Election Day 2012

• Cleveland Buck

  

  tk421;1314658 wrote:wanting smaller government and voting for Democrats is like a gun owner voting for Democrats. It just doesn't compute.

  It isn't unreasonable to believe that government wouldn't grow as fast under Obama as it would under Romney.
• derek bomar

  

  gut;1314661 wrote:It's Rubio in 2016. No one else has a chance.
  
  Find a way to change the culture of the electorate, otherwise to be relevant the Repubs are going to have to sell their own brand of socialism. Capitalism, self-reliance and individualism are dead.

  Chris Christie?
• majorspark

  

  gut;1314650 wrote:This election is about socialism and govt dependence. People want to be like Europe. I really think everything else is noise - the changing demographics are such that they think the European model works. How do you combat that with the media and our universities mostly in the bag for it? You can't, we will have to go down that path and fail for ourselves.

  If people truly want to be like Europe we are going to have to find a superpower to subsidize our defense needs.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  derek bomar;1314663 wrote:it's because Mitt Romney is Barrack Obama, he's just more black (bigger family - h/t Chris Rock). If you want small gov't but have two big gov't candidates, why not go for the one who is at least socially accepting of all people (Obama)? If the Rs would have nominated an actual small gov't candidate, maybe things would have been different

  You don't have to tell me. And yes the point is that the electorate wanted a fiscally conservative, smaller government alternative and they did not have one.
• ts1227

  

  derek bomar;1314666 wrote:Chris Christie?

  If he runs with a more level headed attitude as he has with this Sandy thing, he'll do great. Very straightforward, but not sticking his foot in his mouth like he has done in the past.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;1314654 wrote:In exit polls a large majority, I think around 60% believed the government does too much and wanted smaller government. Many of them voted for Obama.

  Which means they must be morons. That's a case of where the attack ads worked. I cannot comprehend how people would feel that strongly about it and still vote for Obama.
• believer

  

  gut;1314661 wrote:It's Rubio in 2016. No one else has a chance.
  
  Find a way to change the culture of the electorate, otherwise to be relevant the Repubs are going to have to sell their own brand of socialism. Capitalism, self-reliance and individualism are dead.

  Again I agree.
  
  Get used to on-going economic stagnation, slow growth, higher taxes, and lower standards of living folks.
  
  European socialism is apparently what we want. Where do I sign up for my slice of redistribution?
• tk421

  

  So, what other GOP candidate would have won this election?
• QuakerOats

  se-alum;1314662 wrote:Mitt within 1 point now in Ohio.

  And Romney now back on top in FL by 35,000
• gut

  ts1227;1314671 wrote:If he runs with a more level headed attitude as he has with this Sandy thing, he'll do great. Very straightforward, but not sticking his foot in his mouth like he has done in the past.

  He's toast, unless he switches parties. Right or wrong, he's going to be blamed (between the RNC speech and Sandy). And unless he pegs Jenny Craig as his VP that's another factor working against him.
• Ty Webb

  

  Obama winning 55-44 in Hamilton County per MSNBC
• ts1227

  

  gut;1314675 wrote:He's toast, unless he switches parties. Right or wrong, he's going to be blamed (between the RNC speech and Sandy). And unless he pegs Jenny Craig as his VP that's another factor working against him.

  Depends on if the party pulls its head out of its ass and stops alienating everyone not on the extreme right fringe before 2015 or not.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  tk421;1314673 wrote:So, what other GOP candidate would have won this election?

  The GOP had a fiscally conservative, small government, peace candidate with a 30 year record of standing on those principles. Judging by those exit polls he would have destroyed Obama. Oh well. You live and learn I guess.
• QuakerOats

  QuakerOats;1314674 wrote:And Romney now back on top in FL by 35,000

  
  flipped again, romney down 30,000
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Ty Webb;1314676 wrote:Obama winning 55-44 in Hamilton County per MSNBC

  
  Keep em coming, Darby
• derek bomar

  

  tk421;1314673 wrote:So, what other GOP candidate would have won this election?

  Christie.
• believer

  

  Apparently the American sheeple prefer ineptitude and status quo.
  
  The "bright" side is Obama is an automatic lame duck with Benghazi looming large. He still faces a Repub House and a a Reid Senate.
  
  :rolleyes:
• tk421

  

  more of the same, no budgets passed, Democrats screaming about the House not working with them when the Senate won't do anything, etc. etc.
• derek bomar

  

  side bar - why didn't we have to show ID at the polls in Ohio to vote?
• believer

  

  tk421;1314685 wrote:more of the same, no budgets passed, Democrats screaming about the House not working with them when the Senate won't do anything, etc. etc.

  yup
• gut

  Romney was absolutely the right candidate for an election on the economy. If he wasn't rich, he was about perfect. No one else - Repub, Libertarian, Green or Fruity, carried the qualification, expertise or track record. He made the case, and did it quite well.
  
  The campaign honestly went about as well for the Repubs as could have been expected. Romney had a good run, but he couldn't overcome the shifting demographics or the tanking media. And I don't see anyone out there (other than maybe Rubio, but this was too soon) that could have done better.
  
  The Repubs better shift their sights to a latino and/or woman candidate in 2016.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;1314686 wrote:side bar - why didn't we have to show ID at the polls in Ohio to vote?

  Because you weren't cashing a check?
• gut

  believer;1314683 wrote: The "bright" side is Obama is an automatic lame duck with Benghazi looming large. He still faces a Repub House and a a Reid Senate.

  That's not productive. That's not going to fix anything, and status quo won't cut it. Turn our eyes to 2014 I suppose.
  
  My fingers are crossed that business throws in the towel and starts putting their cash to work. Waiting out Obama for a year or two is a lot different than 4 years with no clue what direction we go from there.
• Ty Webb

  

  gut;1314689 wrote:Romney was absolutely the right candidate for an election on the economy. If he wasn't rich, he was about perfect. No one else - Repub, Libertarian, Green or Fruity, carried the qualification, expertise or track record. He made the case, and did it quite well.
  
  The campaign honestly went about as well for the Repubs as could have been expected. Romney had a good run, but he couldn't overcome the shifting demographics or the tanking media. And I don't see anyone out there (other than maybe Rubio, but this was too soon) that could have done better.
  
  The Repubs better shift their sights to a latino and/or woman candidate in 2016.

  Great,Great point gut
• tk421

  

  4 more years for Obama to fudge, er I mean get those unemployment numbers down. With Obamacare scheduled to hit in the middle of his 2nd term, bet UE will be over 8% in 2016.
  
  Already we've had businesses say what they are going to do, with 30 hours/week being the cutoff everyone on salary is going to see their hours cut to 28/week. Save 3,000/employee with the penalty.