[BlackcatAlum]

Obama won nearly ever major city in every state. Like in Ohio & Kentucky: He won Louisville & Lexington. He won Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and Cleveland in Ohio. It's like that in almost every state.

So how does a republican win these areas in future elections?

It's apparent that racism is still very alive in this great nation. I don't have actual facts, but I'm willing to bet that Obama got nearly 80% of the minority vote. Romney got much less than that from the whites, but I'm sure it was still over 60%.

[SKINNYPIG]

Will there ever be another Republican President? First, we gotta define "Republican".

[BlackcatAlum]

I'm certainly no big political guru. Followed this past election closely, but I'm just looking for everyones opinion on how a republican president may ever win another election when it seems like the democrats have the minority vote.

[vector]

I'm certainly no big political guru. Followed this past election closely, but I'm just looking for everyones opinion on how a republican president may ever win another election when it seems like the democrats have the minority vote.

simple change there message romney runned a smart campaign talked crazy in the primary to his base move to the middle in the fall but the people are smarter than that

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Obama won nearly ever major city in every state. Like in Ohio & Kentucky: He won Louisville & Lexington. He won Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and Cleveland in Ohio. It's like that in almost every state.

So how does a republican win these areas in future elections?

It's apparent that racism is still very alive in this great nation. I don't have actual facts, but I'm willing to bet that Obama got nearly 80% of the minority vote. Romney got much less than that from the whites, but I'm sure it was still over 60%.

The answer is "No". For the Republicans to win they will have to become Democrats. And, that won't work because the Democrats already have the vote cornered for the segment to whom they appeal- minorities of all colors and persuasions, single women, students, unions, secular humanists, and, of course, the takers (who are overwhelmingly represented in the aforementioned groups).

Why do Democrats always win the large urban areas? Surely, you don't need to ask. Everyone knows the answer to that question. Need an example? In six Philadelphia inter city precincts, Obama got over 99% of the vote. I'm sure it was not much different in select precincts throughout urban America.

That is just how it is in this day and time. They can talk "demographics" all they want. The only demographic that is relevant is that, unlike 30 years ago, the takers have become the deciding factor in national elections. That won't change. It will only increase until the country goes under because of a lack of income tax payers sufficient to support the rest of them.

Not politically correct? Of course not. But true.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/opinion/ca...?hpt=hp_t2

[Beetle01]

Well the good news and bad news at the same time is the Democrats won't rule for long, because financially as a nation we don't have much more to give. I don't think many Democrats truly understand how close we are to the brink of a financial meltdown.

Many of our strongest corporations are struggling, the government has been overspending for more than a decade, with only increased spending on the horizon.

What else do Democrats want? Do they not realize how truly close we are to falling off the financial cliff? what happens then? No more handouts, jobless rates over 20%, and the dollar will be worth nothing more than something to wipe your butt with.

I believe they are truly in denial, or think that these 1%'s will be able to pay for it all, but even if we took everything they had, it wouldn't put a dent in the debt we will be facing. According to Obama's own predictions the debt will break 20 trillion by the end of his 2nd term.

[WideRight05]

Yes.

People have blown this victory way out of proportion. There have been times in history where the republican party had a stronger voice in congress, and times the democratic party had a stronger voice in congress. This is just a time that the democrats have a stronger voice. Just eight years ago George Bush was re-elected to a second term. Given his low approval ratings (especially with the democratic party) he was still re-elected. People forget just how hard it is to vote out a sitting president.

Then, you throw in the race factor. Whether the liberals like to hear it or not, the next person they send out will likely be white. We also know that the democrats are not going to put out somebody that has the power, the strength that Obama has to be able to tell people what they want to hear. Obama is an amazing speaker, and I doubt they will send somebody that comes across as convincing as Obama does. The republicans will be back. Unless they do something to totally blow it, they will have a huge advantage in the house and likely will be able to gain back a couple of senate seats at mid-terms.

Electing the Kardashian (I don't give a shit what you think LWC) back to a second term will have major consequences. Somebody will have to take responsibility for the problem. Obama is running out of people to blame. Bush may have provided a somewhat-reasonable excuse for the first term, in the eyes of the liberals, but he won't be able to use that in the second term. The debt is not going to improve. The economy is going to improve on a natural swing, but not by much. We are going to be hurting for a long, long time from this. Only then, will people see that this philosophy will not work. Hopefully, we will be spared from becoming a total disaster by 2016.

[Hoot Gibson]

People asked the same question when Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace and then Ford granted him a presidential pardon. Then, along came a man named Jimmy Carter. Obama is this generation's Carter, and the fact that he won a second term will not change that legacy. When *Baracka Claus's bag of gifts is empty, then the grim reality will set in.

*I would like to take credit for coining the name Baracka Claus, but I heard a talk radio host use the term recently. I find it an appropriate moniker, especially with the traditional Christmas shopping season nearly upon us.

[Bob Seger]

People asked the same question when Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace and then Ford granted him a presidential pardon. Then, along came a man named Jimmy Carter. Obama is this generation's Carter, and the fact that he won a second term will not change that legacy. When *Baracka Claus's bag of gifts is empty, then the grim reality will set in.

*I would like to take credit for coining the name Baracka Claus, but I heard a talk radio host use the term recently. I find it an appropriate moniker, especially with the traditional Christmas shopping season nearly upon us.

It is a clever one Hoot, whoever it is that came up with it. And appropriate.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Philadelphia.com reports that in 59 voting divisions within Philadelphia, Romney got zero votes. Does anyone doubt the racial, economic (takers), and social makeup of these precincts?

[Hoot Gibson]

Philadelphia.com reports that in 59 voting divisions within Philadelphia, Romney got zero votes. Does anyone doubt the racial, economic (takers), and social makeup of these precincts?

Obama was not going to lose a close election if Philadelphia had anything to do with it. I wonder if the New Black Panther Party's poll watchers were present to make sure that every vote counted (at least once).

[TheRealThing]

Yes.

People have blown this victory way out of proportion. There have been times in history where the republican party had a stronger voice in congress, and times the democratic party had a stronger voice in congress. This is just a time that the democrats have a stronger voice. Just eight years ago George Bush was re-elected to a second term. Given his low approval ratings (especially with the democratic party) he was still re-elected. People forget just how hard it is to vote out a sitting president.

Then, you throw in the race factor. Whether the liberals like to hear it or not, the next person they send out will likely be white. We also know that the democrats are not going to put out somebody that has the power, the strength that Obama has to be able to tell people what they want to hear. Obama is an amazing speaker, and I doubt they will send somebody that comes across as convincing as Obama does. The republicans will be back. Unless they do something to totally blow it, they will have a huge advantage in the house and likely will be able to gain back a couple of senate seats at mid-terms.

Electing the Kardashian (I don't give a shit what you think LWC) back to a second term will have major consequences. Somebody will have to take responsibility for the problem. Obama is running out of people to blame. Bush may have provided a somewhat-reasonable excuse for the first term, in the eyes of the liberals, but he won't be able to use that in the second term. The debt is not going to improve. The economy is going to improve on a natural swing, but not by much. We are going to be hurting for a long, long time from this. Only then, will people see that this philosophy will not work. Hopefully, we will be spared from becoming a total disaster by 2016.

Very good post Wide. And you're spot on with regard to Obama being out of excuses. He will run us further into the ditch and it will hurt, a lot. Now it's a race to 2014 when republicans could well gain control of the senate.

[TheRealVille]

Very good post Wide. And you're spot on with regard to Obama being out of excuses. He will run us further into the ditch and it will hurt, a lot. Now it's a race to 2014 when republicans could well gain control of the senate.

You're an authority on elections? How is your record? nicker::hilarious:

[Hoot Gibson]

You're an authority on elections? How is your record? nicker::hilarious:

I'll bet nobody had to tell TRT that all House members must stand for election every two years. :thatsfunn nicker:

[TheRealVille]

I'll bet nobody had to tell TRT that all House members must stand for election every two years. :thatsfunn nicker:

As you well know, I said I knew they had elections every two years, I just didn't know if they all were at the same time.

[Hoot Gibson]

As you well know, I said I knew they had elections every two years, I just didn't know if they all were at the same time.

I know what you said and I knew what you did not know. Did they not teach basic Civics in your school?

[Beetle01]

I think there will be another Republican president, but not until they move a little more in the libertarian direction on some issues.

The fact that Republicans and Democrats seem to disagree on EVERY single subject that comes up just isn't rational. And since the Dems have the lock down on all the freeloaders and unions, that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for Republicans.

Even though I am a registered Republican, I don't really identify my beliefs with the current Republican party. I agree with them it seems on probably 60% of issues, and there are some Dem policies I think are worth a shot.

The number 1 priority for the Republican platform needs to be bringing jobs back to America and the policies that will result in that goal. They need to hammer those policies into the heads of Americans for the next 4 years, and stick to them.

Many Americans, especially middle-lower middle class white Americans view Republicans as the party for the rich and the corporations. They need to do whatever is necessary to remove that stigma that is attached to them. What that may be is for them to decide, but if they expect to not get whooped 75% of the time (made up number), they need to appeal to those middle-lower middle class white Americans on issues other than religion, abortion, and guns.

I just don't ever seen them making much inroads with the minorities in the next 10 years.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think there will be another Republican president, but not until they move a little more in the libertarian direction on some issues.

The fact that Republicans and Democrats seem to disagree on EVERY single subject that comes up just isn't rational. And since the Dems have the lock down on all the freeloaders and unions, that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for Republicans.

Even though I am a registered Republican, I don't really identify my beliefs with the current Republican party. I agree with them it seems on probably 60% of issues, and there are some Dem policies I think are worth a shot.

The number 1 priority for the Republican platform needs to be bringing jobs back to America and the policies that will result in that goal. They need to hammer those policies into the heads of Americans for the next 4 years, and stick to them.

Many Americans, especially middle-lower middle class white Americans view Republicans as the party for the rich and the corporations. They need to do whatever is necessary to remove that stigma that is attached to them. What that may be is for them to decide, but if they expect to not get whooped 75% of the time (made up number), they need to appeal to those middle-lower middle class white Americans on issues other than religion, abortion, and guns.

I just don't ever seen them making much inroads with the minorities in the next 10 years.

I agree with most of what you said above, Beetle. However, I see no reason to abandon the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional right. There is no reason for a presidential candidate to dwell on the abortion issue, but Romney did not do so. As for religion, I did not hear Romney making religious issues a part of his campaign. (The Democrats ran a whisper campaign accusing Romney of being a member of a cult.)

Where I agree with you is that Republicans need to adopt part of the Libertarian Party's core philosophy, but they need to do so while avoiding totally alienating the religious right. Free markets generate jobs and free markets are at the core of libertarian beliefs. Jobs, jobs, jobs should be the Republicans' message every time any of their candidates step in front of a microphone.

Another area where I think that Republicans can lure people away from the nanny stater Democratic Party is to take the lead in liberalizing drug laws. People should not be jailed for possessing and using drugs of any kind. They should be nailed to the wall if they commit any violent crime while under the influence of those drugs or if they provide drugs to children of any age. Republican candidates should campaign in the inner cities and promise to release non-violent drug offenders and put away violent offenders for even longer sentences. This position would be a tough sell to the religious right, but I believe that the case can be made to them.

Softening the nation's laws on drug use could be used to help sell an overall program of more personal liberty, more personal accountability, and a smaller, less intrusive federal government.

[TheRealVille]

I agree with most of what you said above, Beetle. However, I see no reason to abandon the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional right. There is no reason for a presidential candidate to dwell on the abortion issue, but Romney did not do so. As for religion, I did not hear Romney making religious issues a part of his campaign. (The Democrats ran a whisper campaign accusing Romney of being a member of a cult.)

Where I agree with you is that Republicans need to adopt part of the Libertarian Party's core philosophy, but they need to do so while avoiding totally alienating the religious right. Free markets generate jobs and free markets are at the core of libertarian beliefs. Jobs, jobs, jobs should be the Republicans' message every time any of their candidates step in front of a microphone.

Another area where I think that Republicans can lure people away from the nanny stater Democratic Party is to take the lead in liberalizing drug laws. People should not be jailed for possessing and using drugs of any kind. They should be nailed to the wall if they commit any violent crime while under the influence of those drugs or if they provide drugs to children of any age. Republican candidates should campaign in the inner cities and promise to release non-violent drug offenders and put away violent offenders for even longer sentences. This position would be a tough sell to the religious right, but I believe that the case can be made to them.

Softening the nation's laws on drug use could be used to help sell an overall program of more personal liberty, more personal accountability, and a smaller, less intrusive federal government.

I could buy into this.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Sounds like some of you boys/girls want the Republican party to become a watered down version of the Democrat Party. I am always amazed that, when Republicans lose an election, the call comes out from Republicans and Democrats alike that the party must change. On the other hand, when the Democrats lose, like in 2010, there is no similar cry. They stick to their core philosophy claiming the voters were ill informed, the Republicans lied, or some other such face saver.

As I said before, the Republicans can't out Democrat the Democrats. You can sell your soul in order to win but the result will be that you won't win. The Democrats have cornered the taker vote by providing freebies paid for, for the most part, with either Republican income tax payments or Chinese loans. The Democrats are the sugar daddies. Republicans cannot compete with that. And, if they try, traditionally principled Republicans will leave the party.

[TheRealVille]

Sounds like some of you boys/girls want the Republican party to become a watered down version of the Democrat Party. I am always amazed that, when Republicans lose an election, the call comes out from Republicans and Democrats alike that the party must change. On the other hand, when the Democrats lose like in 2010, there is no similar cry. They stick to their core philosophy.

As I said before, the Republicans can't out Democrat the Democrats. You can sell your soul in order to win but, in truth, you won't win. The Democrats have cornered the taker vote by providing freebies paid for, for the most part, with either Republican income tax payments or Chinese loans. The Democrats are the sugar daddies. Republicans cannot compete with that.

They could at least let us smoke our herb, legally. :biggrin:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

They could at least let us smoke our herb, legally. :biggrin:

You boys do have a monopoly on the drug vote.

[TheRealVille]

You boys do have a monopoly on the drug vote.

I know a lot of you lawyers, a very big percentage smoke herb. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

You're an authority on elections? How is your record? nicker::hilarious:

I'll stick with my own understanding about the workings of government and elections if it's all the same to you. At least I have the courage and wherewithal to write of my own convictions and observations, not Obama webpage blather meant to bouy the spirits of the most superficial from among us.

[TheRealVille]

I'll stick with my own understanding about the workings of government and elections if it's all the same to you. At least I have the courage and wherewithal to write of my own convictions and observations, not Obama webpage blather meant to bouy the spirits of the most superficial from among us.

Scaffold builder, nail driver, and political scientist. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

I agree with most of what you said above, Beetle. However, I see no reason to abandon the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional right. There is no reason for a presidential candidate to dwell on the abortion issue, but Romney did not do so. As for religion, I did not hear Romney making religious issues a part of his campaign. (The Democrats ran a whisper campaign accusing Romney of being a member of a cult.)

Where I agree with you is that Republicans need to adopt part of the Libertarian Party's core philosophy, but they need to do so while avoiding totally alienating the religious right. Free markets generate jobs and free markets are at the core of libertarian beliefs. Jobs, jobs, jobs should be the Republicans' message every time any of their candidates step in front of a microphone.

Another area where I think that Republicans can lure people away from the nanny stater Democratic Party is to take the lead in liberalizing drug laws. People should not be jailed for possessing and using drugs of any kind. They should be nailed to the wall if they commit any violent crime while under the influence of those drugs or if they provide drugs to children of any age. Republican candidates should campaign in the inner cities and promise to release non-violent drug offenders and put away violent offenders for even longer sentences. This position would be a tough sell to the religious right, but I believe that the case can be made to them.

Softening the nation's laws on drug use could be used to help sell an overall program of more personal liberty, more personal accountability, and a smaller, less intrusive federal government.

^I hope this never happens. Cops, prosecuters and judges can make determinations about whether the users that pass through on their watch are a danger to the community or not, and act accordingly. But to legalize drug use strikes me the same as crying uncle. I can assure you parents who don't want their kids getting involved with drugs are not for legalizing drugs because of the enhanced likelihood of exposure. Not everybody can rationalize the notion of softening our national stance on drug abuse away quite so neatly. There are many hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) of kids, who being exposed to the use of so-called recreational drugs, will wind up a destroyed shell of what they were capable of becoming because they will get hooked on something more sinister than pot. On a personal note, I hung with the dopers for several years and I can tell you first hand the effects on those that use them are never neutral. There are only two possiblities for the drug user, he will have a moment of recoginition, be scared straight and quit, cold turkey and for good, or he will suffer harm and loss in every area of his life.

[Hoot Gibson]

Sounds like some of you boys/girls want the Republican party to become a watered down version of the Democrat Party. I am always amazed that, when Republicans lose an election, the call comes out from Republicans and Democrats alike that the party must change. On the other hand, when the Democrats lose, like in 2010, there is no similar cry. They stick to their core philosophy claiming the voters were ill informed, the Republicans lied, or some other such face saver.

As I said before, the Republicans can't out Democrat the Democrats. You can sell your soul in order to win but the result will be that you won't win. The Democrats have cornered the taker vote by providing freebies paid for, for the most part, with either Republican income tax payments or Chinese loans. The Democrats are the sugar daddies. Republicans cannot compete with that. And, if they try, traditionally principled Republicans will leave the party.

If you are referring to me, Harry, nothing could be further from the truth. I have absolutely no sympathy for drug users but the current system just does not work. The way that the drug laws are administered, taxpayers are just paying for schools to train criminals. One of the benefits of legalizing drug use for adults, provided that they use their dope in the privacy of their own homes, is that many will die of overdoses and taxpayers will no longer have to pay for their support. I would only support tax paid rehab programs on a very limited basis. Maybe one paid trip to a rehab center in a single lifetime - at most. Rehab programs rarely work but maybe everybody deserves one second chance.

The second part of my proposed drug liberalization program would be to reduce or eliminate chances of parole or probation when drug addicts burglarize homes of rob businesses to support their habits, or do so because they are stoned out of their mind. The current system releases too many violent criminals before they serve their sentences and it does so with repeat offenders.

A third part of the program would be to eliminate sentencing guidelines for judges and juries. If the law provides for a term for armed robbery of 15 to 25 years, then the accused should serve a sentence of at least 15 years and the judge or jury should have the power to sentence a person to 25 years if they decide that the facts warrant a more severe punishment. In no case, should a prisoner be released without serving the minimum sentence for a crime.

Drug use in our inner cities has become a part of the culture and families are losing sons and daughters to a life of crime at a very early age. Jailing young adults for non-violent drug offenses is just increasing the chance that they will live life as a criminal. Let's face it, prisoners manage to use drugs in prisons and they learn skills to commit crimes that do involve victims.

One more thing on the use of drugs. What right does this country have to destroy crops of poppies and marijuana in foreign countries? All we do when we reduce the supply of drugs is drive their cost higher in this country and empower organized crime. The problem of drug use is a problem of demand, not supply. We are sending billions of dollars to corrupt governments to fight our problems with drugs, and the money is just being wasted.

Basically, I favor letting the law of natural selection take care of this nation's drug problems, while protecting the rest of us from violent criminals.

If "liberalizing" our drug laws as I have outlined above will get young people and minorities to start considering libertarian ideas, then I think that trading legalization of drugs for the return of a free market economy and limited government would be well worth considering.

I agree with you on the hand wringing that Republican "leaders" are doing over Romney's loss. The problem is that Romney, McCain, and Dole were all too moderate. Reagan is the only conservative that Republicans have run in decades, and he won two landslide elections.

If you were not including me in your post, I am sorry for the rant, but I thought that I should clarify my libertarian positions. The fact that RV agreed with me has me concerned that I did not make my positions clear. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

Scaffold builder, nail driver, and political scientist. nicker:

As usual you are woefully unimformed. My resume is quite a bit more replete, however, unlike some on here and not suffering from any form of identity crisis, I prefer to refrain from extolling my own accomplishments.

[Hoot Gibson]

^I hope this never happens. Cops, prosecuters and judges can make determinations about whether the users that pass through on their watch are a danger to the community or not, and act accordingly. But to legalize drug use strikes me the same as crying uncle. I can assure you parents who don't want their kids getting involved with drugs are not for legalizing drugs because of the enhanced likelihood of exposure. Not everybody can rationalize the notion of softening our national stance on drug abuse away quite so neatly. There are many hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) of kids, who being exposed to the use of so-called recreational drugs, will wind up a destroyed shell of what they were capable of becoming because they will get hooked on something more sinister than pot. On a personal note, I hung with the dopers for several years and I can tell you first hand the effects on those that use them are never neutral. There are only two possiblities for the drug user, he will have a moment of recoginition, be scared straight and quit, cold turkey and for good, or he will suffer harm and loss in every area of his life.

I understand what you are saying, but those kids to whom you prefer are already being exposed to recreational drugs and having their lives wrecked and we are all paying the price to imprison them for long stretches. They are crowding violent criminals out of our jails. I personally have very little sympathy for dopeheads but if they are going to die from drug use, I would rather they do so in somebody's basement than in a prison where my taxes pay to teach them how to commit crimes against other citizens.

I want a country that provides greater personal liberty. People would either learn to behave responsibly with that freedom, or they would cease to exist. Either way, the world would be a better place. That may sound harsh, but it is how I feel. Of course, many liberals generally support legal drug use but would want to continue being soft on violent crime. I don't think that legal drug use would be desirable without severe punishment for violent offenders.