What could the GOP have done to WIN this election?

[BmoreBrawler]

whats all the hype about Ron Paul... im from Texas and I dont even care about the dude... someone please elaborate on this

Basically, he is one of the only members of congress who is not corrupt. He stands for free markets, sound money, low taxes, small government, civil liberties, etc. Check out some youtube videos to hear from the horses mouth.

[Dirt E Gomez]

Stupid ****

You're an idiot. Seriously. How do you type so much and clearly know so little?

Stop talking about politics, go back to the non-stop, and talk about fellating some Mexicans or something.

[squealpiggy]

democrats have always been more emotional voters and republicans have always been more logical voters.

I'm not sure that this is supportable. I mean part of the republican base is fiscal small-c conservatives who believe in less government which is something I can get behind. The trouble is that the guys they really want to motivate into voting are the evangelicals who vote based largely on moral issues. This big government morality is at odds with the laissez faire approach favoured by fiscal conservatives.

Democrats tend to be motivated by issues, whether this is the environment or healthcare or taxation and this election was no different.

What is interesting is that if you take Republican politics as a whole it seems to favour laissez faire in regards to commerce and corporations but lots of intervention on the level of personal morality. I think they have it backwards. Large corporations obviously need supervision as proven by recent events, and individuals should be largely left to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on the freedom of others.

Major issues for Republicans include abortion, gay marriage (!), getting god back into schools, stem cell research etc. These are not practical and logical issues.

[neils7147933]

McCain's running mate being Hilary Clinton or Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman could have helped...pushing himself as a 'moderate' and distancing himself from Bush. I mean, Bush had a 25 percent approval rating...it's not throwing him under the bus to go ahead and outspokenly put him down to try to show he's not the same candidate.

I'd like to think that Paul is the right answer, but I doubt it is when it comes to the entire American public. Still, in a different year, he could have been "the change we need" because of how different his stances are...but he's as old as McCain and a White Texan like Bush so it would have been more of an uphill battle and with Hilary, Barack on the other side he wasn't going to look "changey enough" (was that a Bushism?)

[BMWM3P]

I believe if they had elected Mitt Romney they would have had a better chance. Their big problem was the wall street debacle, I don't think nothing could have help them after that.

[FatNJerseykid]

I'm not sure that this is supportable. I mean part of the republican base is fiscal small-c conservatives who believe in less government which is something I can get behind. The trouble is that the guys they really want to motivate into voting are the evangelicals who vote based largely on moral issues. This big government morality is at odds with the laissez faire approach favoured by fiscal conservatives.

Democrats tend to be motivated by issues, whether this is the environment or healthcare or taxation and this election was no different.

What is interesting is that if you take Republican politics as a whole it seems to favour laissez faire in regards to commerce and corporations but lots of intervention on the level of personal morality. I think they have it backwards. Large corporations obviously need supervision as proven by recent events, and individuals should be largely left to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on the freedom of others.

Major issues for Republicans include abortion, gay marriage (!), getting god back into schools, stem cell research etc. These are not practical and logical issues.

Dude, aren't you Canadian? Why do you care what happens to the U.S? The most vocal part of the Republican Party is the conservatives but most Republicans are quiet and don't care about getting god back in school or gay marriage. Republicans from the north think differently from the Republicans from the south. My Republican Congressman is pro-choice. John McCain is pro stem cell research and pro illegal immigration.

I'm pro-life because the process of life begins at conception, now that is a viewable fact. Don't have sex, wear a condom, and use birth control if you don't want a child. People have a lot of choices already. What does it say about a society that can't defend the most innocent and most defenseless among us. As for the unborn, where is the choice in no choice at all?

Back to topic, 1. John McCain should have not taken public financing, he should have used his wife's fortune for the campaign. He was out spent 2-1, Obama raised $468,841,844 while McCain only had $224,341,010. As people know, the person who has the most money usually wins the election. But McCain, is true to his word and took public financing.

[neils7147933]

Dude, aren't you Canadian? Why do you care what happens to the U.S? The most vocal part of the Republican Party is the conservatives but most Republicans are quiet and don't care about getting god back in school or gay marriage. Republicans from the north think differently from the Republicans from the south. My Republican Congressman is pro-choice. John McCain is pro stem cell research and pro illegal immigration.

I'm pro-life because the process of life begins at conception, now that is a viewable fact. Don't have sex, wear a condom, and use birth control if you don't want a child. People have a lot of choices already. What does it say about a society that can't defend the most innocent and most defenseless among us. As for the unborn, where is the choice in no choice at all?

Back to topic, 1. John McCain should have not taken public financing, he should have used his wife's fortune for the campaign. He was out spent 2-1, Obama raised $468,841,844 while McCain only had $224,341,010. As people know, the person who has the most money usually wins the election. But McCain, is true to his word and took public financing.

Exactly. That's why our 42nd president was H. Ross Perot.

[Texas Made]

You're an idiot. Seriously. How do you type so much and clearly know so little?

Stop talking about politics, go back to the non-stop, and talk about fellating some Mexicans or something.

lmao dude what the hell are you talking about, i know far more about this subject than you do... and where did you me saying "stupid ****" haha i never said that in this thread.

I'm not sure that this is supportable. I mean part of the republican base is fiscal small-c conservatives who believe in less government which is something I can get behind. The trouble is that the guys they really want to motivate into voting are the evangelicals who vote based largely on moral issues. This big government morality is at odds with the laissez faire approach favoured by fiscal conservatives.

Democrats tend to be motivated by issues, whether this is the environment or healthcare or taxation and this election was no different.

What is interesting is that if you take Republican politics as a whole it seems to favour laissez faire in regards to commerce and corporations but lots of intervention on the level of personal morality. I think they have it backwards. Large corporations obviously need supervision as proven by recent events, and individuals should be largely left to do what they want as long as they are not infringing on the freedom of others.

Major issues for Republicans include abortion, gay marriage (!), getting god back into schools, stem cell research etc. These are not practical and logical issues.

well put sir well put.
but i do think that stem cell research is a practical issue, without getting to in depth about it, because im sure it would start some kinda argument with someone, that mess can saves countless lives.

Major issues for Republicans include abortion, gay marriage

haha shooooooot thats most important issue facing the world today -_-

[Texas Made]

See im not bleeding heart atheist and think there could be some kind of god. I just don't believe in a christian one, muslim one etc... I understand that people believe and that's fine with me I just think it needs to stay in the home and church. Anytime it spreads out of that realm it messes things up and confuses people. Here in the US for the most part it's controlled, but look at other nations where religion has big time influence. They are either messed up or have a backwards way of thinking. I just feel if any religion here in the US got too much influence in our government we wouldn't go forward, but takes steps back in many areas.

haha yea i kno what ya mean, im not exactly down for religon being in schools and ****, its not really the time and place for it, school is were you get to learn historical lies such as Columbus be the first to America, Washington cutting down the cherry tree and other useless **** haha

[FatNJerseykid]

I believe if they had elected Mitt Romney they would have had a better chance. Their big problem was the wall street debacle, I don't think nothing could have help them after that.

Exactly. That's why our 42nd president was H. Ross Perot.

Perot spent $65.4 million of his own money, Bush 1 had $110.9 million, and Clinton had $112.2 million during the 1992 elections.