Same question I had four years ago.

Run Ron Paul.

According to Fox news they should go further right. Moderation be damned.

The problem was and is the 'my turn' aspect of the Republicans. Romney was a poor choice, and too many Republicans fear the muck machine the Democrats favor. Let's look at Hermann Cain as one example, good choice, appealing, would of cancelled the race card to a point prominant in Democrat politics, had a personality your could actually like, but the 'machine' of the Democrats came up with some temporary accusations, Cain dropped and then as well as now crickets from the left about the all so important a moment ago accusations.

People here on this forum and elsewhere tend to see the far more radical Tea Party movement as the base of the Republican Party, and that is the perception the Democrats maintain in all thier finger pointing. The average and more dominant force are the standard moderate conservative Republican. Look at the battle in Nebraska, Fischer and Kerry, Kerry was pure negative adds, the 'evil', 'rich' landowner, vs me the just back from NY I know your pain Democrat.

Those from the larger eastern states tend to forget the grass root fly over country Republican, and try to jam the same into the mold you percieve and are told 'all' Republicans fit in.

You really need to come out here and see for yourself and stop relieing on fellow journalist to 'paint' the picture you prefere to see.

With the growing problems, and the lack of any real progress other than talk big, promise big, and return nothing, only when that bravo sierra ends will our problems be on the way to recovery.

Nebraska Republicans are far differant than Ohio or Florida Republicans in need and vision. Romney in Nebraska was the ABO candidate, the vote against Obama not for Romney candidate. Middle America wants a Leader not a consensus manager, geared to the Democrat mecccas forgetting us here in flyover country, the farmers out here who feed the Democrat prominant coasts want prices to stabilize, want fuel for thier machines to plant and harvest to be affordable and plentifull, and want the price of thier goods at market to at least meet thier costs.
Nebraska corn is feeder corn(cattle and agri 60% of national supply) and mill corn (Kelloggs, 72% of national supply), every, I say again every corn crop was near 45-60% lower this year based on weather, yet the price on the market went down, and the costs to get the surviving crop to market went up. And the Government did not even see that as a concern because of the election cycle. That alone turned rural Nebraska away from any Democrat candidate.

What will Republicans do, hopefully they will learn and now listen to what thier real core, the moderate conservative has to say, the Republicans won the rural vote in almost all states, but lost to the culture of dependancy urban centers through the fear factor of the Dems stating voter for them they will cut or eliminate your check.

And women are fearfull that if they leave the Democrat 'Plantation' they will get the 'Palin' treatment from thier friends, plain and simple, keep the fear in them and keep em on the 'Plantation' politics.

They have two options. Continue pandering to the loonies on the fringe right and hemorrhage moderate voters to the Democrats and Independents or they can become more secular and moderate in the views and re-gain the ground that they had during the Reagan and Bush eras.

They have to take a look at the fact that they not only lost a race to an incumbent with poor approval ratings, but also lost seats in the senate and house, and failed to pick up vacant seats in red states that should have been "no brainers."

The Republican party has no central figure to tell them what to do, who to vote for, and what to say. The lack of leadership from within is simply astounding.

I honestly don't see it being a major player in another 20 years.

If anything, Obama has done less pandering to the extreme left. He didn't demand a single-payer healthcare system, doubled down in Afghanistan after withdrawing from Iraq, and hasn't said squat about guns. For a moderate to win the Republican nomination, they need to back away from any statements resembling tolerance, bomb an abortion clinic, drag a homosexual behind their campaign bus, and make a stop at the border to shoot at Mexicans. 

oldsoldier wrote: What is the difference between: A. Continue pandering to the loonies on the fringe right and hemorrhage moderate voters to the Democrats and Independents B. Continue pandering to the loonies on the fringe Left and hemorrhage moderate voters to the Republicans and Independents. Both pander to the more radical, and the moderates in between switch as required for the personal interests of the moment. Look at the results, why were the numbers and percentile differences for Obama down from 2008. The faithfull of 2008 saw the reality of 2012. According to most Democrats this should have been a 'landslide' and 'mandate' for Obama, based on the 2008 Cult of Personalityy Campaign and now a 'proven' record, but it was far closer to a 50/50 split than anyone dreamed.

Simply put, Obama's campaign focused less on fringe issues than Romney's. Romney's only strong point in the whole thing was the economy, and I think that's where you'll find Obama lost votes. I think you're failing to take into account lower voter turnouts this year as well. Had we had the same number of people actually making it to the polls as we did in 2008, I think Obama would have won much more succinctly. GOP registered voters historically are more reliable to vote regularly compared to Democratic registered voters.

The GOP simply must get it's ground-game up to par with that of the Democrats in getting non-regular voters out there to vote. What's more, they need to realize that old rich white people are a rapidly dwindling demographic in this nation. Bush Jr. realized it and took a large chunk of the Hispanic vote. Romney could have won FL if he hadn't been so stupid with his "self deportation" line.

I always thought Latinos tended to vote Republican? Or am I just thinking of the S Florida Cuban population? I would think, yes this is a big generalization, that with the prevalence of Catholicism in the Hispanic community that they would tend to lean conservative? Is the swing away from this a sign of more secularism among Hispanics?

usafpilot07 wrote: Republicans can't win unless we nominate a minority or woman in the next election. Too many people rock the vote because they feel a false allegiance to a man with the same skin color as them, rather than giving two **edited**s about politics. Maybe Condi Rice will give us a chance.

I applaud you for having the balls to post this.

Edited by oldpbnoob - 07 November 2012 at 11:19am

A radical leftist president wouldn't have had a chief of staff who tried to bust Unions after he became a mayor. A radical leftists would have demanded a single-payer system. A radical leftist wouldn't have taken wolves off the endangered species list, a radical leftist wouldn't have intervened in Libya. A radical leftist would have pushed an assault-weapons ban and required background checks at gun shows. A radical leftist would have restored diplomatic relations with Cuba. A radical leftist wouldn't have violated Pakistan's sovereignty to kill OBL. A radical leftist wouldn't have doubled down on Afghanistan. A radical leftist wouldn't have continued George Bushes faith-based initiatives.