On another note, interesting tidbit:

 

Every time U2 has released an album in an election year, a Republican has won. #BeinfestU2Facts #BonoIsLookingOutForDems

 

 

 

Also, a Republican has not won without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928. #Jeb2016

Terrible candidate. Came from a primary where he couldn't knock off weak competition like Gingrich and Santorum with pure ease, despite having the bigger name and more money.

It took someone like Bill Clinton to come in and shut down the more ideaological suicide wing of the party. Now everything has shifted. I dont know if it will happen in 2016, but at some point, a centrist, pro gay marriage, pro choice anti-extremist candidate will emerge from the right.

 

I wouldn't expect a pro-choice candidate. Whereas the numbers are strong and improving re: gay marriage approval, I don't see such a shift regarding abortion.

Pro-life can be justified. Anti-gay marriage cannot.

 

What I mean by that is... scientifically, there's an argument to abortion and what you believe there. Personally, I'm pro-choice. I still frown upon abortions and think they're wrong, but I feel as though it's not my call to make (however very dependent on the situation).

 

WIth gay marriage though, there's no logic you can place forth to deny it.

Ah, I made no assumptions about anyone.

 

 

Yeah you did. Holy crap, you're amazing.

It took someone like Bill Clinton to come in and shut down the more ideaological suicide wing of the party. Now everything has shifted. I dont know if it will happen in 2016, but at some point, a centrist, pro gay marriage, pro choice anti-extremist candidate will emerge from the right.

 

I wouldn't expect a pro-choice candidate. Whereas the numbers are strong and improving re: gay marriage approval, I don't see such a shift regarding abortion.

 

I expect Hillary Clinton to run in the next 8 years.

 

I'm afraid to say it but I think she can win.

The Republican Party needs to actually define what it stands for. There needs to be some ideological consistency within the Party. You can't pretend to stand for small-government and have no real plan for cutting spending. I think Rand Paul would be a great candidate in 2016. He's more willing to compromise than his father, and he's more articulate and charismatic. I just hope the Republicans move in that direction and not towards a more moderate one with pragmatism being the driving ideology. That's undefinable.

The Republican Party needs to actually define what it stands for. There needs to be some ideological consistency within the Party. You can't pretend to stand for small-government and have no real plan for cutting spending. I think Rand Paul would be a great candidate in 2016. He's more willing to compromise than his father, and he's more articulate and charismatic. I just hope the Republicans move in that direction and not towards a more moderate one with pragmatism being the driving ideology. That's undefinable.

 

Exactly.

 

Thinking back on this, the primaries were a succession of "anybody but Romney" -- Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich.

 

Romney beat 'em all, one after another. He countered his reputation for philosophical mush by picking Ryan and was starting to sound like an actual conservative. Until he went moderate and "reasonable" -- don't want scare scare the wimmin or the horses -- late in the game.

 

And he wound up like other faux conservatives Dole and McCain and Bush 41 (and Bush 43 for that matter, even though he squeaked by in '00.) While he got a few more votes in some of the contested states than did McCain, the fact that he'll wind up with many million fewer total votes than McCain got in '08 is just more evidence that mushy conservatism doesn't excite voters in the least. Turn-out was a failure, which only demonstrates that people won't bother to vote without good, clearly stated reasons.

 

So, yeah, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan or some other hard-core conservative with principles who actually will do some real slicing of the budget and who actually understand the imperative of growth and the effects of marginal tax rates is needed. Enough of the moderate schmucks. And enough of the bible-thumpers.

 

The country will be ready for a real conservative after 4 more years of economic disaster.

 

The only good thing about this defeat is that Big Bird-in-chief gets to deal with what he has wrought in the last 4 years. The next 4 years will be painful, but they'll put an end to the idiocy.

Rand Paul is probably close to Rubio and Ryan on economic issues - but on social issues, which is really the cause for the rejection of the Republican party among Hispanics and women, he's where we need to be. People like Rubio and Ryan, however, don't seem too fixed on social beliefs and would eventually come around if the Party decides to take the libertarian route.

The problem is coming up with things to actually cut that are politically palatable. If you saying you're cutting defense, that's a problem with large segments of the electorate. The same is true should you attempt to cut Medicare or Social Security. As long as Democrats have socially liberal stances too, it will be difficult for a fiscal libertarian to gain the consensus needed to win a general election.

It's the notion of a Dixiecrat. Either change with the times or get left behind.

The right kind of charismatic messenger can deliver a "cut it all" approach until it is fixed. You answer the stupid "won't prioritize" canard with "My priority is the fiscal survival of the Republic, we can fight over what we are going to spend money on when we have money to spend"

The right kind of charismatic messenger can deliver a "cut it all" approach until it is fixed. You answer the stupid "won't prioritize" canard with "My priority is the fiscal survival of the Republic, we can fight over what we are going to spend money on when we have money to spend"

 

I think that's pretty dubious, but time may tell.