How to beat Obama.

[candycorn]

Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism.

The fatal flaw in your plan.

A significant number of the social right are in the TPM, and they’re not going to be happy in the back seat. That goes for the Bible Belt republicans and the Old Bush Base as well – why do you think McCain selected Palin in 2008?

The TEA Party is not a problem for the republican party. It's an asset. Only the gullible are swallowing the leftwing propaganda about the TEA Party.

If it comes down to

1 DNC....Obama
2 RNC....Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Polenta, etc...
3 TP......Bachman or Palin

You don't think the 2 & 3 are going to split the same votes?

 

[Dr Grump]

It love Matt Taibbi's description of the Tea Partiers. He's got them so down pat, it should be the description when the term is put in Websters.

"I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. ...[T]he Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits.... The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about....This, then, is the future of the Republican Party: Angry white voters hovering over their cash-stuffed mattresses with their kerosene lanterns, peering through the blinds at the oncoming hordes of suburban soccer moms they've mistaken for death-panel bureaucrats bent on exterminating anyone who isn't an illegal alien or a Kenyan anti-colonialist."

 

[candycorn]

The fatal flaw in your plan.

A significant number of the social right are in the TPM, and they’re not going to be happy in the back seat. That goes for the Bible Belt republicans and the Old Bush Base as well – why do you think McCain selected Palin in 2008?

The TEA Party is not a problem for the republican party. It's an asset. Only the gullible are swallowing the leftwing propaganda about the TEA Party.

Tea Party are a bunch of wishy washy morons stuck in the 1770s........

I disagree; Their leadership is quite sophisticated but their followers are their biggest weakness; the leaders know the art of compromise in private (if not in public) but their followers don't seem to get it. As a political force they are nowhere when it comes to fielding a winning candidate, but as spoilers they are user friendly for the DNC...

 

[Dr Grump]

The TEA Party is not a problem for the republican party. It's an asset. Only the gullible are swallowing the leftwing propaganda about the TEA Party.

Tea Party are a bunch of wishy washy morons stuck in the 1770s........

I disagree; Their leadership is quite sophisticated but their followers are their biggest weakness; the leaders know the art of compromise in private (if not in public) but their followers don't seem to get it. As a political force they are nowhere when it comes to fielding a winning candidate, but as spoilers they are user friendly for the DNC...

A bit like Perot was for Bush Snr in '92? Well, Palin is their champion, but I don't know about splitting the vote. Those guys would never vote for Obama anyway. I don't think Palin will run...and if she does, Democrats will be filling her pockets full of cash, just as a thank you for guaranteeing them four more years of Obama...

 

[candycorn]

Tea Party are a bunch of wishy washy morons stuck in the 1770s........

I disagree; Their leadership is quite sophisticated but their followers are their biggest weakness; the leaders know the art of compromise in private (if not in public) but their followers don't seem to get it. As a political force they are nowhere when it comes to fielding a winning candidate, but as spoilers they are user friendly for the DNC...

A bit like Perot was for Bush Snr in '92? Well, Palin is their champion, but I don't know about splitting the vote. Those guys would never vote for Obama anyway. I don't think Palin will run...and if she does, Democrats will be filling her pockets full of cash, just as a thank you for guaranteeing them four more years of Obama...

Well, thats the point; the followers are the redest of the red; if there is a trace of purple in whoever the GOP nominates, a portion of those followers will not vote for them; period end of story.

I expect it to start very soon:

"Lets not let "good" be the enemy of great" is what Rush and them will say when the GOP nominates Romney or Poletna or perhaps even Perry.

Either that or you'll see some bizarre vote swapping going on between TP'ers and the GOP by which the GOP will win a state by voters in a blue state saying they'll vote for Bachman or Palin if the TP'er in a contested state votes for Romney, Perry, or Polenta. It didn't work for Nader/Gore and it's not going to work for the GOP.

You'll hear all sorts of conciliatory bullshit from the hard right; I predict March 2012 will be the starting date for the coming to terms. Except the TP rank and file are not going to want to compromise at all.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

WE tried your way with McCain

Remember how well that worked out?

Really? So McCain Ran as a Fiscal Conservative, Limited Government guy, and didn't nominate a Religious Conservative VP? I missed that.

 

[Charles_Main]

The fatal flaw in your plan.

A significant number of the social right are in the TPM, and they’re not going to be happy in the back seat. That goes for the Bible Belt republicans and the Old Bush Base as well – why do you think McCain selected Palin in 2008?

The TEA Party is not a problem for the republican party. It's an asset. Only the gullible are swallowing the leftwing propaganda about the TEA Party.

If it comes down to

1 DNC....Obama
2 RNC....Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Polenta, etc...
3 TP......Bachman or Palin

You don't think the 2 & 3 are going to split the same votes?

Which is why the Tea Party has been trying to work with in the Republican Party, and not become a 3rd Party.

 

[elvis]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

WE tried your way with McCain

Remember how well that worked out?

Really? So McCain Ran as a Fiscal Conservative, Limited Government guy, and didn't nominate a Religious Conservative VP? I missed that.

he may have ran as a fiscal conservative, but most people knew better.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

Sounds like a job for Rick Perry; he's exactly what the GOP represents, God, Guns and giving it up the ass to poor people.

Sounds like you didn't read what I Wrote at all. You list GOD as his first issue, when I clearly stated stressing the social issues was a loser.

 

[Czarcasm]

How to beat Obama? Don't let idiots vote.

Or dead people. And don't allow the mentally handicapped to be forced to vote fo him again.

 

[Sallow]

Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Might I suggest Paul Ryan? Please?

Not sure if you really like Ryan, or just think Obama could beat him easily and that's why you said it. I think Ryan is a clear example of a serious problem we have as Americans. We almost all seem to recognize a serious Financial Problem with Debt, yet we still react with utter horror when ever someone proposes any kind of Reform, or Change to our Entitlements. We are all aware the are unsustainable as is, yet seem unwilling to even allow discussion of how to fix it.

I respect Ryan, and think he would have made a good candidate. However I think the Rhetoric around his plan to reform Medicare have ruined him as a candidate. Fairly or not.

Personally I think he showed great leadership, and balls. Being willing to jump on the 3rd Rail in order to at least get the discussion going on what to do about Medicare and SS Reform.

Ryan's plan was a joke. Not only did it butcher entitlements..but the "savings" realized by the cuts were washed away by tax cuts.

 

[Seawytch]

Sounds like you didn't read what I Wrote at all. You list GOD as his first issue, when I clearly stated stressing the social issues was a loser.

But in reality, is a GnOP candidate going to get past the primaries without them?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You want to know how to beat him? Wait until 2016.

Go Team Obama and Go America!

Go America??!! LMFAO!!! DingleBarry has gone around apologizing for this country for the last two years and taking swipes at our nation as a whole and yet you leftist assclowns pretend he never said those things. You need a fuckin rubber room.

 

[Missourian]

Sounds like you didn't read what I Wrote at all. You list GOD as his first issue, when I clearly stated stressing the social issues was a loser.

But in reality, is a GnOP candidate going to get past the primaries without them?

No. Especially now the the States are NOT winner take all in GOP primaries.

I agree with Charles that fiscal issues are going to drive the 2012 elections.

But what good is gaining moderates if you lose your base?

What the GOP needs in a candidate is first and foremost a strong fiscal conservative, but one that also has firm Pro-life, Second Amendment and anti-illegal immigration record.

Without that you may gain the middle, but lose the base...what good is that?

Better to have a candidate that appeals to both the base AND moderates and independents.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

Sounds like a job for Rick Perry; he's exactly what the GOP represents, God, Guns and giving it up the ass to poor people.

He is the Anti-Obama candidate to be sure with whatever gravitas comes with being the governor of Texas.

I think he walks into the nomination if can stand upright. I don't think the plurality of Americans agree with the doom and gloom of the 2012 GOP as to where all we should pay for as a people is defense, social security, and more defense. If the TP run a 3rd party candidate; the GOP is sunk.

If the Dems are smart, they go with divide and conquer on the soft-money pointing out the liberal things that any GOP'er has done in the past (Romney would be sunk in the first mail-out) to get the Tea Party to put a 3rd horse in the race.

How ironic it would be; Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin ensure Obama's victory.

Rick Perry is definitely the anti-Obama. We know where he was born. He served in the military. He has more experience today than Obama does. He is definitely a fiscal conservative with enough social middle of the road views to make libs scream hypocrite.

Team Obama is saddled with a record of failure, corruption, waste, and waffling. There is not one thing that Obama ran on that he has accomplished to popular acclaim. Far from ending the failed policies of George W Bush he has continued them. All of them. He has added hsi own socialist grab for power in the grossly unpopular (and misnamed) Obamacare. He has not ended the Afghan War but expanded it in a way that guarantees defeat. He has started a war with Libya, a country that voluntarily gave up its nuclear program to Bush. His waffling on the Arab Spring is bringing forth Islamic fundamentalist radicals in all those countries.
At home we have had unemployment rates over 8.5% for his entire term in office. We have creeping stagflation as prices have risen dramatically. Even the stock market is giving back its gains so those with 401k money are seeing it decrease monthly. The consumer protection moves have increased the cost of credit and decreased availability. His moves to forestall foreclosures have left housing prices too high for first time buyers but too low for those in them to get out. Housing prices are continuing to drop. Meanwhile he proposes budgets that aren't serious about cutting the deficit and aren't passed even by his own party.
Obama is a weak president with a record of failure. He is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century.

 

[Greenbeard]

Not sure if you really like Ryan, or just think Obama could beat him easily and that's why you said it. I think Ryan is a clear example of a serious problem we have as Americans. We almost all seem to recognize a serious Financial Problem with Debt, yet we still react with utter horror when ever someone proposes any kind of Reform, or Change to our Entitlements. We are all aware the are unsustainable as is, yet seem unwilling to even allow discussion of how to fix it.

Ryan had the temerity to succinctly write down the broad policy framework undergirding the GOP vision for America and get all but a handful of federally-elected Republicans to go on record as voting for it. I, like a great many folks, don't support that vision of America but I'm glad he put it out there.

I expect we'll see a lot of dancing away from it next year, as whoever the GOP nominee is tries to blur the lines between the parties and avoid putting an actual agenda out there for inspection (as the GOP did in the last election, when the leadership specifically said the Ryan proposal would not be part of the party's agenda if they took control of Congress). That would be impossible with Ryan himself on the ticket.

 

[cpduprovider]

Americans, and especially African-Americans, ought to take him to task for waging war on African development.

Before It's News

 

[Missourian]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

I re-read your post, and I agree. Frame the debate, force social issues to the backseat without throwing them under the bus. No wishy-washy moderates. That's a winning strategy.

Just out of curiosity, who are your top choices?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok Republicans and Conservatives.

This is how you beat Obama. It is rather simple.

Contrast. Don't get hung up on Social Conservatism. Nominate a no nonsense Fiscal Conservative who is a stark contrast to Obama and you will walk in.

Nominate a wishy washy middle of the road Moderate to liberal Republican and you will lose. Period.

Don't let the Dems and the Liberal Press anoint our Candidate. Don't try and pick the Candidate the Dems and Liberal Press like the most. Pick the ones they hate. They hate them for a reason. They know they can beat Obama.

That said, I must restate. PLEASE do not make this Election about Social Conservative Issues! That's a loser. Push Social issues to much, and you will lose the middle, which will vote for you if you talk about fiscal Conservatism and limited Power, but are gonna bail as soon as you start talking Religious right BS.

By my Standards my top 2 Choices to beat Obama, are so far, not even planning to run.

What you want then is the typical candidate that the Tea Party endorses.

Ignore those attempting to hang social conservatism on the Tea Party. The Tea Party is not into social conservatism.

So if you are right, we need a candidate the Democrats and the media will hate the most. And these days that will be somebody the Tea Party endorses.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sounds like you didn't read what I Wrote at all. You list GOD as his first issue, when I clearly stated stressing the social issues was a loser.

But in reality, is a GnOP candidate going to get past the primaries without them?

No. Especially now the the States are NOT winner take all in GOP primaries.

I agree with Charles that fiscal issues are going to drive the 2012 elections.

But what good is gaining moderates if you lose your base?

What the GOP needs in a candidate is first and foremost a strong fiscal conservative, but one that also has firm Pro-life, Second Amendment and anti-illegal immigration record.

Without that you may gain the middle, but lose the base...what good is that?

Better to have a candidate that appeals to both the base AND moderates and independents.

When you try to find somebody who is acceptable to everybody, you have somebody split every way but Sunday and who will usually lose on election day. Such people appear neither genuine nor credible.

For the candidate to be acceptable to most Republicans, all he or she needs is not to be pro-abortion, pro excessive gun control, and pro illegal immigration. He or she doesn't need to make pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration a cornerstone of his/her campaign.

He or she WILL need the Tea Party vote, however, and that means commitment to a balanced budget whatever that takes, allegiance to the original intent of the Constitution with an emphasis on individual liberty, and a willingness to start rolling back and scaling down an over reaching, bloated, top heavy government.