just this. The big boys ALL have multi billion dollar investments in emerging markets. That's money and jobs elsewhere. Exxon, Boeing, Coke, Pepsi, J&J, P&G, Walmart. And the product outsourcing has also increased. Smart.
The only significant expansion INSIDE the U.S. is in non union "right to work" states. BUT, the doesn't help job creators in the country who can not expand overseas - the little companies. Layoffs coming - everywhere from small retail to the dentist's office.
As far as people with money invested, watch for fewer donations. And money suddenly "disappearing".
CPA hasn't been posting as much because he's busy at work finding ways to financially advise his clients. LOL. My CFP certainly is.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Do you really think "closing tax loopholes" resonates with most Americans?? This is exactly what I mean. Its BORING. Its wonkish. It doesnt work. You may WANT it to resonate but it simply doesnt.

And gee, I wonder why he couldn't pass a buget.

So you are saying we are at the point where voters need to be entertained and are too stupid to care about the future of the country? If you can't understand then you shouldn't vote.

Maybe Warfish is right, it is time to give up.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by Trades

If you would do more than watch the news you would have been able to read the specifics on Romney's plan. Again, what is Obama's plan other than playing Robin Hood?

Also if you knew anything, Romney's foreign policy plan was pretty much identical to Obama's other than the policy of bombing everyone and apologizing for previous American success and autonomy. They both planned to stick to the 2014 timeline on Afghanistan.

I don't think he did a good job explaining it though. Again, come up with some key words that work for the general public. Give them a pamphlet with pretty colors and key phrases in bold. Pretend your talking to my senile grandma. It worked for Obama.

I understand all the ground to cover and the depth involved but that should have been part of the campaign's job. They really had NOBODY with a Marketing degree in their camp?

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by Trades

So you are saying we are at the point where voters need to be entertained and are too stupid to care about the future of the country? If you can't understand then you shouldn't vote.

Maybe Warfish is right, it is time to give up.

YES.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by HessStation

YES.

Then it is time to start over.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by Trades

Then it is time to start over.

Agreed.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by HessStation

Whoa whoa! I thought I was done in here for a while but I can't pull away yet. You guys are just great. Anyway I completely disagree it's fiscal policies that are hurting the GOP. There is zero doubt in my mind it's all based on social issues. They are soooo out of touch here it cripples everything else thy stand for.

This. I don't care how fiscally conservative they are, a gay guy isn't likely to vote for the party that has a hissy fit over gay marriage. Hispanics aren't likely to vote for the party that views immigration reform as a non-starter. Young people aren't likely to vote for a party that is seen as socially regressive. Women aren't likely to vote for the party that keeps nominating candidates who don't know how to talk about rape without kicking themselves in the uvula.

Kick the social conservatives to the curb and the GOP has more than a fighting chance - it likely dominates. It shouldn't be hard to do, either - if you're in favor of personal liberty, then you should be in favor of getting government out of the bedroom as well as out of your pocket.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Libertarianism.

Have to accept that the coalition of evangelicals and Fox viewers will not win you the white house, even if that coalition succeeds in the former Confederate states and conservative districts around the nation.

Ron Paul would have mounted a greater challenge to Obama, but the GOP laughed him off, while the "mainstream" candidates one-upped each other on Iran war rhetoric and religious zealotry.

No. Ron Paul would have lost 49 states.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Trades

So you are saying we are at the point where voters need to be entertained and are too stupid to care about the future of the country? If you can't understand then you shouldn't vote.

Maybe Warfish is right, it is time to give up.

I don't think it's time to give up. They just need to change their strategy.

Keep it simple:

Balanced budget
Simplified progressive tax code
Baseline government supplemented by private industry
Encourage American jobs
Stand for individual freedom
Embrace science
End the empire

There are many Republicans who believe they already do most of the above. They don't.

[DDNYjets]

Anybody following the markets today? Not exactly showing their faith.

But they are evil so we should just ignore it.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

No. Ron Paul would have lost 49 states.

Agreed. He's the wrong guy to carry the right message.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agreed. It's all (in the end) a basic math problem.

95%+ of African Americans
65%+ of Hispanics and growing
55%+ of Women and growing

And the population of African Americans, Hispanics and Women is growing, and if immigration reform (amnesty) passes, will grow greatly between now and 2016, 2020 and 2024.

All of this lopsided support based, it seems to me, on policies that (R) cannot simply abandon without going ahead and being (D V2.0).

I'd be all ears to hear what the resident (D) geniuses think (R) can do to change the demograhic math problem.

Should (R) be for illegal immigration?

For illegal immigration? No. But Rubio's Dream Act would be a good piece of ground to occupy.

For Affirmative Action and Welfare and Massive Government?

No, but you don't need to be to get out from social issue hell.

For Universal Healthcare, Abortion on Demand and Free Rubbers for 1st graders on up?

No. But GOPers should stop talking about abortion because that fight is over, plain and simple. There is no scenario in which abortion becomes illegal and no candidate who really intends to do anything about it. It's simply a dog whistle to the social conservatives: "I'm one of you". It's one reason I don't care about a candidate's views on abortion at all; everyone is entitled to their private view on those issues, and it won't have any public impact anyway.

If so, we already have that party. They're called (D).

No. You can be fiscally conservative and pro-Gay Marriage. You can be fiscally conservative and pro-immigration reform. You can be true to the constitution and not demand that the country be governed in line with christian interpretations of God's will.

In all seriousness, I see no position (R) can take without the wholesale abandonment of conservativism, that will change the demographic defeat we just saw.

Keep the fiscal conservatism and constitutional fidelity. That's the one selling point the Republican party has, and it resonates. It's the other baggage that screws the GOP.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by parafly

I don't think it's time to give up. They just need to change their strategy.

Keep it simple:

Balanced budget
Simplified progressive tax code
Baseline government supplemented by private industry
Encourage American jobs
Stand for individual freedom
Embrace science
End the empire

There are many Republicans who believe they already do most of the above. They don't.

The problem is it's not simple. You can't pass catch phrases into law.

Does your balanced budget involve increasing taxes?

Nope, not in favor.

Does your new tax policy involve closing so called "loop holes" without reducing base tax rates to conpensate?

Not in favor

I don't even know what your third line item means.

As for your 4th, does encouraging American jobs involve subsidizing American industry? Does it involve further public "investment" in education.

Nope, not in favor.

Individual freedom.

Which ones? No one wants them all.

Embrace Science. Sure. I don't know how you translate that into policy however.

End the Empire. This would probable be twisted as warmongering or divisive and be a net negative.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Words

Appreciate your effort, but I'd suggest you save it for others. When I say I don't care, I mean it. I'm finished with theis system as it's currently constructed. As I often repeat, I know my history, and as such I know when it's time to shut up and get mine.

As I have not a single nice word to say, I should at least be civil, and choose to say nothing. Everything I stand for economicly and policy wise is beaten. When you're in that spot, you don't fight, you quiet down, and profit from it. I assure you, my reference from earlier is apt, I will be the Commisar, I will not be the Khulak.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Axil

Individual freedom.

Which ones? No one wants them all.

I do.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Appreciate your effort, but I'd suggest you save it for others. When I say I don't care, I mean it. I'm finished with theis system as it's currently constructed. As I often repeat, I know my history, and as such I know when it's time to shut up and get mine.

As I have not a single nice word to say, I should at least be civil, and choose to say nothing. Everything I stand for economicly and policy wise is beaten. When you're in that spot, you don't fight, you quiet down, and profit from it. I assure you, my reference from earlier is apt, I will be the Commisar, I will not be the Khulak.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Axil

The problem is it's not simple. You can't pass catch phrases into law.

Of course, the devil is in the details. We can get into elaborate debates on each one of those topics, but it's probably not the time.

The point is stick to those general principals and you'll gain support. The "fiscally conservative" and "small government" positions do not work if you don't actually follow through on them. I laugh every time I hear a Republican mention those words because the reality is they have done nothing but increase deficits, increase the police state, and marginalize the rights of minorities.

[jetrider]

Originally Posted by shakin318

Couldn't have been two more differing visions for America than what was represented in the candidates last night. Obama's vision won, regardless of whether or not those voting for him (or anybody else) have any idea of what that vision really is. By 2016 and beyond, it really won't matter who's running on the R ticket -- he or she won't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. There will simply be far too many more "Americans" who vote for a living rather than work for a living by then. Elections are a lock for D presidential candidates from here on out, so as I said in the title, it's your country now. Enjoy!

Originally Posted by crasherino

Oh stop being a drama queen. As for visions, do we really know Mitt Romney's vision is/was? You can put down Obama all you want, but the fact remains that the GOP put forth a sh!tty candidate.

I agree with all but the bolded parts.

First of all, don't blame Obama for Obama, blame Bush. Obama is Bush's doing.

In the aftermath of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal no Democrat stood a chance for election in 2000. Gore wasted his efforts, the majority voted anti-Dem.

Following Bush & Cheney's eight year economic assraping of America, the worst case in US history, no Republican stood a chance in the '08 election. Obama didn't impress anyone per se. He won by default; the country voted anti-Republican. Anybody, even the first black presidential candidate, was a lock as long as he wasn't Republican.

Bush blew the lid off of 'conservatism'. It'll take decades now to clean up the disaster made by W's profiteering greed machine. He is the devil, this is the fallout, the price we (and our children) will pay for a very long time. Don't blame Obama, he saved us from idiots McCain & Palin.

I like Romney, really thought he'd win. He's a quality guy that might've done a superb job and been the answer, the savior we're hoping for.

But this time around the presidency was Obama's job to lose and he didn't blow it. Given a four-year sample, the people voted fair and square, calmly and cautiously, and made the safe conservative choice. This nation wants a leader that will put the people first, not use them as cattle to feed a secret snotty wealthy clique.

Bottom line, Romney's pitch wasn't enough to dissuade or persuade voters. Perhaps he retried too soon.

The results are proof this country still doesn't trust Republicans enough to gamble in a new direction and there is only one person to thank: