Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

I think not…and they will continue to lose unless there is a major reform in the party…which unfortunately I do not see happening.

It is a little too early to say for sure but most likely they will try and become even more politically correct…aka become a imitation of the democratic party…definitely a losing proposition.

Considering that the two most popular rationales seem to be

  1. we just didn’t communicate our wonderful true ideas well enough, and
  2. all the people who voted for Democrats are Godless parasites on society,

it doesn’t look promising.

What do you mean, lost? They kept control of the all important House, and only lost a few seats there, due largely to Dem voter fraud. This can be easily shown by the fact that more votes are recorded for Dem House candidates than for Republican. Since, as everybody knows, America is basically a center-right country, this can only be possible by fraud.

Since the House is therefor the only legitimately elected body, the other two branches should meekly comply with their wishes, which is jobs, jobs, jobs because no more abortions.

I’d put those further down on the list, behind “We need to double down on stopping ‘urban voters’ from voting” and “We need to keep playing games with the electoral map to preserve our advantages.” It’s still early but it really doesn’t look good right now.

I think most of them are content to live in their bubble:

Of interest in that vein, a link to ThinkProgress’ article on 11 Pieces Of Pro-Voting Legislation For 2013

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/26/1376041/progressive-voting-legislation/

(Warning! Lefty site, Tighty Righty are advised for maximum shield cootie protocols, incidents involving toxoplasma gandhi have been reported. In the event of a sudden extreme affection for Obama and/or cats, contemplate suicide immediately…)

That article gave me hope for America. Thank you.

My question is: When will the Republicans figure out THAT they lost.

I think most Republicans realize that Romney was a mediocre candidate at best who ran a not very good campaign. And that’s really all there was to it.

The real problem the Republicans have at the presidential level is finding someone who can be a good candidate. Romney was really the best one out of the bunch (Huntsman never got any traction), so who is the next savior for the GOP? Everyone seems to love Chris Christie, but he has to win re-election first. Bobby Jindal still isn’t tested at the national level. Santorum would be a disaster, worse than Romney, because of his extreme views on social issues.

But it seems to me if the Democrats can come back from the crushing defeats they suffered against Reagan, then the GOP can come back from this modest defeat.

Notwithstanding the almighty hanging chads mess of 2000/01, they’ve lost 3 of 4 now.

Fox was influential in the last 4.

I disagree. Romney was a good candidate, but it’s very difficult to beat an incumbent president.

Bush was re-elected, and so was Clinton. The incumbency is a powerful factor.

Independents did go for Romney, which was his plan. The Democratic base just came out more than the Republican one.

That’s not quite all there was to it, though, because it neglects the reasons he ran a mediocre campaign.

Republicans just refused to understand who independents were.

Will John Mace ever figure out why the Republicans lost? :wink:

Not…quite, Mace.

Yes, after the Reagan years the Democratic base came back to win, but it took a real and clear change in the party for that to be achieved. Clinton and the DLC were very little like the Democratic party of Mondale and Humphrey.

What will be required is the Republican Party finding the strength to confront its current issues and rebuilding itself as a different party. But I think that process is just at the beginning.

So just saying, “Well, they’ll come back” is inadequate to describe what needs doing. Because those comebacks don’t just happen, they’re part of a process.

Romney had Kerry’s problems - painted wealthy and out of touch he didn’t project any charisma to overcome it. Bush is wealthy, but he has a significant aura of “neighborliness” about him Romney and Kerry don’t have.

But I think Romney could have been a good candidate - he didn’t shift to the center fast enough after clinching the primaries and the primaries hung on too long. And the 47% comments are going to hang around for a long time as how out of touch Republicans are when they are in their own closed rooms.

Obama had a weak incumbency due to the economy.

The main reason is that his background didn’t resonate with people. He’s a super-rich, tone deaf, Mormon. He could barely open his mouth without betraying how clueless he was. If he wasn’t talking about his wife’s two Cadillacs, he was offering to bet someone $10,000. None of those things, by themselves, would have been too bad, but it was drip, drip, drip every day with the gaffes. He really didn’t know what it was like to not be rich.

He was a mediocre candidate, at best. Obama was eminently beatable, but you can’t beat him with a wooden prop. Ok, that didn’t sound quite like it should have…

This bespeaks a fundamental issue for Republican presidential candidates, though: you can’t have both. The social conservatives didn’t go for Romney, and the independents won’t go for any of the loons the social conservatives want. The only way to get a plausible candidate nominated seems to be sneaking him out of nowhere, like GWB, so nobody knows his views.

The claim the Romney won independents is a bit misguided. Many of the “independents” are in fact former faithful Republicans who have become disillusioned with their party’s takeover by the right wing extremists. You can have a big tent or you can have a pure tent, you can’t have both. They chose the pure tent as witnessed by all of the presidential candidates trying to out-right each other in the primaries.

The Republican Alternate Reality Bubble makes all those that dwell within it convinced that everybody hates Obama because everyone they listen to hates Obama, and that all that was needed to reclaim their rightful place in the White House was to say “I am not Barack Obama.” Romney was convinced that he didn’t have to release his tax returns, he didn’t have to get specific on his economic plans, and he didn’t have to have a large ground game. All he had to do was have white skin and the White House was his.

In the Senate, they gave away sure wins (MO and IN) because they nominated right wing extremists and the party took on the stench of misogyny.

Now the Republicans either insist that they lost because they weren’t conservative enough or that they really won because they retained control of the House. Take away the gerrymandering, and Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker.

So in short, they will never figure out why or even that they lost.

Wait, what? The Republican House majority has existed since before the last round of redistricting.

The main reason is that he couldn’t appeal to moderate and conservative voters at the same time.