Electability was trumping ideological purity—just as the establishment had planned.
What good does unelectable ideological purity do for anyone?
Going to respond to myself.
If ideological purity trumps electability, then the ideologically pure should be thrilled to lose campaigns and remain pure.
It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment. That's a good thing. In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with. Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election. That's the way it works. No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity." If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability. That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.
It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment. That's a good thing. In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with. Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election. That's the way it works. No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity." If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability. That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.
It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment. That's a good thing. In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with. Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election. That's the way it works. No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity." If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability. That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.
Leader McConnell was less vulnerable before millions of dollars were spent by "conservative" groups against him. How many times have I read "conservatives" write McConnell, McCain, and Graham should step aside?
I both supported and voted for Romney. And I would vote for him again today. I tried to support McCain but he is such a freakin weirdo, I couldn't. And everytime I went to one of his rallies, all he wanted to talk about was what a great guy Obama is. McCain was a joke.
I do not lump Romney in with the that crowd. It is a national tragedy that Romney was not elected. IMO
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
Integrity and politics are like oil and water, no matter how ideologically pure one's particular segment of the political environment he walks on. Both McCain and Romney had their faults for sure, but any suggestion they would have traveled down the same path as Obama is absurd. And to double down on that absurdity, does anyone think McConnell and Reid would handle the Senate in the same way?
Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
If you think establishment Republicans are going to do anything or change anything, well then I would have to disagree. They are all DNC/RNC status quo club.
Democrats want to rush to off the cliff at 100 miles an hour. Establishment Republicans agree about going the same direction and going off the same cliff, no problem there. The only difference is that they want to do it at 50 miles an hour.
Agree. Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president. In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud.
One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected. The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!
Agree. Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president. In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud.
One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected. The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!
Agree. Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president. In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud.
One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected. The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!
Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
If you think establishment Republicans are going to do anything or change anything, well then I would have to disagree. They are all DNC/RNC status quo club.
Democrats want to rush to off the cliff at 100 miles an hour. Establishment Republicans agree about going the same direction and going off the same cliff, no problem there. The only difference is that they want to do it at 50 miles an hour.
I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.
I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.
I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.
Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
Agree. Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president. In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud.
One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected. The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!
That is my opinion as well, and I will never be convinced otherwise.
W O R D
I will never understand how the number of Potential Voters DECREASED by approximately 10 million in 2012.
Anybody, anybody??? Bueller...
That's the first time that I've heard that.
Can you give me some links and background?
I tried Googling a decrease in potential voters in 2012 and got nothing.
Despite an increase of over eight million citizens in the eligible population, turnout declined from 131 million voters in 2008 to an estimated 126 million voters in 2012 when all ballots are tallied. Some 93 million eligible citizens did not vote.
They are saying there were 8 million more eligible voters in 2012 over 2008
according to http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/2012-voter-turnout
They are saying there were 8 million more eligible voters in 2012 over 2008
according to http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/2012-voter-turnout
They are saying there were 8 million more eligible voters in 2012 over 2008
I found post #108 and it doesn't have the link...I'll find it
Polls do not account for fraud.
The shrinkage of the voter age population from 2008 to 2012 is a mystery to me.
2008..Voting Age Pop=229,945,000..Turnout=131,407,000.
2012..Voting age pop=211,731,000..Turnout=121,745,000.
Why after decades of consistent increased voting age population did it decrease from 229,945,000 in 2008 to 211,731,000 in 2012????
That's the first time that I've heard that.
Can you give me some links and background?
I tried Googling a decrease in potential voters in 2012 and got nothing.
I posted information here about all that some time back. Let me see if I can find it.
I do remember what I thought the cause was and will say it again here. Southern Baptists who would not vote for Obama and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney because of his religion.
And 6 million people less turned out. Can understand it - 2008 was history. 2012 was "same old story."
That's the first time that I've heard that.
Can you give me some links and background?
I tried Googling a decrease in potential voters in 2012 and got nothing.
McCain and Romney got about the same number of votes. 60.6 million for Romney and McCain got 59.9 million votes. Obama lost 6 million but they didn't vote GOP. They just didn't vote.
I found post #108 and it doesn't have the link...I'll find it
Polls do not account for fraud.
The shrinkage of the voter age population from 2008 to 2012 is a mystery to me.
2008..Voting Age Pop=229,945,000..Turnout=131,407,000.
2012..Voting age pop=211,731,000..Turnout=121,745,000.
Why after decades of consistent increased voting age population did it decrease from 229,945,000 in 2008 to 211,731,000 in 2012????
U.S. deaths surpassed 2.5 million for the first time last year, reflecting the nation's growing and aging population.
The increase of about 45,000 more deaths than in 2010 was not surprising. The annual number of deaths has been generally rising for decades as the population has swelled.
"If you have an older population, of course you have more deaths," said Qian Cai, a University of Virginia demographer who studies population trends. "That doesn't mean the population is less healthy or less vital."
Before last year, the largest number of deaths was 2.47 million in 2008. The number of deaths can jump up or down from year to year, depending on whether there was a bad flu season or other factors.
Real conservatives vote rat.
I found post #108 and it doesn't have the link...I'll find it
Polls do not account for fraud.
The shrinkage of the voter age population from 2008 to 2012 is a mystery to me.
2008..Voting Age Pop=229,945,000..Turnout=131,407,000.
2012..Voting age pop=211,731,000..Turnout=121,745,000.
Why after decades of consistent increased voting age population did it decrease from 229,945,000 in 2008 to 211,731,000 in 2012????
Your figures are incorrect:Thanks for the investigative work.
Voting age population 2008 = 230,872,030 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
Voting age population 2012 = 240,926,957 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html
It took me a while to find out, and I had almost decided that all my other research must have been it, when I realized that I had not considered the possibility of your numbers being wrong.
It looks like they were.
The most pure vote a real conservative can cast is for a pro-abortion/pro-Marxist Democrat, if the GOP candidate isn't a real conservative. :silly:One of two candidates will win in 2016. One is more evil, and one is less evil. Pick your candidate. It is a tough decision for real conservatives.
Your figures are incorrect:
Voting age population 2008 = 230,872,030 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
Voting age population 2012 = 240,926,957 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html
It took me a while to find out, and I had almost decided that all my other research must have been it, when I realized that I had not considered the possibility of your numbers being wrong.
It looks like they were.
I guess we can just sum it up as bad information from Wikipedia but I have always considered them a fairly reasonable source. And, since we're dealing with RATs and fraud in the 2012 election, I thought it very curious that the number of people of voting age had actually decreased from 2008. Maybe that's why, it didn't happen.
Bad Wiki???
Actually, I thought Obama lost 8 million but with all these different numbers floating around, who knows.
My hypothesis: Republicans did vote and "something" happened to the voting process.
Actually, I thought Obama lost 8 million but with all these different numbers floating around, who knows.
My hypothesis: Republicans did vote and "something" happened to the voting process.
Luis....Luis....Luis.
Sitting here in amazement that somebody with the wit and intellect you possess, can appear so naive. Thought only women did that to us. LOL!
In the digital world it's not inconceivable that machines can be rigged to the point that at regular patterns, votes can be assigned to another candidate.
There's no effing way 5 MILLION people stayed home in spite, having lived through sh*t for 4 years already. NONE.
Any Christian Democrat or Republican can plainly see that Romney is the kind of man any boy would want to grow up to be....and any old man wished he had been. Especially when held up to Barack Hussein Obama.
Might not have a degree in political science, but I have a Master's in common sense. :patriot:
Luis....Luis....Luis.
Sitting here in amazement that somebody with the wit and intellect you possess, can appear so naive. Thought only women did that to us. LOL!
In the digital world it's not inconceivable that machines can be rigged to the point that at regular patterns, votes can be assigned to another candidate.
There's no effing way 5 MILLION people stayed home in spite, having lived through sh*t for 4 years already. NONE.
Any Christian Democrat or Republican can plainly see that Romney is the kind of man any boy would want to grow up to be....and any old man wished he had been. Especially when held up to Barack Hussein Obama.
Might not have a degree in political science, but I have a Master's in common sense. :patriot:
"There's no effing way 5 MILLION people stayed home in spite, having lived through sh*t for 4 years already. NONE."
WORD!!
And, although I don't have a whole lot of respect for the average republican voter, I'm not ready to relegate them to the status of LIVs.
...anyway, even a Maryland voter like myself who feels totally disenfranchised, has never failed to vote. Probably naive to think it means anything but I'd rather go down fighting.
...anyway, even a Maryland voter like myself who feels totally disenfranchised, has never failed to vote. Probably naive to think it means anything but I'd rather go down fighting.
I don't see a dime's worth of difference between millions staying home in 2012, and millions voting for Perot 20 years earlier.Perot was the quintessential example of democrat triangulation. The basic strategy has reared it's ugly head ever since.
Perot was the quintessential example of democrat triangulation. The basic strategy has reared it's ugly head ever since.
Dims pull every trick in the book to split the republican vote, and it works, and they know it works.
But, I see we're in a pointless cycle of difference of opinion so, I'll back out.
Luis....Luis....Luis.
Sitting here in amazement that somebody with the wit and intellect you possess, can appear so naive. Thought only women did that to us. LOL!
In the digital world it's not inconceivable that machines can be rigged to the point that at regular patterns, votes can be assigned to another candidate.
There's no effing way 5 MILLION people stayed home in spite, having lived through sh*t for 4 years already. NONE.
Any Christian Democrat or Republican can plainly see that Romney is the kind of man any boy would want to grow up to be....and any old man wished he had been. Especially when held up to Barack Hussein Obama.
Might not have a degree in political science, but I have a Master's in common sense. :patriot:
Exactly, DC, exactly. I think that even a HS diploma in common sense is enough.
There is no reasonable way to explain that all of the people thoroughly disgusted in 2010 (enough to the point of providing the largest Republican takeover in many decades, especially if you look at the governorships, and state & local elections), all decided it was much better in 2012. No. In fact, there were even more people even more thoroughly disgusted in 2012 than 2010 (as logic and reality would dictate). They didn't stay home because they didn't want to vote for a Mormon. They would have voted for a Martian if they had to. I also know what I saw, both with my own eyes and from reports of family members and associates all across the country -- Romney-Ryan were SRO, people were lined up for blocks in parking lots all over just to hear the PA or get a glimpse of the rally on a jumbotron. All over the country (including many swing states), people were lining up HOURS before the rallies. Contrast that to the widely reported (at least in the alternative media) fact that they had to pay people with food and vouchers and bus them into to the incumbent's rallies. Yup, I am supposed to believe that they all just decided to stay home. lol
"There's no effing way 5 MILLION people stayed home in spite, having lived through sh*t for 4 years already. NONE."
WORD!!
And, although I don't have a whole lot of respect for the average republican voter, I'm not ready to relegate them to the status of LIVs.
There is a vast sea of difference between "no reasonable way" and "no way that I will accept".
The later has been proclaimed by more than a few times on this thread.
For me Luis, it is both. To use the vernacular, "No F'ing way!!" lol
If they can get away with voter fraud of the magnitude that you're all suggesting with complete impunity, then we may as well all shut down sites like these and stop arguing about whether this candidate or that candidate is better than the candidate from the opposing party. May as well stop voting too.
They won.
If they can get away with voter fraud of the magnitude that you're all suggesting with complete impunity, then we may as well all shut down sites like these and stop arguing about whether this candidate or that candidate is better than the candidate from the opposing party. May as well stop voting too.
They won.
WORD is right!! In 2012 there were far more utterly DISGUSTED voters than 2010, it took a bit longer for some.
Don't ask me to believe, not for a moment, that the 2010 voters changed their minds..... since it has all been going DOWNHILL bigtime since 2008, there will be more and more voters thoroughly disgusted in 2014 as well (ever take a gander at the comments at any of the mainstream media sites??). That is a big reason as to why we are led to expect a big GOP gain in 2014. So if it doesn't happen, are we supposed to believe once again that the GOP voters just decided to stay home?? Really??
I keep saying. There is a simple and effective way of preventing (or at least reducing) voter fraud. We do it as a matter of course here. You have your polling card and you are allocated a local polling station. That is the only place you may vote, and you confirm your name and address to the poll workers BEFORE you vote, either by showing the card or your driving license. Your name is then crossed off the list. If you requested a postal vote - your name is already crossed off. You simply can not vote in person. If you failed to send in the postal vote - tough. Organize yourself better next time.
Since the list is in address order, it becomes pretty damned obvious when you have 10 adults registered to vote in a two bedroom house. Throw in the fact that your property tax (we call it Council Tax) is partly based on the number of occupants and much of the incentive to rig the vote is gone. We don't have the problem of "missing" military votes - any active duty member of the military is quite simply not permitted to vote. It's one of the things we give up to serve.
If Afghans and Iraqis can run legit elections - why the hell can't the USA?
Not if you listen to DC.
The fraud is conducted after the actual votes are cast.
They won.
In 2012 the democrat incumbent with a horrible record received roughly 8 million less votes than he did in 2008.
Our guy got roughly 3 million less votes than the terrible 2008 candidate for our side did in 2008
We still loose by nearly 2 million votes.
WHY did that happen especially in view of what had happened in the 2010 midterms?
For the very same reason that Peyton Manning and the Broncos got their asses handed to them by the Seattle Seahawks.The fact that he can't lead a football team in cold weather seems to be a non sequitur here.
The fact that he can't lead a football team in cold weather seems to be a non sequitur here.
The fact that he can't lead a football team in cold weather seems to be a non sequitur here.
For the very same reason that Peyton Manning and the Broncos got their asses handed to them by the Seattle Seahawks.
Brilliant!
Damn! Why didn't I think of that?
Perot was the quintessential example of democrat triangulation. The basic strategy has reared it's ugly head ever since.It wasn't new. In 1948 Strom Thurmond got 1.2 million votes (2.5%), in 1968 George Wallace got 9.9 million votes (13.5%), in 1980 John Anderson got 5.7 million votes (6%) to cite a few times in the past.
Dims pull every trick in the book to split the republican vote, and it works, and they know it works.
But, I see we're in a pointless cycle of difference of opinion so, I'll back out.
There is a republican here in SC that didn't want to run against Hailey in a primary, so he is running as an Independent Republican in the state election for Governor. I am so mad I could spit nails!!! **nononono*These types, including Nader along with those above, are publicity seekers. And disruptors.