Maybe things have changed. But since this is about why the Republicans lost, as opposed to will lose…
Isn’t that the whole point of going after employers? Do you oppose going after employers? Because if you do it successfully, illegals self-deport, unable to feed their families.
I had thought we were all on board for at least that much.
I’m happy that people like you are still out there, adaher, losing support for the GOP until someday they are forced to kick the crazies out or die out as a national party. Keep on doing what you’re doing! 
Oh, I warned him about that a long time ago, but he is very helpful on showing all how inadequate the sources he depends on are and how he gets the sorry spin and factoids.
Not opposed, if they are the same reasons, and they continue to lose.
And you still do not get it, demonstrating to all why.
One election and you guys think you got it all figured out. I wonder what the opposite thread will look like in 2014? I’m guessing it will be nothing wrong with Democrats, just “structural” reasons, like incumbents never doing well in second midterms.
Oh i agree that it would work, i strongly disagree that getting rid of the illegals is a desirable outcome or worthy pursuit. Making people unable to feed their families is part of that whole making their lives horrible thing.
Considering that the OP and most of the discussion is about the presidential election, now it is clear that you are trying to get away from your even bigger failure of the past presidential election, I still remember that even Nate Silver reported after the 2012 election that the gerrymandering and other factors point to the Republicans to keep the house in 2014. So yes, knowing that I did follow good sources I did figure it out, you will continue to rely on lousy sources that tell you what you want and continue to get it wrong.
I love how you just casually refer to “other factors”. Gerrymandering is not sufficient to prevent the Democrats from winning the House, that is, if they had any support outside urban centers.
If the GOP wins the Senate, you’ll next be complaining about how unfair it is that there are more red states than blue states. The Founders gerrymandered!
IIRC Nate also reported that it is likely that the Senate will remain democratic, so yeah, once again I do think we have more figure it out.
But, once again this thread is focused on presidential elections, so far you demonstrate that indeed you are not figuring it out.
Well, no, they didn’t “gerrymander”. But neither did they make any effort to extend the privilege of voting to the riff-raff. If you confine civic power to prosperous citizens, you can be fairly assured of a conservative government. After all, what’s to improve? What need for progress when things are as they should be?
Admittedly, Presidential elections are looking challenging, but remember that in a period of Democratic dominance, Republicans found a way to win the White House several times. It meant running more moderate candidates than they would have liked, but they are still doing that now. Romney and John McCain aren’t exactly fire breathing Tea Partiers. Neither is the next nominee likely to be. Could even be Chris Christie, who polls show is a very viable candidate even against Clinton. Against a weaker Democrat, the Republicans’ chances get even better.
In regards to the Senate, it exists as part of a compromise to insure that state sovereignty would never be trampled on. Most states are red states, which is something Democrats would do some soul-searching about if they had any self-awareness.
But this thread isn’t about why Democrats lose elections. We already know the answer to that: Republicans lie! Structural reasons! Gerrymandering!
Well, there’s a cool drinking game for history nerds. Take a drink for every dark and insidious injustice committed in America and state sovereignty has been employed to protect it. Not a drink for every time it was so employed, just one for every such injustice. Otherwise, you’d have to take a couple hundred shots to address civil rights abuses, and people start to barf and die.
I support making fun of Republicans in general, but I don’t know why the libs are so cocky. It was close. We were one leaked tape away from President Mittens. Not exactly something to crow about.
I can just picture adaher happily digging through a pile of manure and humming to himself and thinking “I just KNOW there’s a pony in there!”
Romney and McCain weren’t fire breathing Tea Partiers, but they spent plenty of time catering to them. Christie isn’t going to win the nomination because he isn’t batshit crazy enough, don’t even worry about that possibility.
Let’s see, in the past half century Republicans won:
1968 Nixon narrowly winds over a divided Democratic Party whose best candidate got murdered.
1972 Nixon over a far left candidate
1980 Reagan with a big assist from Iran
1984 Reagan for no apparent reason
1988 Bush The Greater over a pathetic candidate
2000 & 2004 Bush The Lesser steals two elections
Republicans haven’t exactly been lighting up the scoreboard. And that was before the tide of demographics really started to rise against them. Now their winning strategy is to piss off the rising sector of the electorate while sucking up to the worst bigots of their followers.
You could do the same for the federal government. Japanese internment, the syphilis experiments, Jim Crow in DC(can’t blame the states for that one),.
There is nothing inherently more just about the federal government. Much like the UN, it was made up of the states, and it was better than some states and worse than other states. The bad behavior of the South does not justify repealing state sovereignty for the whole country, as if such a thing was even possible.
BoblibDem, your post shows what’s wrong with Democrats. All those other big wins were just circumstances, you see! 49-state victories, just something that happens! Let’s see Democrats pull that feat off. Republicans have done it twice.
And there you go again, hoping for demographics to bail you out. Will. Not. Happen. This country will be 75% white if you include Hispanic whites, and I think I will, given the general hostility in the media towards George Zimmerman, who “regards himself as Hispanic”. When even the liberal media won’t let you not be white, that says something. Hispanic whites will be as culturally white as Italians or Irish in a couple of decades.
But right now (and for the foreseeable future) the GOP DOESN’T. COUNT. THEM. AS. WHITE. They’ve been pretty blatant about it and Hispanics are getting the message loud and clear. You can’t just assume they’ll become “white” (as if that suddenly makes them Republicans) without something else changes.
So my takeaway (per the OP) is - yes, the GOP (or at least senior party leadership) knows exactly why they lost. They just don’t give a shit about fixing it (or can’t overcome the tide of the Tea Party/Radical Religious Right/Southern Racists).
I find it hard to credit the notion that the hostility of the “liberal media” towards Mr Zimmerman results from calling himself “Hispanic”. Other factors are in play, here.