This is becoming a recurring problem. I don’t see any signs of it being fixed, thankfully… do you?
I agree that they would have the senate if it wasn’t for their bad candidates, but do you think that this is going to stop any time soon?
So you’re against the practice of…um…politics?
It wasn’t as bad in 2012 as in 2010. In the end it all comes down to how registered Republicans vote, so there will always be an element of unpredictability. And hey, sometimes the Tea party guy even wins. Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio made it in states they weren’t guaranteed to win. Which tells me it’s not so much ideology as reasonableness. Three of those guys have been willing to work with Democrats and don’t regularly say insane things or look like morons.
So really, I don’t know.
A lot of “politics” many decades ago was considered normal, if unsavory, and eventually got made against the law. Tammany Hall’s tactics for example, or the practice of one guy just writing a check to finance a candidate’s entire campaign. If the only thing the Tea Party ever does is end the trading of earmarks for votes, they will have struck a blow for good government.
Especially if you infer, as you must, that the sheer number of their bad candidates is just a symptom. Those candidates are bad because of what they stand for, far more than for who they are. At what point can you no longer consider them to be exceptions?
I don’t think it’s what they stand for at all. Every single one of those candidates lost because of gaffes, while gaffe-free Tea Partiers won fairly handily.
That’s what you guys aren’t getting for the last 28 pages of discussion. The platform is mostly fine. I’ve proved it. If it wasn’t fine, Democrats wouldn’t masquerade as conservatives for the few months of a campaign(“What I’m proposing is a net spending cut”-candidate Obama). If it wasn’t fine, it wouldn’t take saying dumb things and having them magnified through the media to defeat them. If the platform wasn’t fine, Obama would have spent 90% of his time attacking Romney’s ideas, rather than his person and his flip-flops.
There was one time when the Republican platform wasn’t fine for its time, and the Democrat was confident enough to mainly make a policy-based argument against him: Barry Goldwater and the GOP’s 1964 platform. Well, that’s not entirely true, Mondale and McGovern tried that kind of campaign, and we saw how well that went. So now Democrats win with a combination of attacking corruption(Carter), fixating on the economy while hyping conservative credentials(Clinton), or pretending to be a different kind of politician(Obama).
When Democrats win by portraying their opponent as too conservative for America, while running as staunch liberals, then I’ll be impressed.
“Gaffes” meaning “accidentally telling the truth about their positions”, that is.
I do think you know better.
Sort of. Akin’s statement wasn’t the truth, it was ignorance.
I’d also add that half the Democratic strategy became hyping Romney’s gaffes. Something which you’d think would be unnecessary if his platform can’t appeal to enough voters to win anyway.
I think that bit is obtuse, he is talking about what the actual position Akin had, his true position was very reprehensible, it does not refer much to the truthfulness of his position. Likewise, I do think many republicans that appreciate science are not really aware of the levels of anti-science (anti-evolution, climate change denial and others) that they have and use to make decisions about education and future budgets.
OK, a better definition of “Republican gaffe” would be “inadvertent honesty” - I meant “truth about what you think and believe and would act on”. But isn’t the fact that your own Presidential candidate, IOW your best and brightest (since you bring him up) views the world as “givers and takers” etc. indicative to you of the nature and depth of your inability to attract support? That it isn’t the messengers but the message? At what point would you be willing to consider the thought?
When attacking the message is what wins elections for Democrats. Rather than adopting a Republican-lite stance and then making the campaign personal.
Democrats should run against Republicans by pointing out that the Republicans are pro-life, want to cut spending, want less regulation, want lower taxes, and support gun rights.
Instead, we get “Well, we support all that stuff too, we’re just not as radical!” When in reality the Democrats are mostly opposite on those issues, with some exceptions(the Clinton and Carter administrations favored a lot of deregulation.
Someone could post “Water is wet” and you’d somehow find a way to blame the Democrats and excuse the Republicans for it, wouldn’t you?
Now you’re just changing the subject. Which is pretty rich given that the board liberals have decided that Obama is scandal-free after more than four years, which would be quite a feat even for a saint.
I’d say that might be a pretty good reason why Democrats lose in the future. Whatever a Democratic President does is mostly okay. Sure, there might be a little mooted criticism, but the cause is more important. Most notably, Democratic voters now support NSA surveillance! This was a crisis of democracy not six years ago, and now it’s just peachy!? No principles whatsoever.
Talking about the democrats losing and future hypotheticals is indeed changing the subject.
Read the OP again, so far what what we get are cartoon reasons of why Republicans lost the presidency in 2012.
Then why is there so remarkably little ethnic diversity in the GOP?
But also, you cannot deny, because their brand as such has declined in appeal.
Don’t forget that voters we don’t want still get to vote.
Really???
You don’t think it would be cruel to rip someone …someone who has never broken the law…away from the country they were raised in since a child, the country they grew up in, the country they were educated in, the country that is the only home they have ever known…to send them to a place where they know no one and may not even be that fluent in the language…all because of something their parents did???
Someone can do illegal things. I don’t think that you can morally declare someone to be illegal independent of their actions…although you are sorely tempting me to try.
So, now… “don’t** regularly **say insane things or look like morons” is the new high bar for the GOP team??? Think about that.