why did we lose?

[joeyd]

Jan 5, 2009 15:48:08 GMT -8 Sarge said:

Jan 5, 2009 12:54:49 GMT -8 joeyd said:

(chuckle).... if you had "turned Palin loose" you would have ended up losing 49 states.

Joe

Yeah, that was why she was drawing crowds of 50,000+ where ever she went. Minus the benefit of a rock band proceding her

Yea, like hockey and basketball franchises that pack every seat for every game with rabid fans..... there's 20,000 of them, but that's EVERY hockey or basketball fan in a city of millions.

She had a niche, a niche that could draw 50,000 folks, granted. Sure, they voted for her and John, the other 98% of people that didn't show up voted for Obama or stayed home.

Joe

[Mr. Ed]

I think another reason is do to McCain not really generating interest. He wasn't out there enough promoting himself or defending himself. The Repulican party has drifted away from its ideals somewhat. Distancing itself from their conservative base. The party seems by many people to be disorganized.

[chre]

I would argue the opposite, Ed - I would have voted for McCain if he had not (in my opinion) pandered to the far right both in policy shifts and in his choice for VP.

I'm not sure how many voters are people like me, but i'd wager that had he stayed more how he was before he ran for office, and not picked Palin, he would have ended this election with more states and more votes.

edit - although i do find it interesting how many hard line conservatives believe the exact opposite. it appears that McCain kind of got caught between a rock and a hard place.

[msguide]

Republicans have done a very poor job of grooming younger constituents to take over leadership. This campaign was a warmed over version of Bob Dole's campaign. The party will not survive as long as they keep nominating their oldest members just because someone thinks it's their turn.

[Mr. Ed]

I felt another problem was that he just didn't seem to be at all enthusiastic during the race. Almost like he was just going through the motions.

And that incident where he was asked how many houses he had and he wasn't sure? That I feel really hurt him.

The theory that his refusing to use certain negative ads was hurting him is debatable, but I still feel like it was his inaction especially near the end of the election that did more to hurt his chances than anything else.

But I guess we both agree that whether he was moving left or right, it was that pandering, instead of staying with an issue that also hurt his chances.

Jan 9, 2009 18:04:17 GMT -8 chre said:

I would argue the opposite, Ed - I would have voted for McCain if he had not (in my opinion) pandered to the far right both in policy shifts and in his choice for VP.

.

[joeyd]

Jan 9, 2009 21:31:54 GMT -8 Mr. Ed said:

I felt another problem was that he just didn't seem to be at all enthusiastic during the race. Almost like he was just going through the motions.

And that incident where he was asked how many houses he had and he wasn't sure? That I feel really hurt him.

The theory that his refusing to use certain negative ads was hurting him is debatable, but I still feel like it was his inaction especially near the end of the election that did more to hurt his chances than anything else.

But I guess we both agree that whether he was moving left or right, it was that pandering, instead of staying with an issue that also hurt his chances.

Jan 9, 2009 18:04:17 GMT -8 chre said:

I would argue the opposite, Ed - I would have voted for McCain if he had not (in my opinion) pandered to the far right both in policy shifts and in his choice for VP.

.

McCain's year was 2000. He was still completely vigorous, did not project the "old man" image, was quicker on the uptake and quicker on the "rip him a new one" (verbally) when he had to. 8 years is a long time for a man with emerging health problems to "wait his chance". Too bad the Bush Dirty Tricks Campaign.........McCain has a Negro child (I bet that played good in S. Carolina) sunk him.

Joe

[joeyd]

Jan 9, 2009 21:13:55 GMT -8 msguide said:

Republicans have done a very poor job of grooming younger constituents to take over leadership. This campaign was a warmed over version of Bob Dole's campaign. The party will not survive as long as they keep nominating their oldest members just because someone thinks it's their turn.

Depending on what happens in the next 4 years, the Republicans could fragment and then become strictly a regional party, and then a non-existent one. There is precedent and let's be honest; even though the Democratic Party is still called such, it is NOT at all the same one that existed up until 1968. The Northeastern Democrats started calling the shots, lost the Old South due to racial concerns and turned 11 formerly solid Democrat states into solid Republican ones.

Parties come and go, it is the way of things. The Republicans cannot survive another election cycle as strictly the party of the Angry White Person.

Joe

[Maxf1ex]

Jan 10, 2009 14:52:42 GMT -8 joeyd said:

Jan 9, 2009 21:13:55 GMT -8 msguide said:

Republicans have done a very poor job of grooming younger constituents to take over leadership. This campaign was a warmed over version of Bob Dole's campaign. The party will not survive as long as they keep nominating their oldest members just because someone thinks it's their turn.

Depending on what happens in the next 4 years, the Republicans could fragment and then become strictly a regional party, and then a non-existent one. There is precedent and let's be honest; even though the Democratic Party is still called such, it is NOT at all the same one that existed up until 1968. The Northeastern Democrats started calling the shots, lost the Old South due to racial concerns and turned 11 formerly solid Democrat states into solid Republican ones.

Parties come and go, it is the way of things. The Republicans cannot survive another election cycle as strictly the party of the Angry White Person.

Joe

At the moment I could see where it would be easy for both "main" parties to split into 2 or 3 groups, If this happens what do you think of the chances of any splinter group party having overriding support of the people?

And if one party group does seem to have what we could call a leading edge over the others, do you think any of the remaining groups might ban back together?

[msguide]

Jan 10, 2009 15:41:17 GMT -8 Maxf1ex said:

And if one party group does seem to have what we could call a leading edge over the others, do you think any of the remaining groups might ban back together?

Ron Paul is leading an effort to reform the Republican Party. His supporters have taken over local GOP groups in several major cities.

[googoodan]

Jan 10, 2009 15:54:13 GMT -8 msguide said:

Jan 10, 2009 15:41:17 GMT -8 Maxf1ex said:

And if one party group does seem to have what we could call a leading edge over the others, do you think any of the remaining groups might ban back together?

Ron Paul is leading an effort to reform the Republican Party. His supporters have taken over local GOP groups in several major cities.

I like Ron Paul. But I'm not sure if he can oust the neocons and the religious from the party. Republicans need those votes but they lose votes because of those two groups.

[Maxf1ex]

Jan 10, 2009 16:42:01 GMT -8 googoodan said:

Jan 10, 2009 15:54:13 GMT -8 msguide said:

Ron Paul is leading an effort to reform the Republican Party. His supporters have taken over local GOP groups in several major cities.

I like Ron Paul. But I'm not sure if he can oust the neocons and the religious from the party. Republicans need those votes but they lose votes because of those two groups.

And that is sort of what I am talking about. If both groups split from the Republican party that would in effect give us 3 "republican" parties. And if the Democrats did the same 3 way split, that would give us 6 parties created from the 2 main parties.

Which in the long run could give us better leadership to choose from. But, in the hope of winning the next election, could you see 2 or more splinter groups teaming up in support of what we might think could be a real looser?