If Romney get the gop nomination

[rightwinger]

ZOMFG!

A "you forgot to mention" post.

Well you forgot to mention that Reagan crushed Crater and put such a beat down in his re-election that history has scrubbed those names from history.

They are only listed as; Some old white dude and a chick, I think.

Reagan is dead. Santorum is no Reagan
That leaves you with Romney

Bottom line is the credible Republicans sat this election out because they knew they couldn't beat Obama

That's almost right.

Conservatives got no air time except for Cain.

There were plenty that could beat obama, but the media weeded out eveyone that wasn't a moderate or a RR.

Blame the ineptness of the conservatives on the media

 

[JoeB131]

Convenient historical revisionism. Conservative - and those who claim to be conservatives like you, uby - will always say that the nominee lost because they weren't conservative enough. Always.

Nope, just pointing it out, that when you nominated "electable" moderates, YOU LOSE.

Let's look again.

Goldwater 64 - the most conservative of all the candidates in generations then and since, was crushed.

Actually, if you read my thread on Demographics, Goldwater was the last guy to run before the reallignment. THere wasn't really an argument on the social issues or the military ones at that point. Everyone believed in Jay-a-zus and everyone thought our military should kick ass with impunity. The only argument was how big the rest of government should be, and the Democrats had been winning that argument since 1932.

The argument that Goldwater got crushed means Conservatives don't work is kind of retarded. Do you really think Rockerfeller would have done better? Not really. LBJ had an economy at it height (we had a middle class back then), was wearing the mantle of a martyred president, and was pretty much the most talented politician of his generation. Sadly, whenever you "moderates" want to argue, "No, no, no, we can't nominated a conservative, look what happened to Goldwater"

Nixon 68 - in a time of strife because of an unpopular war so great the sitting President chose not to run, Nixon promised to end the war and won. Also, civil strife in the South had damaged the Democrats. His election was as much about the Democrats as the himself.

But that "civil strife" was because traditional values and America's military supremecy was under attack by hippies. That's the point. When the Social and Security issues were abandoned by the Democrats, that's what Put Nixon over the top.

Nixon 72 - Nixon hardly governed as a conservative. The Democrats nominated the most liberal of all the candidates then and since.

Again, Nixon didn't just win. He won 49 states.

Ford 76 - Ford pardoned Nixon, the public was disgusted by Watergate, inflation was rising and there was an oil embargo and gas lines.

Again, you skip over the fact that Ford was a Rockerfeller Republican, who believed in increasing Washington's power. He was challenged by Reagan and almost lost. More to the point, what everyone forgets today is that Jimmy Carter ran as a social conservative. He was even endorsed by Jerry Falwell.

Reagan 80, 84 - Ran as a conservative and won. Proceeded to raise taxes 11 times and gave us the biggest deficits in our history up until that time. Times were good but he governed less from the right than conservatives will admit. A better economy lead to his election.

I've admitted that Reagan was a lot more moderate than his fetishists admit. But still, on social and security issues (the ones you Corporate Repukes only pretend to care about during elections) he was top notch. It should also be pointed out that Reagan cut taxes a lot deeper than he raised them.

Bush 88 - Ran on a "kinder, gentler America." Won. Raised taxes. Just like Reagan did, only 10 fewer times than Reagan.

Bush 92 - Ran as a conservative. "Read my lips, no new taxes." Lost. Stagnant economy lead to his defeat. "It's the economy, stupid."

It was a bit more than that. He also grew government. He also neglected the social issues. And more to the point, he was another clueless rich guy who couldn't tell you how many mansions he owned. What you forget about Nixon and Reagan is that they weren't born rich and they came from humble backgrounds. They got what working folks went through. Bush was clueless.

Also, again, Clinton was pretty close to the center. He executed a retard in order to make sure no one mistook him for Dukakis.

Dole 96 - Clinton benefited from the same dynamic as Reagan did in 84, an expanding and improving economy. Co-opted much of Gingrich's platform.

Bush 00 - "A compassionate conservative." Promised to cut taxes but also promised to improve education, focusing on a traditional soft Democrat issue. Plus, Gore was an awful candidate.

I think you work on the assumption that only Democrats care about education. Now I will admit that the Corporatists don't give a **** about working class kids, but most rank and file do. There is just disagreement how to fix it.

Bush 04 - Oversaw one of the biggest expansions of government since WWII. Cut taxes but increased nondefense, nondiscretionary spending as fast as anyone since LBJ. Oversaw the increase of government intrusion in Americans' lives through security surveillance. Invaded a country. Medicare Part D. Torture. If conservative means "big government," then Bush sure was a conservative in his first four year term.

Again, that assumes you only define "Conservative" as "I hate the Gummit unless it's giving me money".

McCain 08 - Worst economy since the Depression. Enough said. Weariness of war was also a big part.

McCain was trailing Obama consistantly before you BLOODSUCKERS on Wall Street crashed the economy, so please don't blame that. McCain got no traction because he wasn't conservative, and that's why he had to pick Palin. Unfortunately, the Demographics have changed, so it didn't help any.

Conservatives will always attribute their victories to "being conservative" and their losses to "not being conservative enough." This is the mechanism of all partisans and ideologues. It's unobjective.

Especially when it comes from a hater.

Oh, quit snivelling like a little ***** because I am not a hypocrite like you are.

If you aren't signing up for Mormonism tomorrow, then you are a hypocrite. At least I outright call them liars and fools. But you don't believe Joseph Smith was talking to God any more than I do.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, I call bullshit. Every election is different. Looking at past elections may be fun for pedants, but it is in no way an indicator of future results. .......

True enough.

But looking at demographic trends from the past is telling, and you ignore them at your peril.

Four groups Romney doesn't do well with.

Evangelicals hate him because he's soft on social issues, and he belongs to that whacky cult.

Women don't like the fact that he didn't have the balls to stand up to Limbaugh when he called them all sluts.

Hispanics don't like the fact that demogogued immigration.

Working folks don't like the fact "he likes to fire people".


These are the groups that put Reagan and Bush over the top, but doomed McCain.

I mean, honestly, I can't believe some of you people are this stupid.

 

[Valerie]

Hey Joe... How many AMPAD workers were lost again..???




http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/216049-obama-sure-lied-to-nasa.html#post5057073

 

[Toro]

Oh, quit snivelling like a little ***** because I am not a hypocrite like you are.

If you aren't signing up for Mormonism tomorrow, then you are a hypocrite. At least I outright call them liars and fools. But you don't believe Joseph Smith was talking to God any more than I do.

Nope. You're a warped hater and a closed-minded bigot. I think Mormonism is whacky but I don't paint everyone in a broad group with the same brush and discriminate against them like you do.

And thanks for proving my point. You rationalize away to support your worldview. It's simplistic bullshit to say "the conservative always wins and the moderate always loses."

Oh, I forgot another one.

Nixon 60 - Ran as a conservative and lost.

 

[Toro]

Sorry, I call bullshit. Every election is different. Looking at past elections may be fun for pedants, but it is in no way an indicator of future results. .......

True enough.

But looking at demographic trends from the past is telling, and you ignore them at your peril.

Four groups Romney doesn't do well with.

Evangelicals hate him because he's soft on social issues, and he belongs to that whacky cult.

Women don't like the fact that he didn't have the balls to stand up to Limbaugh when he called them all sluts.

Hispanics don't like the fact that demogogued immigration.

Working folks don't like the fact "he likes to fire people".


These are the groups that put Reagan and Bush over the top, but doomed McCain.

I mean, honestly, I can't believe some of you people are this stupid.

Yet Romney has consistently run ahead of Gingrich / Santorum / Perry / Cain / Bachmann / Trump et al in a head to head match up against Obama.

That must make you even stupider for consistently supporting many different candidates who consistently do worse than Romney.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry, I call bullshit. Every election is different. Looking at past elections may be fun for pedants, but it is in no way an indicator of future results. .......

True enough.

But looking at demographic trends from the past is telling, and you ignore them at your peril.

Four groups Romney doesn't do well with.

Evangelicals hate him because he's soft on social issues, and he belongs to that whacky cult.

Women don't like the fact that he didn't have the balls to stand up to Limbaugh when he called them all sluts.

Hispanics don't like the fact that demogogued immigration.

Working folks don't like the fact "he likes to fire people".


These are the groups that put Reagan and Bush over the top, but doomed McCain.

I mean, honestly, I can't believe some of you people are this stupid.

Yet Romney has consistently run ahead of Gingrich / Santorum / Perry / Cain / Bachmann / Trump et al in a head to head match up against Obama.

That must make you even stupider for consistently supporting many different candidates who consistently do worse than Romney.

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

 

[Avatar4321]

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

I know you'd like to believe that. But Obama is going to be a one term President regardless.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

I know you'd like to believe that. But Obama is going to be a one term President regardless.

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

 

[Avatar4321]

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

I know you'd like to believe that. But Obama is going to be a one term President regardless.

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

I guess we will have to see in November. But I think you are 180 degrees off.

 

[Toro]

True enough.

But looking at demographic trends from the past is telling, and you ignore them at your peril.

Four groups Romney doesn't do well with.

Evangelicals hate him because he's soft on social issues, and he belongs to that whacky cult.

Women don't like the fact that he didn't have the balls to stand up to Limbaugh when he called them all sluts.

Hispanics don't like the fact that demogogued immigration.

Working folks don't like the fact "he likes to fire people".


These are the groups that put Reagan and Bush over the top, but doomed McCain.

I mean, honestly, I can't believe some of you people are this stupid.

Yet Romney has consistently run ahead of Gingrich / Santorum / Perry / Cain / Bachmann / Trump et al in a head to head match up against Obama.

That must make you even stupider for consistently supporting many different candidates who consistently do worse than Romney.

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

It was a remarkably weak field. The fact that Trump was at the top of the heap for awhile on the birfer issue was telling enough.

 

[Zander]

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

I know you'd like to believe that. But Obama is going to be a one term President regardless.

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

 

[dblack]

I know you'd like to believe that. But Obama is going to be a one term President regardless.

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

 

[rightwinger]

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

Romney has high unfavorable ratings .......and that is just within his own party

Obama will take eight out of ten swing states

 

[Zander]

Keep Telling yourself that, it will make you feel better

in reality, Obama will win by a huge margin pulling at least 325 electoral votes

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

it is a possibility that Obama wins. But 325 electoral votes? Not likely....

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

it is a possibility that Obama wins. But 325 electoral votes? Not likely....

Of course that is Down from 365 he got last time, but what the hell

 

[Avatar4321]

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

Problem is Obama has a record now. And a pretty crappy one.

Not to mention the Census has redistributed EC votes toward traditionally Republican states.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, quit snivelling like a little ***** because I am not a hypocrite like you are.

If you aren't signing up for Mormonism tomorrow, then you are a hypocrite. At least I outright call them liars and fools. But you don't believe Joseph Smith was talking to God any more than I do.

Nope. You're a warped hater and a closed-minded bigot. I think Mormonism is whacky but I don't paint everyone in a broad group with the same brush and discriminate against them like you do.

And thanks for proving my point. You rationalize away to support your worldview. It's simplistic bullshit to say "the conservative always wins and the moderate always loses."

Oh, I forgot another one.

Nixon 60 - Ran as a conservative and lost.

Actually, Nixon problaby won, but Dick Daley stole the election... But that's okay, your historical ignorance is fully on display.

Or that by modern standards, JFK was a conservative. he opposed abortion, cut taxes, built up the military, chided Eisenhower for letting their be a "missile gap".

Sorry, man, if I think someone is "whacky", and believes "whacky" things, then I think giving them access to nuclear weapons is actually kind of a bad idea.

Oh, did you see yesterday when some Paulite asked Romney about something in the Book of Mormon about interracial marriage. Man, did they guy squirm...

 

[JoeB131]

Yet Romney has consistently run ahead of Gingrich / Santorum / Perry / Cain / Bachmann / Trump et al in a head to head match up against Obama.

That must make you even stupider for consistently supporting many different candidates who consistently do worse than Romney.

Romney was the only Republican who had a chance of winning.

It was a remarkably weak field. The fact that Trump was at the top of the heap for awhile on the birfer issue was telling enough.

Already making excuses why Romney is going to lose, Toro?

 

[dblack]

Rightwinger may be right here. Sitting presidents have a significant advantage, and Romney is weak tea.

Problem is Obama has a record now. And a pretty crappy one.

Not to mention the Census has redistributed EC votes toward traditionally Republican states.

So does Romney. A pretty similar one at that. Seems like a good opportunity for the sleepers to grow a collective 'pair' and tell the two-party scammers to get fucked.

Yeah... I know. Not likely.