In Australia, one of our politicians sort of summed up one the big problems with the republican party: it caters to the extremist views. He suggested that the republican party has focused too much on the views of the tea party and completely disregarded the middle ground. The republican party is not moderate enough to attract swing voters, that's why romney lost pretty much all the swing states he suggested.
After two terms of Barack Obama, Republicans will adjust on some key issues for 2016 and be very competitive. One of their governors will emerge as the leading candidate unless Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are legit, which I doubt. Those of you pointing towards the completely irrelevent Jon Huntsman have no clue at all and Chris Christie won't be forgiven in time enough to make a run in 4 years. I'd also say there is a 90% chance a Hispanic or woman is selected as VP if the candidate is a white male.
That's because a lot of tea party people switched to independents. And if independents keep registering democrat it won't matter if republicans keep winning independents.
Jeez, we have talked about this ad nauseum this cycle. In 2010 and after, a bunch of TPers registered as Indies and Indie numbers went up in proportion to Repub numbers going down. The Indies Romney won were nothing more than extreme wingnuts who used to call themselves Repubs. But please, keep hope alive. Don't let me dissuade you of the notion that Conservatism appeals to moderate Independents.
You also were certain that the polls were skewed and that if Romney won independents, he would win the elections - so perhaps you need to change your sources of news and polling info. All you really have to do is look: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx From 2009 to 2012, the number of self-identified Republicans went down (as did Democrats). But while Democrat-leaners also went down, Republican leaders went up. That's people that were Republicans but are now Independents that vote Republican.
Or you can just look at these longer-term charts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-id-became-partisan-and-why-it-shouldnt-be/ Notice that the Republican-leaning population hasn't changed much over the last 20 years, but the number of Republicans have. That means people just don't like calling themselves Republican. What you SHOULD be looking at is who self-described Moderates, not Independents. And that wasn't Romney.
Everything is wrong with his answer, whether you're a slackjawed yokel who literally interprets the Good Book as an exact history, or a cold calculating cyborg logician, man.
Doesn't the dropoff in Dems from 08 (-3) correspond with the increase in Independents (+4)? GOP percentage was unchanged from 08. Seems like the increased indys came at the expense of Dems
Yes - but '08 was a bit of an outlier because lots of people simply identified with Obama in that election. If you look longer term, there's no real change in the Dem ID going all the way back to 1992. The trend away from GOP and to Independents seems to start around 2005, which is when Bush's popularity started cratering.
I respect the fact that you actually belong to a political party. Major doesn't, unless that's changed, not that it changes my respect for him. Anyway, I wanted to ask you a question, since you aren't one of the D&D "joke" Republicans, like basso and (?)texxx. Why did your party lose the election?
