Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues.

[Butchie]

I keep seeing this everywhere "Republicans have to change their views on social issues if they want to win in the future" - this is BS. Do people really think this is why Romney lost? Yes, ofcourse, those two clowns who made the "rape" comments (which I believe were taken out of context and blown way out of proportion, but nevertheless poor choice of words) sunk their bids, but Romney did not lose because of gays and abortion.

Obama could hardly call this a victory, it was a suckfest and Obama barely eeked out a win, but to say social issues were the deciding factor is just nonsense. Romney lost because no one liked him, he was a flip-flopper who gave people no clear alternative to what Obama was offering. The thing conservatives need to work on, is making it easier for people to understand free markets and how they help the poor instead of hurt them. It's very easy for the Dems to get up there and promise free stuff and that seems on the surface to be "compassionate" whereas giving businesses tax breaks and price gouging in hurricanes seems cruel to those who aren't educated on these things.

The last thing we need is get bogged down in confusing disucssions on gays and abortion, those who make those issues a deal breaker are likely hardcore Dems or Repubs anyhow who would never vote for the other side in the first place, most others just don't want those issues to be major parts of anyone's campaigns, just say you are socially conservative if asked, then move on.

[Harald]

Social issue is a big turn off. I have a lot of friend among immigrants that came from USSR. They hate communism and democrats. But social issues make them not vote republicans either.

I keep explaining them, that is just words, ignore that. But it does irritate them a lot.

[CaptUSA]

The problem is that when the topic is switched to social issues, republicans turn into progressives. Meaning, they want the government to force the people to behave how they want them to behave.

This is why the democratic machine kept changing the economic discussion to social issues. Because it makes republicans look stupid. And make no mistake, once you look stupid, it's very hard to get people to accept that you are only stupid about social issues. They tend to believe you are just stupid.

So while I agree with you that it wasn't just social issues, the ability of democrats to burn republicans with them is real. Not to mention the fact that scare tactics on social issues turns out the democratic vote like magic.

[RockEnds]

You know, the rhetoric was pretty hard core this year. Yes, there are people who will not budge one way or the other on abortion and other social issues. Those people are not swing voters. But the debate really got out of hand this time. Frankly, women are a sizable voting block, and when the GOP aligns itself with people who wish to legislate morality and view women as breeders, you'll find the female vote will largely reject the guy at the top of the ticket. In fact, you'll find that some women who have made the decision to birth, love, and raise a child conceived in rape will reject the dogma at the voting booth. Spin it any way you want, but women were pissed off this cycle. It's a fact. Granted, Romney had much more trouble than just that, but the hard core theocratic rhetoric from portions of the GOP did not help.

[ILUVRP]

there are many reasons why i did not like romney , the biggest were --not putting out at least 5 yrs of tax returns --putting 10's of millions of $$$$ in overseas banks --bain capital .

all of which are legal and if i had the money i would put money overseas in case the shtf here.

but not running for potus.

[Keith and stuff]

Obama could hardly call this a victory, it was a suckfest and Obama barely eeked out a win...

That's not how I see it. Obama won in all but 1 of the swing states up for grabs. Who knows, depending on how Obama allocated resources, he might have been able to pull off victories in that state, NC, and even GA. Obama beat Romney by a good amount.

As for the social issues, it depends on the state. NH is nearly the most socially liberal state in the US. It is 1 of the more fiscally conservative states, though. Obama destroyed Romney in ground game here. Even Planned Parenthood visited many house in the populated areas near Manchester talking about how Republicans would try to end abortion. Since the exit poll showed pro-choice to pro-life leaning voters in NH made up 75% to 25% of the electorate, that was a huge deal. Exit polls also showed 65% in favor of government same sex marriage in NH.

I understand that some Republicans will never change their minds on the abortion issue but Republicans running in the West or Northeast need to realize that there will be a time when pretty much everyone is in favor of government same sex marriage. There used to be a time when most voters were opposed to blacks and whites getting government marriages. Times change. Eventually, voters, even in the South, will overwhelmingly support government same sex marriage.

[Cleaner44]

You can stop saying whatever you want. I will keep pointing out that Republicans that ask for a nanny state on social issues are BIG GOVT fucktards. I don't need Santorum deciding for me if I should be allowed to play cards with other adults.

[angelatc]

You know, the rhetoric was pretty hard core this year. Yes, there are people who will not budge one way or the other on abortion and other social issues. Those people are not swing voters. But the debate really got out of hand this time. Frankly, women are a sizable voting block, and when the GOP aligns itself with people who wish to legislate morality and view women as breeders, you'll find the female vote will largely reject the guy at the top of the ticket. In fact, you'll find that some women who have made the decision to birth, love, and raise a child conceived in rape will reject the dogma at the voting booth. Spin it any way you want, but women were pissed off this cycle. It's a fact. Granted, Romney had much more trouble than just that, but the hard core theocratic rhetoric from portions of the GOP did not help.

The Democrats the party that views women as breeders.

It's insane to think that the GOP should adopt the liberal platforms when we normally bitch because they've done that in the past. Social Seciurity, Medicare/MeedicAid, SCHIP, Prescription drugs, NEA, EPA...the list goes on and on.

The whole War on Women is the Democrats insisting that we can't survive without them. Break apart the family, put women on the dole, then tell them that nobody loves them like Big Brother. I disgusting, and the women who buy into it are the same type that marry wife beaters and alcoholics.

[Brett85]

You can stop saying whatever you want. I will keep pointing out that Republicans that ask for a nanny state on social issues are BIG GOVT fucktards. I don't need Santorum deciding for me if I should be allowed to play cards with other adults.

Sure, if you're talking about something like gambling or marijuana legalization, you have a point. But Ron, Rand, and other liberty people aren't exactly social liberals when they oppose abortion rights and support the defense of marriage act.

[JohnM]

"Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues?"


To be honest, I am amazed at the number of people who keep on saying this.

1) It is extremely simplistic. There are a lot of reasons that Mitt Romney lost.

2) Romney was never a real social conservative. Remember " I believe that abortion should be safe and legal"?

3) The Republicans did not have a particularly bad election. The Presidential election was just one election on November 6th. It was focused on the candidate as much as his party - and, as such, had as much to do with his personality as with the policies associated with his party.

A much better test of the popularity of the party as a whole is to look at the elections to the House of Representatives. The Republicans won 234 races, the Democrats won 197. In other words, the Republicans did not do as well as they did in 2010, but they did better than they did in 2008, 2006, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1994, 1992, 1990, 1988, 1986, 1984, etc. etc. etc. Not that you would guess that from listening to the pundits.


Anyone who is saying that the Republican Party had a terrible election this year is simply ignorant.

And almost all the people attributing this mythical electoral disaster to social issues are (surprise, surprise) people who are hostile to social conservativism.

[RockEnds]

The Democrats the party that views women as breeders.

It's insane to think that the GOP should adopt the liberal platforms when we normally bitch because they've done that in the past. Social Seciurity, Medicare/MeedicAid, SCHIP, Prescription drugs, NEA, EPA...the list goes on and on.

Well, the democrats demonized children conceived in rape. According to their rhetoric, all women should unilaterally despise any child conceived under such circumstances. I don't think the GOP even noticed. They could have played on that.

Personally, I don't see anything either liberal or conservative about sticking one's business in another's uterus.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The GOP needs to come up with a better response to the Dem's "my faith makes me personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my views on others".

Many years ago I saw a video that was a debate on abortion. The pro-abortion speaker (a woman) was at the podium using the argument I stated above, the pro-life guy got up out of his chair went over to the woman's chair and took her bag, brought it back to his chair and started rifling through it. The woman saw what he was doing, was flustered and said "what are you doing". He replied, "I took your bag". She said "you cannot take my bag, that's wrong" (she played right into his hand). He replied "well maybe your faith tells you that theft is wrong, but who are you to impose your views on me".

[CaptUSA]

And almost all the people attributing this mythical electoral disaster to social issues are (surprise, surprise) people who are hostile to social conservativism.There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

[Butchie]

The Democrats the party that views women as breeders.

It's insane to think that the GOP should adopt the liberal platforms when we normally bitch because they've done that in the past. Social Seciurity, Medicare/MeedicAid, SCHIP, Prescription drugs, NEA, EPA...the list goes on and on.

The whole War on Women is the Democrats insisting that we can't survive without them. Break apart the family, put women on the dole, then tell them that nobody loves them like Big Brother. I disgusting, and the women who buy into it are the same type that marry wife beaters and alcoholics.

Goodness, thank you Angel. I was starting to think I was on a progressive website here for a moment. Someone please explain to me how Republicans were trying to legislate morality this election? Because they don't want their tax dollars paying for birth control and abortions? I always love how people just act as tho oppossing abortion is legislating morality, if life begins at conception then standing up for the rights of that child is essential for anyone who believes in liberty, obviously, if you believe life does not begin at conception your view is different, but that is the issue, where does life begin.

[JohnM]

There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

You are completely correct.

And while almost all the people attributing this mythical electoral disaster to social issues are people who are hostile to social conservativism - I will readily admit that there are a small number of people who attribute this mythical electoral disaster to social issues who are not hostile to social conservativism, but who are hostile to the government dictating social conservativism. :)

[thoughtomator]

Can we say Republicans lost because half the country right now knows someone who has been unjustly jailed due to some draconian policy the GOP adheres to like it's the heart and soul of the party?

[RockEnds]

Goodness, thank you Angel. I was starting to think I was on a progressive website here for a moment. Someone please explain to me how Republicans were trying to legislate morality this election? Because they don't want their tax dollars paying for birth control and abortions? I always love how people just act as tho oppossing abortion is legislating morality, if life begins at conception then standing up for the rights of that child is essential for anyone who believes in liberty, obviously, if you believe life does not begin at conception your view is different, but that is the issue, where does life begin.

You made the assertion that social issues had nothing to do with the election results. You didn't ask for a critique on whether it was right or wrong.

[angelatc]

Goodness, thank you Angel. I was starting to think I was on a progressive website here for a moment. Someone please explain to me how Republicans were trying to legislate morality this election? Because they don't want their tax dollars paying for birth control and abortions? I always love how people just act as tho oppossing abortion is legislating morality, if life begins at conception then standing up for the rights of that child is essential for anyone who believes in liberty, obviously, if you believe life does not begin at conception your view is different, but that is the issue, where does life begin.

Not to mention that that the Republicans are NEVER going to overturn Roe v Wade. They had to fight like heck to bet partial birth abortion banned, and they had a strong majority then. And the President doesn't get to make that call regardless. That was a SCOTUS decision. It's not like they're out there trying to amend the constitution (God knows that would be too much like work work!)

The Democrats are insisting that we purge social issues from our platform, while they win on social issues. They tell us the TEA party is too far right, while they purge their pro-life and pro-gun members in favor of appointing socialist progressives to their empty chairs.

They're playing chess while accusing the GOP of losing at checkers.

[angelatc]

You made the assertion that social issues had nothing to do with the election results. You didn't ask for a critique on whether it was right or wrong.

This election, as well as the last election, had less turnout than Bush v Kerry. This despite a bigger population of registered voters. Losing elections is more about the fact that the GOP has morphed into the DNC of the 60's, and conservatives just aren't driven to even make an effort to support them.

[Butchie]

You made the assertion that social issues had nothing to do with the election results. You didn't ask for a critique on whether it was right or wrong.

Absolutely right, but when people came back at me with quotes about how the GOP was trying to legislate morality they were clearly making a statement on right and wrong whether I asked for it or not.

[Brett85]

The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

[RockEnds]

This election, as well as the last election, had less turnout than Bush v Kerry. This despite a bigger population of registered voters. Losing elections is more about the fact that the GOP has morphed into the DNC of the 60's, and conservatives just aren't driven to even make an effort to support them.

I absolutely agree that there were other factors at play, and I stated as much. But man, I am finding myself apologizing to my friends that I'm on the county GOP committee. Some of them are pretty sure that I've sold out the entire gender. To think that social issues did not play any part in the outcome of the election is naive. It did. The Dems supported Obamacare. Romney also supported most of Obamacare, but the GOP was dead set against it including anything associated with female reproduction. They didn't single out gall bladder surgery or diabetes. They singled out birth control.

I didn't frame debate. I'm just trying to explain why my female friends think the GOP is bonkers.

[RockEnds]

dp

[mport1]

I think the disgusting social views of the GOP were a large reason for their loss. People aren't going to stand for their views for much longer.

[CaptLouAlbano]

This election, as well as the last election, had less turnout than Bush v Kerry. This despite a bigger population of registered voters. Losing elections is more about the fact that the GOP has morphed into the DNC of the 60's, and conservatives just aren't driven to even make an effort to support them.

This is so, so true. And it is something that I do not think many people really understand. People throw the term neo-con around way too much, and attach it primarily (if not solely to FP), but it is not just about FP. Turn back the clock to the mid 60's, take the prominent neo-cons of today: McCain, Graham, Kristol, Rove, etc. Guess what party they would have been in? The Democratic Party. Neo-cons are not just war mongers, they are economic moderates (for lack of a better term). The neo-cons left the Dems because the Dems went too far left on their domestic agenda with the Great Society programs of the late 60's. They came to the GOP and set up shop here, siding with the true conservatives who opposed the Great Society expansion of gov't - but they are not conservative in the traditional sense, hence the term neo-con. And today, they are barely indistinguishable from the moderates or former Rockefeller wing of the GOP.

So to the issue you raised, conservatives, particularly ones who are 40 and above and remember the difference between a real conservative and a neo-con, don't turn out in sizable numbers when the party runs someone like McCain or Romney. Conservatives just can't get fired up over them. Turnout goes down and the GOP suffers losses across the board, which in many cases effects decent people who are down ticket.

[jbauer]

You know, the rhetoric was pretty hard core this year. Yes, there are people who will not budge one way or the other on abortion and other social issues. Those people are not swing voters. But the debate really got out of hand this time. Frankly, women are a sizable voting block, and when the GOP aligns itself with people who wish to legislate morality and view women as breeders, you'll find the female vote will largely reject the guy at the top of the ticket. In fact, you'll find that some women who have made the decision to birth, love, and raise a child conceived in rape will reject the dogma at the voting booth. Spin it any way you want, but women were pissed off this cycle. It's a fact. Granted, Romney had much more trouble than just that, but the hard core theocratic rhetoric from portions of the GOP did not help.

Some where around 50% ehh?

[Acala]

The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

That wasn't the choice presented.

Romney offered the following:

1. More war
2. More debt
3. more torture, detention without trial, tsa gate rape, assassinations
4. more domestic sureveilance
5. more crony-capitalism, bailouts, subsidies, etc.
6. More war on drugs

Given the above, the question really should be "why would anyone think Romney would do anything OTHER than lose?"

[RockEnds]

Some where around 50% ehh?

Yeppers.

[jbauer]

Goodness, thank you Angel. I was starting to think I was on a progressive website here for a moment. Someone please explain to me how Republicans were trying to legislate morality this election? Because they don't want their tax dollars paying for birth control and abortions? I always love how people just act as tho oppossing abortion is legislating morality, if life begins at conception then standing up for the rights of that child is essential for anyone who believes in liberty, obviously, if you believe life does not begin at conception your view is different, but that is the issue, where does life begin.

Agree, I think pro-life should be the liberty's view on abortion. All the rest of the social crap....I coudl care less. As long as it doesn't infringe on my ability to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Go for it.

[July]

It's not so much the social issues as it is the authoritarian cartoon like impression of the social issues that is being sold and projected by the media, political class, etc. The "war on women" angle was very successful for the Democrats, and...what's worse is that so many mainstream establishment Repulicans sympathize with this theory of class conflict themselves, so they tend to do an exceptionally poor job articulating a defense. Just the other day I had a discussion with a liberal friend about how the 10th amendment works and how state rights would handle compromise on social issues, by letting people decide local laws, and she came away from the discussion agreeing with me! But she has never heard this argument before.

[Origanalist]

Is abortion the only social issue?

[EBounding]

Were social issues brought up at all during the debates? I don't remember any significant discussion on them.

[Brian4Liberty]

First off, most of the people who voted for Obama would have voted for him no matter what. They are nanny-state Democrats, and the propaganda and faux outrage is just a big show.

That being said, their propaganda was particularly effective this year. Many women this year have been saying the GOP wanted to take away their rights, and that there was a "war on women". This was further enforced by Murdock and Akin falling easy prey to loaded questions which resulted in soundbites which could be used ad-nausuem by the media.


You know, the rhetoric was pretty hard core this year. Yes, there are people who will not budge one way or the other on abortion and other social issues. Those people are not swing voters. But the debate really got out of hand this time. Frankly, women are a sizable voting block, and when the GOP aligns itself with people who wish to legislate morality and view women as breeders, you'll find the female vote will largely reject the guy at the top of the ticket. In fact, you'll find that some women who have made the decision to birth, love, and raise a child conceived in rape will reject the dogma at the voting booth. Spin it any way you want, but women were pissed off this cycle. It's a fact. Granted, Romney had much more trouble than just that, but the hard core theocratic rhetoric from portions of the GOP did not help.

Well put.


...
The whole War on Women is the Democrats insisting that we can't survive without them. Break apart the family, put women on the dole, then tell them that nobody loves them like Big Brother. I disgusting, and the women who buy into it are the same type that marry wife beaters and alcoholics.

Yep.

"Don't worry, Obama loves you. He and Hillary will take care of you. They are your new Husband and Mommy."

[angelatc]

I absolutely agree that there were other factors at play, and I stated as much. But man, I am finding myself apologizing to my friends that I'm on the county GOP committee. Some of them are pretty sure that I've sold out the entire gender. To think that social issues did not play any part in the outcome of the election is naive. It did. The Dems supported Obamacare. Romney also supported most of Obamacare, but the GOP was dead set against it including anything associated with female reproduction. They didn't single out gall bladder surgery or diabetes. They singled out birth control.

I didn't frame debate. I'm just trying to explain why my female friends think the GOP is bonkers.

YOu need to hang out with a higher class of females. You even bought the messaging.

Romney said he wanted to overturn Obamacare on day one. They didn't single out birth control. Some college lesbian made headlines for not being able to afford $10 a month for pills, and suddenly the Democrats are asserting that the mean old GOP is going to outlaw birth control.

Seriously, how did we ever manage to not get pregnant without government assistance?

[RockEnds]

YOu need to hang out with a higher class of females.

Yeah, don't miss the chance to insult my friends and family. I'll message my DIL and my step-mom right now and tell them they're beneath me.

You don't have to listen what what's being explained, but please don't insult the people I love.

[EBounding]

A much better test of the popularity of the party as a whole is to look at the elections to the House of Representatives. The Republicans won 234 races, the Democrats won 197. In other words, the Republicans did not do as well as they did in 2010, but they did better than they did in 2008, 2006, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1994, 1992, 1990, 1988, 1986, 1984, etc. etc. etc. Not that you would guess that from listening to the pundits.


Anyone who is saying that the Republican Party had a terrible election this year is simply ignorant.

And almost all the people attributing this mythical electoral disaster to social issues are (surprise, surprise) people who are hostile to social conservativism.

That's a good assessment. In Michigan, the state legistlature remained in control of the Republicans which is pretty good considering the Democrat President and Senator won their elections. The democrats did devastate some pockets of normal "Republican Strongholds". In my county, all county positions except for 2 turned democrat. The county GOP's heads are still spinning.

[Sola_Fide]

There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

Well said.

[angelatc]

I think the disgusting social views of the GOP were a large reason for their loss. People aren't going to stand for their views for much longer.

Which social views are disgusting? And what are people going to do when they refuse to stand for "it?"

The youth of today are disgusting, IMHO. They have no morals, and get angry because other people do?

[angelatc]

There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

Yes, but the GOP is conservative, which is inclusive of supporting governments that encourage social conservatism. The GOP is not libertarian. The liberals want us to be poor, and destryoing the family unit from all angles is the best way to accomplish that.

[angelatc]

Yeah, don't miss the chance to insult my friends and family. I'll message my DIL and my step-mom right now and tell them they're beneath me.

You don't have to listen what what's being explained, but please don't insult the people I love.

You can give them my phone number and I'll insult them personally, if that's more comfortable.

[CaptUSA]

They didn't single out birth control. Some college lesbian made headlines for not being able to afford $10 a month for pills, and suddenly the Democrats are asserting that the mean old GOP is going to outlaw birth control.

Seriously, how did we ever manage to not get pregnant without government assistance?Seriously, how did lesbians ever manage to not get pregnant without birth control?!

[Brian4Liberty]

The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

A vast percentage of the population has been reduced to living paycheck to paycheck. 47.1 million are now on food stamps (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395429-Food-Stamps-Surge-But-Release-Was-Strategically-Delayed). Many are employed directly and indirectly by Fed/State/Local government. Government is forever, private sector jobs are not important. They don't care about the national debt or declining dollar or the economy. They don't see it as a problem that effects them in any way. Obama will take care of them, one way or another. Food stamps, welfare or government job, take your pick.

[RockEnds]

You can give them my phone number and I'll insult them personally, if that's more comfortable.

I have a homeschool event today, Angela. You'll have to insult people without me. Carry on.

[CaptUSA]

Yes, but the GOP is conservative, which is inclusive of supporting governments that encourage social conservatism. The GOP is not libertarian. The liberals want us to be poor, and destryoing the family unit from all angles is the best way to accomplish that.Encourage? I'm ok with "encourage". I'm socially conservative. I just don't believe in using my government to get other people to stop taking drugs, stop engaging in homosexual relationships, or giving special benefits to those who get married or engage in what I believe it "correct" behavior.

[Origanalist]

I absolutely agree that there were other factors at play, and I stated as much. But man, I am finding myself apologizing to my friends that I'm on the county GOP committee. Some of them are pretty sure that I've sold out the entire gender. To think that social issues did not play any part in the outcome of the election is naive. It did. The Dems supported Obamacare. Romney also supported most of Obamacare, but the GOP was dead set against it including anything associated with female reproduction. They didn't single out gall bladder surgery or diabetes. They singled out birth control.

I didn't frame debate. I'm just trying to explain why my female friends think the GOP is bonkers.

I don't remember anyone being against female reproduction, or even birth control.

[angelatc]

I have a homeschool event today, Angela. You'll have to insult people without me. Carry on.

Don't post things like "THe GOP lost because they didn't support Obamacare and birth control and it scared women" and not expect those women to get called out on it. If you don't want your female friends mocked, then leave their opinions out of the discussion.

[angelatc]

I don't remember anyone being against female reproduction, or even birth control.

Romney ran on a promise to overturn Obamacare on day 1.

He ran a crappy campaign. When the "Romney killed a woman who had cancer!" ads came out, he didn't call them out on the overt lie. His brilliant campaign's response was that if she lived in Massachusetts, she would have had coverage.

The Democrats are effective demagogues, and if you challenge them on anything, you're a rude neanderthal. Racist, too. But if you refuse to challenge them at all, then you're just a wimp.

[angelatc]

Encourage? I'm ok with "encourage". I'm socially conservative. I just don't believe in using my government to get other people to stop taking drugs, stop engaging in homosexual relationships, or giving special benefits to those who get married or engage in what I believe it "correct" behavior.

Me too, but that's not an accurate representation of the GOP base. That's the libertarian position.

[CaptUSA]

Me too, but that's not an accurate representation of the GOP base. That's the libertarian position.Well, yeah. But that's what I'm saying. The position of the conservative base on social issues is being rejected. While it's not enough to make them lose elections, it does matter. Why? Because when they have to defend their positions, they often end up looking like idiots. And people don't want idiots working on economic issues either.

Democrats know this. That's why they push the social issues so hard. It makes the GOP base position look dumb.

[angelatc]

A vast percentage of the population has been reduced to living paycheck to paycheck. 47.1 million are now on food stamps (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395429-Food-Stamps-Surge-But-Release-Was-Strategically-Delayed). Many are employed directly and indirectly by Fed/State/Local government. Government is forever, private sector jobs are not important. They don't care about the national debt or declining dollar or the economy. They don't see it as a problem that effects them in any way. Obama will take care of them, one way or another. Food stamps, welfare or government job, take your pick.

Sure, and this isn't the political time to run on a platform of cutting out social welfare. The time to do that was in the boom days, when unemployment was below the natural level. But the GOP expanded the entitlement base at the juncture, and caved on privatizing Social Security.

[GunnyFreedom]

The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

Not true. 50% of those who voted in the smallest turnout election in 12 years (probably 50 years adjusted for population inflation) thought they would be better off under Obama than Romney.

That's not even close to 50% of the American people.

Obama won 60,602,406 votes. There are 314,760,173 people in the United States.

So that means 19.2% of Americans voted for Obama. Not 50%.

It makes a difference.

[angelatc]

Well, yeah. But that's what I'm saying. The position of the conservative base on social issues is being rejected. While it's not enough to make them lose elections, it does matter. Why? Because when they have to defend their positions, they often end up looking like idiots. And people don't want idiots working on economic issues either.

I disagree that the GOP positions on Social issues are being rejected. Exploited, yes. Rejected, no.

But even if it is true, the GOP gains no voters from caving to that pressure. With liberals, it's always about the money. Everything else is just window dressing.

[aclove]

Gunny is right. Campaign for Liberty has been teaching for years at its Grassroots Activist Schools that you don't need 50%+1 to win elections, you only need the 3% swing vote. That's exactly what Obama got, and that's how he won. Why that 3% swing vote went to him and not Romney is because Romney did not present a consistent, principled case for returning to the Constitutional Order, and that's what we have to spend the next 4 years convincing the main-line Tea Party if we expect to elect Rand in 2016.

[CaptUSA]

I disagree that the GOP positions on Social issues are being rejected. Exploited, yes. Rejected, no.

But even if it is true, the GOP gains no voters from caving to that pressure. With liberals, it's always about the money. Everything else is just window dressing.
Ok, right. I think we're coming to the same understanding. Exploited is probably a better term.

The way I see it, if they want this to stop being exploited, they have 3 options.
1. Cave in - stupid and wouldn't work anyway.
2. Find a way to better communicate their positions - Going to be hard since everything they say is open to demagoguery
3. Adopt a more libertarian position on social issues - They get to keep their principles and it's more inclusive since each person is an individual.

Until they do one of these, the democrats have figured out how to make republicans look dumb. And it works. And when the low-info voter sees your party as dumb, it spills over into economic issues.

[Butchie]

I absolutely agree that there were other factors at play, and I stated as much. But man, I am finding myself apologizing to my friends that I'm on the county GOP committee. Some of them are pretty sure that I've sold out the entire gender. To think that social issues did not play any part in the outcome of the election is naive. It did. The Dems supported Obamacare. Romney also supported most of Obamacare, but the GOP was dead set against it including anything associated with female reproduction. They didn't single out gall bladder surgery or diabetes. They singled out birth control.

I didn't frame debate. I'm just trying to explain why my female friends think the GOP is bonkers.

OK, so you are surrounded by a group of women who feel that way, come to my town where most women are conservative, you will find the exact opposite. That was my point, the social issues are generally divided 50/50, they are not going to win or lose you an election.

[nasaal]

It is the biggest reason they lost. People really were ready to vote Obama out. Mitt was a horrible candidate, but the social issues make people hate you.

[nasaal]

OK, so you are surrounded by a group of women who feel that way, come to my town where most women are conservative, you will find the exact opposite. That was my point, the social issues are generally divided 50/50, they are not going to win or lose you an election.

They are not split 50/50, and they are not split 50/50 throughout all the battlegrounds.

[Origanalist]

It is the biggest reason they lost. People really were ready to vote Obama out. Mitt was a horrible candidate, but the social issues make people hate you.

They do no such thing, hate is not forced on a person unwillingly.

[nasaal]

They do no such thing, hate is not forced on a person unwillingly.
Semantics have no place in this debate. People choose to hate republicans when they make a big deal of social issues.

[Butchie]

They are not split 50/50, and they are not split 50/50 throughout all the battlegrounds.

You keep thinking that buddy. If the GOP embraces abortion and gay marriage I promise you they will never win another election, ever.


Semantics have no place in this debate. People choose to hate republicans when they make a big deal of social issues.

Funny, I watched MSNBC and FOX news a week before the election just to test this theory, FOX spent about 10% of it's time talking about gays and abortion, MSNBC spent over 60% of it's time speaking about those issues, was just my own personal test, but try it yourself, see who brings it up more. Libs spend FAR more time talking about those issues than cons do.

[Origanalist]

Semantics have no place in this debate. People choose to hate republicans when they make a big deal of social issues.

Well YES SIR!!!! (snaps a crisp salute)

:rolleyes:

[nasaal]

You keep thinking that buddy. If the GOP embraces abortion and gay marriage I promise you they will never win another election, ever.



Funny, I watched MSNBC and FOX news a week before the election just to test this theory, FOX spent about 10% of it's time talking about gays and abortion, MSNBC spent over 60% of it's time speaking about those issues, was just my own personal test, but try it yourself, see who brings it up more. Libs spend FAR more time talking about those issues than cons do.

Try radio shows. That's where you get the brunt of it. And yes many many listen to them. Keep believing that this country is split down the middle.

[compromise]

No, I do not believe social issues were the cause of the loss. There are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers in America. That being said, many of the pro-lifers are fiscally left wing blacks, Latinos or Irish/Italian Northeasterners who would not consider a Republican.

One of the main reasons was how terrible the campaign was. It was totally disorganized. Many county Republican parties, even those in swing states, got hardly any yard signs and bumper stickers.

The biggest reason was that Romney lacked the ability to draw up a large, passionate, dedicated supporter base. This is something that Reagan, Obama, Clinton and to a lesser extent even George W Bush successfully managed to do. A lot of people who voted Romney voted for him because he was not Obama. Romney is not the sort of candidate that gets anyone excited. Remember the Romney-Ryan rally where everyone just wanted to see Ryan and no one cared about Romney?

[Odin]

I think the social issues are a turnoff to voters.

Interestingly Hispanics and African Americans seem to be more conservative on social issues, but yet they still voted for Obama in mass numbers.

Personally I don't see how gay marriage is harmful to society and I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed, unless someone can show me how it deprives the freedom of other people, or undermines the concept of family.

I think Republicans lose youth votes due to their stance on gay marriage and marijuana legalization. I know it sounds silly, but if we had a nominee in 2016 who was for pot legalization and the Democratic candidate was against it, then the Republican would get a more significant portion of the youth vote imo.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interestingly Hispanics and African Americans seem to be more conservative on social issues, but yet they still voted for Obama in mass numbers.


Not a surprise there. The Democrat propagandists also lied and told people that any non-Democrat is a racist.

[affa]

Well, the democrats demonized children conceived in rape. According to their rhetoric, all women should unilaterally despise any child conceived under such circumstances. I don't think the GOP even noticed. They could have played on that.

Personally, I don't see anything either liberal or conservative about sticking one's business in another's uterus.

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

[Origanalist]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

Why doesn't someone ask the children of rape if they would have rather been aborted?

[Anti Federalist]

ETA - NVM, I see Gunny has already adroitly addressed this issue.



The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

This is not quite true.

Half of the people that bothered to register their name with the state and stand in line and cast a ballot in this worthless charade were in favor of O-bomb-ya.

Half of those were opposed.

58 million people decided the fate of the rest of us.

[Butchie]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

About as rediculous as the left constantly saying that Rep were claiming rape was god's will, which was not what the guy actually meant, certainly not what Republicans as a whole believe, but they ran with that football anyway.

[parocks]

Romney won white women and white men.

Obama did ridiculously well with black women.

Blacks are 12.4% of the populations.

Black women were 8% of the voters and Obama got 96% of the black women.

Since we're playing "guess the future" or "what should be done", it's worth noting that the historic first black president will not be running next time, and the Democrats
will not get 96% of 8%.

The Democrats also won't get 100% of the vote in many many precincts in OH and PA, or over 100% in parts of FL.

So, factor that in as well.

I haven't posted this analysis yet, so, here goes.

****************************************

************************************

White men (34%) 35% 62% 3%
120 M X 34% = 40.8 MILLION VOTED
40.8 M X 35% = 14.28
40.8 M X 62% = 25.296
11.016 MORE ROMNEY

White women (38%) 42% 56% 2%
120 M X 38% = 45.6 MILLION VOTED
45.6 M X 42% = 19.152
45.6 M X 56% = 25.536
6.384 MORE ROMNEY

17.4 MORE ROMNEY

****************************************

Black men (5%) 87% 11% 2%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 87% = 5.22
6 M X 11% = .66
4.56 MORE OBAMA

Black women (8%) 96% 3% 1%
120 M X 8% = 9.6 MILLION VOTED
9.6 M X 96% = 8.64 MILLION VOTED FOR OBAMA
9.6 M X 3% = .288 MILLION VOTED FOR ROMNEY
8.352 M = MORE BLACK WOMEN VOTED FOR OBAMA

Latino men (5%) 65% 33% 2%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 65% = 3.9
6 M X 33% = 1.98
1.92 M MORE OBAMA

Latino women (6%) 76% 23% 1%
120 M X 6% = 7.2 MILLION VOTED
7.2 M X 76% = 5.472
7.2 M X 23% = 1.656
3.816 M MORE OBAMA

All other races (5%) 66% 31% 3%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 66% = 3.96
6 M X 31% = 1.86
2.1 M MORE OBAMA

20.748 M MORE OBAMA

***********************************

3.348 MARGIN OF VICTORY.

************************************

[jmdrake]

There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

Well the small federal government position on abortion and gay marriage is leave it up to the states. I haven't seen many democrats grab hold of that argument. Have you?

Back to the OP, Mitt Romney got less votes overall than did McCain and Mitt Romney is more socially liberal than McCain. That should tell you something. Romney sucked as a candidate, period. Does anyone here honestly think John Huntsman could have beat Obama? Huntsman certainly wouldn't have gotten any Ron Paul votes. And I bet even more conservatives would have stayed home.

[jmdrake]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

I bet any republican who answered the question about abortion for rape victims by saying "I'm conflicted about this. But I don't think a child conceived of rape deserves the death penalty." it would be hard for dems to demonize them. Certainly that wouldn't play well for them dems to use that as a soundbite.

[affa]

Why doesn't someone ask the children of rape if they would have rather been aborted?

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

[angelatc]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

Rape is evil, so is abortion. So are liberals, for that matter. Using rape for political gain - shameless.

[angelatc]

Well the small federal government position on abortion and gay marriage is leave it up to the states. I haven't seen many democrats grab hold of that argument. Have you?



I would never have said this during the campaign, but there was a time when I would have voted for Romney. There's a clip of him out there getting angry, andefending his religion and position on abortion. He said that while he personally was pro-life, the position of the church was that they don't exist to force other people into behaving to their standards.

ANd that's exactly the role of religion in politics, IMHO. If ir guides him as a leader, but he believes that God gives us free will and therefore our morality is our responsibility, I can live with that.

[Origanalist]

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

I'm sure said person is happy to know they aren't part of the equation.

[tod evans]

In all of these discussions it's "mother/child" ....Well what about the father?

I get so sick of the subject of abortion being discussed without any consideration given to the father, like he's a non-entity who's rights/opinions and legal standing have already been discounted.

Not all fathers are "Sperm Donors" as both sides would lead one to believe with their rhetoric..

Sad!



You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

[affa]

I'm sure said person is happy to know they aren't part of the equation.

Well, they aren't. Nor are adopted children. Nobody is arguing that they would, if asked, want to be aborted. It's missing the crux of the debate.

[affa]

You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

While I don't totally disagree, I think you're missing one key point -- most people pro-choice don't "want the debate focused solely on the mother" for three reasons.
1) they don't consider the 'mother' a 'mother' yet.
2) they don't consider the 'child' a 'child' yet.
3) they view the unborn as a non-entity in the discussion.

My point is that you're framing it in language most here already agree with. But someone pro-choice isn't thinking about the 'mother', they're thinking about the 'woman' that just went through a traumatic rape and now is stuck with an unwanted non-life they're going to have to feel grow in their body for nine months before giving birth to a living symbol of that rape.

It's an impossible situation and ultimately, it's why the rape topic will always be a hot topic, because it brings the conversation to an absolute boil where too many button issues touch to have sane, rational discussion with most people (unless you already agree with them, of course).

[Origanalist]

Well, they aren't. Nor are adopted children. Nobody is arguing that they would, if asked, want to be aborted. It's missing the crux of the debate.

Well that just fucking hilarious. Do youwant to be aborted today?

[Cabal]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

[libertariantexas]

I think the "social issues" are a big part of why the GOP is having trouble. You can say it wasn't a "disaster," but you'd have to be one hell of a spin-meister to say the Republicans did well.

In a lot of ways, the GOP should have done really well this year. Polls show that Americans are becoming concerned about the size of the government and the deficit, so it should have been a good year for fiscal conservatives (a small number of Republicans) and those pretending to be fiscal conservatives (most Republicans).

Plus, they were running against a weak President in a bad economy.

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

That's a problem. Because minority numbers are rising rapidly in this country. Gays are becoming accepted by mainstream America. Even the anti-drug stuff is failing, with more and more states legalizing drugs to one degree or another (yeah, I know, Dems are mostly for the insane "War on Drugs" too, but Republicans have the reputation of being hard asses about it).

Yes, there are a lot of other reasons Romney lost, but the "anti" message was certainly a part of it.

[Butchie]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

You honestly buy that? So, if I'm to understand you correctly if Romney and all the GOP Senators who lost had embraced gay marriage they would have won? Too funny.

As to your second quote, I don't know anyone in the GOP who is wanting to go in anyone's bedroom. The issue is marriage, which is far from being relegated to the bedroom. Suprised how many RP supporters/libertarians resort to liberal demagoguery when it comes to this issue and abortion.

[parocks]

I think the "social issues" are a big part of why the GOP is having trouble. You can say it wasn't a "disaster," but you'd have to be one hell of a spin-meister to say the Republicans did well.

In a lot of ways, the GOP should have done really well this year. Polls show that Americans are becoming concerned about the size of the government and the deficit, so it should have been a good year for fiscal conservatives (a small number of Republicans) and those pretending to be fiscal conservatives (most Republicans).

Plus, they were running against a weak President in a bad economy.

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

That's a problem. Because minority numbers are rising rapidly in this country. Gays are becoming accepted by mainstream America. Even the anti-drug stuff is failing, with more and more states legalizing drugs to one degree or another (yeah, I know, Dems are mostly for the insane "War on Drugs" too, but Republicans have the reputation of being hard asses about it).

Yes, there are a lot of other reasons Romney lost, but the "anti" message was certainly a part of it.

Pro-drug is more popular than Pro-Gay.

And the Republicans have social issues they can run on against the Democrats. Gay might be a little less than 50/50 - still against, but something like transsexuals is something that the Democrats embrace, but Americans don't.

[Butchie]

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

Really, what do Republicans do that is "anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew anti-atheist, anti-science" - I'll give you anti-drug, but did I see correctly you said "Anti-Jew"?!?!?!? I guess you miss where Rep are kissing Israels butt every chance they get.

I could just as easily say that Democrats are "anti-white, anti-hetero, anti-male, anti-Israel, anti-business, anti-Christian, anti-military, anti-America......", see, it's easy.

[Occam's Banana]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

You honestly buy that? So, if I'm to understand you correctly if Romney and all the GOP Senators who lost had embraced gay marriage they would have won? Too funny.

Actually, if you're to understand Cabal correctly, you probably need to read ALL of what he said, not just cherry-picked bits & pieces. Let's try again:


Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. [...]

[Brett85]

As to your second quote, I don't know anyone in the GOP who is wanting to go in anyone's bedroom.

I don't either. Where does all this "bedroom" talk come from? I've never heard a politician talk about regulating what people do in their bedrooms.

[pochy1776]

Gay Marriage is like foot ball when you are invested in it, one side seems to be MUCH MORE AWESOME and ORGASMIC than the other. Then when you pan out, both sides look like total fucking idiots. Even the Mercatus center doesn't even give a shit about Gay Marriage.

[Cabal]

Connotations include, but not limited to: sex, marriage, household privacy, drug use, medical decisions, and so on.

[Keith and stuff]

Pro-drug is more popular than Pro-Gay.

And the Republicans have social issues they can run on against the Democrats. Gay might be a little less than 50/50 - still against, but something like transsexuals is something that the Democrats embrace, but Americans don't.

It depends on the area. In the gayest state, pro-gay is very popular. Medical marijuana might be more popular than same sex government marriage in NH, but decrim isn't.

[Britannia]

Conservatives lost because Romney has the charisma of an occasional table and wouldn't recognise a sincerely held political conviction if it fell out of the skies and landed at his feet. Add to that a lot of tiresome god-botherers continually thumping on about immigration and abortion, and all you have to do is just add water and hey-presto you've got your very own general election defeat.

I'm a fiscal conservative but fairly liberal on social issues which means I find a lot of the right-wing rhetoric, especially from the religious right, alarming and repulsive.

[bunklocoempire]

Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues?

(in my circles)

We have to elaborate that Republicans who lost to Obama have opted for religious arguments rather than liberty oriented arguments.

The concessions were made from the top and handed down to the base they thought was going to be there for them.

If establishment Republicans use a liberty argument for lets say abortion (an individual life), then the establishment risks a loss of power with an individuals argument for legalizing drugs.

The base that establishment Republicans are trying to control are slapped with scare tactics and false pride to keep them all in check. The establishment Republicans could care less that they lost, because they didn't really lose.

Now the 'religious' Republican part of the base is faced with "the Repulicans were too far right -so forget opposing abortion/gay marriage etc." the time is now to AGAIN present the liberty arguments to them.

Abortion again, (everyone's favorite :p) if the 'religious' Republicans could trade drug use at the bottom, for a libertarian argument against abortion would they do it?

I've used this one after Romney lost to Obama and the "too far right" thing came up:
Presenting the pro-life case to libertarians, and the libertarian case to pro-lifers http://www.l4l.org/index.html

The shell shocked romney voters who ignored it when I presented it to them a year plus ago are receiving it positively this time around.

Opportunity. If you walk amongst these folks and can relate with them on some level.

[Origanalist]

(in my circles)

We have to elaborate that Republicans who lost to Obama have opted for religious arguments rather than liberty oriented arguments.

The concessions were made from the top and handed down to the base they thought was going to be there for them.

If establishment Republicans use a liberty argument for lets say abortion (an individual life), then the establishment risks a loss of power with an individuals argument for legalizing drugs.

The base that establishment Republicans are trying to control are slapped with scare tactics and false pride to keep them all in check. The establishment Republicans could care less that they lost, because they didn't really lose.

Now the 'religious' Republican part of the base is faced with "the Repulicans were too far right -so forget opposing abortion/gay marriage etc." the time is now to AGAIN present the liberty arguments to them.

Abortion again, (everyone's favorite :p) if the 'religious' Republicans could trade drug use at the bottom, for a libertarian argument against abortion would they do it?

I've used this one after Romney lost to Obama and the "too far right" thing came up:
Presenting the pro-life case to libertarians, and the libertarian case to pro-lifers http://www.l4l.org/index.html

The shell shocked romney voters who ignored it when I presented it to them a year plus ago are receiving it positively this time around.

Opportunity. If you walk amongst these folks and can relate with them on some level.

Thanks for that link, really apreciate it.

[mport1]

Which social views are disgusting? And what are people going to do when they refuse to stand for "it?"

The youth of today are disgusting, IMHO. They have no morals, and get angry because other people do?

Their views on homosexuality, gay marriage, the war on drugs, assisted suicide, gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc.

[NoOneButPaul]

We really need to continue to harp home the 10th amendment point.

Letting the states decide social issues is the GOP's way out of this mess... they don't have to flip flop on any of their principles they just have to let it be known that the states are in control of all social issues and that's it.

It's the conservative approach to take and it's the approach they should have taken from the start.

[Origanalist]

We really need to continue to harp home the 10th amendment point.

Letting the states decide social issues is the GOP's way out of this mess... they don't have to flip flop on any of their principles they just have to let it be known that the states are in control of all social issues and that's it.

It's the conservative approach to take and it's the approach they should have taken from the start.

It really is the only way.

[Brett85]

We really need to continue to harp home the 10th amendment point.

Letting the states decide social issues is the GOP's way out of this mess... they don't have to flip flop on any of their principles they just have to let it be known that the states are in control of all social issues and that's it.

It's the conservative approach to take and it's the approach they should have taken from the start.

I can go along with that except for on the abortion issue. I don't think we should've said that the states have the right to allow slavery, and I view abortion as being just as bad. At the very least, I strongly support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

[NoOneButPaul]

I can go along with that except for on the abortion issue. I don't think we should've said that the states have the right to allow slavery, and I view abortion as being just as bad. At the very least, I strongly support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

If you want your state to be pro-life than you should allow a state, whose majority want it to be pro-choice, to be pro-choice. I know that's unacceptable to you but that's really the best way out.

Ron Paul said it best... positions on abortion will not change until the morality of the country changes.

If you ban abortions everywhere they'll still happen on the black market and actually end up worse for everyone- no government can stop a free market demand. The demand is there because that's where the country is at morally.

The government shouldn't be involved in legislating morality.

If you want your freedoms you need to tolerate others.

[Peace&Freedom]

And I'll again say the opposite is true---the morality of the country changed, for the worse, when the law on abortion changed. There were only 1/10 as many abortions happening when it was illegal and restricted to the black market. Respect for unborn life, embodied in the state laws, had a deterrent effect that provided their right to life a measure of legal protection. Legalization increased, and fed the demand for more abortions. The trend of the law coarsening the culture, and impacting the morality needs to be acknowledged. WE NEED TO TOLERATE LIFE FIRST.

The false framing of the issue as one of the religious right imposing its views on the left ignores the history, which is one of the preponderant legal, medical and secular consensus of thousands of years that abortion was wrong being overturned with Roe, when the social left used the government to impose one-size-fits-all legal abortion on a largely pro-life country. Why are those who object to imposed morality only concerned about it when the right is supposedly doing it to the left, and ignore the track record of the left doing so to the right?

Romney lost because more Republicans stayed home than Democrats, which is really saying something, since 10 million fewer people voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Voters found Romney more lackluster than even McCain, who got 3 million more votes last time. The two factions that stayed home were undoubtedly pro-liberty Paul supporters, and social conservatives who did not see a real commitment from moderate Mitt on those issues. The path for future victory lies in the party running a charismatic candidate who energizes both the pro-liberty and pro-family factions, with the two camps choosing to work together instead of taking shots at each other..

[Origanalist]

And I'll again say the opposite is true---the morality of the country changed, for the worse, when the law on abortion changed. There were only 1/10 as many abortions happening when it was illegal and restricted to the black market. Respect for unborn life, embodied in the state laws, had a deterrent effect that provided their right to life a measure of legal protection. WE NEED TO TOLERATE LIFE FIRST.

The false framing of the issue as one of the religious right imposing its views on the left ignores the history, which is one of the preponderant legal, medical and secular consensus of thousands of years that abortion was wrong being overturned with Roe, when the social left used the government to impose one-size-fits-all legal abortion on a pro-life country.

Romney lost because more Republicans stayed home than Democrats, which is really saying something, since 10 million fewer people voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Voters found Romney more lackluster than even McCain, who got 3 million more votes last time. The two factions that stayed home were undoubtedly pro-liberty Paul supporters, and social conservatives who did not see a real commitment from moderate Mitt on those issues. The path for future victory lies in the party running a charismatic candidate who energizes both the pro-liberty and pro-family factions, with the two camps choosing to work together instead of taking shots at each other..

There are plenty of pro-life Paul supporters. Pro-life and pro-liberty are not mutually exclusive, despite the attempts to portray them as such.

[Cabal]

The youth of today are disgusting, IMHO. They have no morals, and get angry because other people do?

And yet many of today's youth have been moved by Ron Paul's campaign(s) which are heavily rooted in particular philosophical ethics.

[Butchie]

Actually, if you're to understand Cabal correctly, you probably need to read ALL of what he said, not just cherry-picked bits & pieces. Let's try again:

Actually, I understood him quite well, and social issues played no part in the loss and there is no evidence for that, although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that if any Republican had embraced GM or abortion they would lose in a landslide and I truly think a big reason why some Republicans stayed home was BECAUSE Romney supported abortion and certain gay causes in the past.

[Butchie]

Their views on homosexuality, gay marriage, the war on drugs, assisted suicide, gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc.

OK, so you listed certain subjects you think Rep have disgusting views on, but you didn't list what those views are exactly or why they are disgusting. Frankly, I find homosexuality disgusting much as I do incest, beastiality, necrophelia and pedophelia, that being said the only thing I find Christians wanting any legal action on is marriage, not homosexuality itself.

I don't agree with the War on Drugs however I don't find their view on this disgusting, I disagree with it, but I know they have their hearts in the right place, ditto prostitution. As for gambling and pornography, I live in a heavily conservative town and all 5 of the churches here allow gambling and I've yet to hear any of them take up any crusade against porn.

As for assisted suicide, that is a subject most won't even touch. Very few Christians have a simple answer on this subject or have any kind of consensus, for those that do opposse it they hold a view that it's wrong to take a life, I'd hardly call that view "disgusting". I'd hate to ever be put in the situation as would most Christians, it is not a problem with an easy answer for anyone.

[mport1]

I find it disgusting that they want to use violence on peaceful people engaged in voluntary activities. The bigotry towards homosexuals is particularly disturbing.

[Brett85]

I find it disgusting that they want to use violence on peaceful people engaged in voluntary activities. The bigotry towards homosexuals is particularly disturbing.

I don't know of any politicians who want to re-criminalize homosexuality.

[Brett85]

If you want your state to be pro-life than you should allow a state, whose majority want it to be pro-choice, to be pro-choice. I know that's unacceptable to you but that's really the best way out.

Ron Paul said it best... positions on abortion will not change until the morality of the country changes.

If you ban abortions everywhere they'll still happen on the black market and actually end up worse for everyone- no government can stop a free market demand. The demand is there because that's where the country is at morally.

The government shouldn't be involved in legislating morality.

If you want your freedoms you need to tolerate others.

Banning abortion is not "legislating morality" any more than all other laws against murder. Is it "legislating morality" to put Jared Loughner in prison for life for the massacre in Arizona? And there's nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment. It's the appropriate way to handle the issue.

[Butchie]

I find it disgusting that they want to use violence on peaceful people engaged in voluntary activities. The bigotry towards homosexuals is particularly disturbing.

Again, a statement with no facts attached to it. Show me any legislation being put forth by any Republican or being advocated by the church that would enact violence against homosexuals??? Are you sure you're on the right site? You sure love to spread the liberal lies.

[mport1]

I don't know of any politicians who want to re-criminalize homosexuality.

They do look down on homosexuals and call it a sin though. Their position on same sex marriage is really where it manifests itself though.

[Butchie]

They do look down on homosexuals and call it a sin though. Their position on same sex marriage is really where it manifests itself though.

Yeah, and they also call lying a sin, infidelity, stealing, etc. What's your point? Calling it a sin does not equal violence and hey, guess what, I'm not married - OH THE HUMANITY!!! Somehow I'm still living and breathing. For Pete's sake people like you act as tho getting married is some big deal, so you don't have some silly piece of paper from the govt, who cares, why do you need some govt goon to validate your feelings for another person? Marriage was desinged solely for the purpose of joining a man to a woman, face it, there is no civilization, ever that has married a king to a king/queen to a queen, it's not America or Christians, this is every civilization everywhere.

[Brett85]

They do look down on homosexuals and call it a sin though. Their position on same sex marriage is really where it manifests itself though.

Calling something a sin is simply a personal opinion. It's not an example of "legislating morality" on anything. And same sex marriage is currently allowed throughout the United States. There are no criminal penalties for a gay couple who decide they want to have their own private marriage ceremony.

[jmdrake]

While I don't totally disagree, I think you're missing one key point -- most people pro-choice don't "want the debate focused solely on the mother" for three reasons.
1) they don't consider the 'mother' a 'mother' yet.
2) they don't consider the 'child' a 'child' yet.
3) they view the unborn as a non-entity in the discussion.


Fine. They want it focused on "the woman". That doesn't change what I'm saying. If you're trying to win a debate you can't let your opponent frame it. Politics isn't about getting the other side to "like" you. It's about getting people who are undecided to move to your position.



My point is that you're framing it in language most here already agree with. But someone pro-choice isn't thinking about the 'mother', they're thinking about the 'woman' that just went through a traumatic rape and now is stuck with an unwanted non-life they're going to have to feel grow in their body for nine months before giving birth to a living symbol of that rape.


I don't care what someone who is pro-choice things. That's the point. I care what someone who's in the middle and is vacillating between the two positions things. Someone who believes the unborn child is a non entity doesn't care whether the pregnancy is from rape or a one night stand or even a planned pregnancy in a marriage that now seems "inconvenient" for whatever reason. It's the person who thinks in general "Yeah, abortion is wrong....but we should have a rape escape clause" that I'm targeting. You have to understand that you and I have two different target audiences to understand and appreciate what I'm saying.



It's an impossible situation and ultimately, it's why the rape topic will always be a hot topic, because it brings the conversation to an absolute boil where too many button issues touch to have sane, rational discussion with most people (unless you already agree with them, of course).

No it's not impossible. You are looking at it wrong because you aren't looking at the same target audience I'm looking at. It's like saying how do you convince an absolute communist that state run healthcare is bad for a free market economy. It's a wasted argument because he doesn't believe in a free market economy anyway. But someone that kinda believes in free market but thinks "this is just one area I want the government involved" may listen to reason about why the free market is also better in healthcare. By the same token, someone who is against abortion in certain cases might listen to a rational argument about rape that considers whether the child conceived in rape deserved to die.

[klamath]

The loss had nothing to do with the so called "social issues". Akin and Mourdock were both leading in the polls with well known antiabortion stands. The Democrats could not win with that issue. Akin's stupid comment on rape opened up an angle the dems hadn't dreamed of. They turned the issue from antiviolence of prolife to the violence of rape. That is the only reason they lost.
If people want to try and say that is why the republicans lost please try and explain why Brown and Mcmahon lost. Brown was basically progay and proabortion. Mcmahon was openly proabortion and progay marriage. They both lost. So much for being a social liberal republican making you win.

[jmdrake]

+rep! Exactly! Akins and Mourdock didn't need to win over pro-choice voters. They just needed to not lose the "pro-life with exceptions" voters.


The loss had nothing to do with the so called "social issues". Akin and Mourdock were both leading in the polls with well known antiabortion stands. The Democrats could not win with that issue. Akin's stupid comment on rape opened up an angle the dems hadn't dreamed of. They turned the issue from antiviolence of prolife to the violence of rape. That is the only reason they lost.
If people want to try and say that is why the republicans lost please try and explain why Brown and Mcmahon lost. Brown was basically progay and proabortion. Mcmahon was openly proabortion and progay marriage. They both lost. So much for being a social liberal republican making you win.

[Republicanguy]

I keep seeing this everywhere "Republicans have to change their views on social issues if they want to win in the future" - this is BS. Do people really think this is why Romney lost? Yes, ofcourse, those two clowns who made the "rape" comments (which I believe were taken out of context and blown way out of proportion, but nevertheless poor choice of words) sunk their bids, but Romney did not lose because of gays and abortion.

Obama could hardly call this a victory, it was a suckfest and Obama barely eeked out a win, but to say social issues were the deciding factor is just nonsense. Romney lost because no one liked him, he was a flip-flopper who gave people no clear alternative to what Obama was offering. The thing conservatives need to work on, is making it easier for people to understand free markets and how they help the poor instead of hurt them. It's very easy for the Dems to get up there and promise free stuff and that seems on the surface to be "compassionate" whereas giving businesses tax breaks and price gouging in hurricanes seems cruel to those who aren't educated on these things.

The last thing we need is get bogged down in confusing disucssions on gays and abortion, those who make those issues a deal breaker are likely hardcore Dems or Repubs anyhow who would never vote for the other side in the first place, most others just don't want those issues to be major parts of anyone's campaigns, just say you are socially conservative if asked, then move on.

Those comments on rape showed how stupid many in the GOP are, the religious nuts destroying the party, because a party that wants to promote small government or the so called old American ways is only an illusion even though the GOP doesn't actually promote that path at all therefore the existence of the Paul campaign.

[supermario21]

+rep! Exactly! Akins and Mourdock didn't need to win over pro-choice voters. The just needed to not lose the "pro-life with exceptions" voters.

Agree and even then some. I think abortion, even to many pro-life people like myself, is an issue that most of us don't bring up. Look at RP, you don't see him running around talking about social issues!

[Keith and stuff]

Originally Posted by klamath View Post
The loss had nothing to do with the so called "social issues". Akin and Mourdock were both leading in the polls with well known antiabortion stands. The Democrats could not win with that issue. Akin's stupid comment on rape opened up an angle the dems hadn't dreamed of. They turned the issue from antiviolence of prolife to the violence of rape. That is the only reason they lost.
If people want to try and say that is why the republicans lost please try and explain why Brown and Mcmahon lost. Brown was basically progay and proabortion. Mcmahon was openly proabortion and progay marriage. They both lost. So much for being a social liberal republican making you win.

Brown and McMahon lost because they were running in highly Democratic states. IN leans a little GOP and MO is a swing state. IMO, Brown would have won if it was not a presidential year. You have to look at the issues and the state. People are 75% pro-choice in NH according to exit polls but only 55% pro-choice in MO according to exit polls. It is much more important for a candidate to be pro-choice in NH or MA than MO or IN.

I agree that the rape comments helped cause the loses in MO and IN. The comments gave the abortion issue a lot of news. The comments likely offended a lot of people.

[Peace&Freedom]

There are plenty of pro-life Paul supporters. Pro-life and pro-liberty are not mutually exclusive, despite the attempts to portray them as such.

True, but it's clear (just looking at this thread) that many pro-liberty people really, really like to take shots at social conservatives, and just as clear many social conservatives are turned off by, and criticize the aggressive secularist attitudes expressed by some pro-liberty people.

[Britannia]

Frankly, I find homosexuality disgusting much as I do incest, beastiality, necrophelia and pedophelia


Frankly, I find your disgustingly bigoted views vomit-inducing.

[CaptUSA]

Frankly, I find your disgustingly bigoted views vomit-inducing.And yet, with liberty, we can all get along! How beautiful!

We don't have to agree with each other, we just have to accept that each person can have their own views!

[Origanalist]

And yet, with liberty, we can all get along! How beautiful!

We don't have to agree with each other, we just have to accept that each person can have their own views!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Icymudpuppy]

Republicans are Authoritarian on Social issues, and that is part of why they lost. War is also authoritarian.

Liberty wins, Authority loses. Promote liberty and peace, and the general electorate will generally go along with you.

[Jingles]

The social issues are what kill any one I can almost get to vote for a Republican candidate. Get religion out of politics please.

[Britannia]

Republicans are Authoritarian on Social issues, and that is part of why they lost. War is also authoritarian.

Liberty wins, Authority loses. Promote liberty and peace, and the general electorate will generally go along with you.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Butchie]

Frankly, I find your disgustingly bigoted views vomit-inducing.

Do tell, what is bigoted about them? I think 99% of people who throw around the word "bigoted" don't even know what it means. Also, way to just post one sentence of my comment and not the rest, always fun to post people's words out of context.

[Britannia]

The social issues are what kill any one I can almost get to vote for a Republican candidate. Get religion out of politics please.

If only.

[Cabal]

The social issues are what kill any one I can almost get to vote for a Republican candidate. Get religion out of politics please.

And the bigotry can go as well.

Otherwise we'll continue to be viewed as Romney parading around hollow terms like 'free-market' and giving them a bad name.

[Butchie]

The social issues are what kill any one I can almost get to vote for a Republican candidate. Get religion out of politics please.

There are many non-religious people who side one way or the other on those issues, saying these issues are strictly a religious thing shows you don't know what they are actually about. I also love how everyone always just tells the Rep to keep out of social issues but yet the libs can speak their views and it's OK.

[Cabal]

And yet, with liberty, we can all get along! How beautiful!

We don't have to agree with each other, we just have to accept that each person can have their own views!

It's not about agreeing with each other, it's about respecting each other. I suspect it's hard to get respect from someone who finds you disgusting for a lifestyle choice or sexual orientation that has nothing to do with them. The fact that he even felt the need to say such a thing is indicative of intolerance. He equates other human beings--consenting adults--with the likes of pedophiles and goat fuckers.

If one cannot respect another's personal decisions of the non-aggressive sort, that seems like a fairly significant point of dissonance with the philosophy of liberty to me.

[Origanalist]

Republicans are Authoritarian on Social issues, and that is part of why they lost. War is also authoritarian.

Liberty wins, Authority loses. Promote liberty and peace, and the general electorate will generally go along with you.

The last election suggests you might be wrong.

[Butchie]

Republicans are Authoritarian on Social issues, and that is part of why they lost. War is also authoritarian.

Liberty wins, Authority loses. Promote liberty and peace, and the general electorate will generally go along with you.

So Democrats are the Liberty Party now? How are Republicans Athoritarian on Social Issues? I'm still waiting for anyone to show me all this horrible legislation Rep are putting forth yet I can't get one single answer.

[Britannia]

Do tell, what is bigoted about them? I think 99% of people who throw around the word "bigoted" don't even know what it means. Also, way to just post one sentence of my comment and not the rest, always fun to post people's words out of context.


I apologise if my ability to read words and clearly understand their meaning upsets you.

[Brett85]

Pro lifers need to quit bringing up religion when discussing the abortion issue, because it turns people off. Anyone who isn't religious is turned off immediately. There's some people who are agnostic or atheist who would be more open to a pro life position if religion wasn't brought up. Mourdock's comment was really a killer for the pro life movement, as he brought up God in relation to rape and abortion. Pro lifers need to adopt Ron's rhetoric and tie being pro life with being pro liberty. They need to explain that you can't defend liberty without first defending life, and defending the unborn is part of the philosophy of defending individual liberty. That needs to be made more clear to people.

[Brett85]

So Democrats are the Liberty Party now? How are Republicans Athoritarian on Social Issues? I'm still waiting for anyone to show me all this horrible legislation Rep are putting forth yet I can't get one single answer.

The definition of liberty to Democrats is the freedom to kill babies. Apparently many people here agree with that view.

[Butchie]

It's not about agreeing with each other, it's about respecting each other. I suspect it's hard to get respect from someone who finds you disgusting for a lifestyle choice or sexual orientation that has nothing to do with them. The fact that he even felt the need to say such a thing is indicative of intolerance. He equates other human beings--consenting adults--with the likes of pedophiles and goat fuckers.

If one cannot respect another's personal decisions of the non-aggressive sort, that seems like a fairly significant point of dissonance with the philosophy of liberty to me.

Well, how is someone being a "goat fucker" harming you in anyway? I'd also like for you to define a pedophile to me, likely you say the word "adult" in there but you can't define an adult either, you may default to the age of 18 we settled on here in America but who set that age, what gave them the authority to do so? Yes, I do equate homosexuality to those things because I could use every argument you make for gay lifestyles to justify every other lifestyle. If a son wants to marry his mother that's consenting adults, is that OK with you? People who have sex with a corpse don't harm anyone, so why would you oppose it? You know why you would oppose it, because it disgusts you, so stop walking around with your nose in the air like you're on some moral high ground, you, me, all of us impose(try to) our morals on others.

[Butchie]

I apologise if my ability to read words and clearly understand their meaning upsets you.

So your proof of your accussation is...another accussation. No need for an apology.

[Cabal]

Well, how is someone being a "goat fucker" harming you in anyway? I'd also like for you to define a pedophile to me, likely you say the word "adult" in there but you can't define an adult either, you may default to the age of 18 we settled on here in America but who set that age, what gave them the authority to do so? Yes, I do equate homosexuality to those things because I could use every argument you make for gay lifestyles to justify every other lifestyle. If a son wants to marry his mother that's consenting adults, is that OK with you? People who have sex with a corpse don't harm anyone, so why would you oppose it? You know why you would oppose it, because it disgusts you, so stop walking around with your nose in the air like you're on some moral high ground, you, me, all of us impose(try to) our morals on others.

Don't make assumptions about me, please. Because you clearly don't even begin to understand where I'm coming from. You're missing the point entirely. And spare me the fallacies of trying to turn the tables on me, as if your opinions are mine.

[Butchie]

Don't make assumptions about me, please. Because you clearly don't even begin to understand where I'm coming from. You're missing the point entirely. And spare me the fallacies of trying to turn the tables on me, as if your opinions are mine.

Did I make assumptions about you? Show me where, I merely asked questions which you seem unwilling or unable to answer.

[CaptUSA]

Uh oh... did you guys miss the part where I said we could all get along? :o

[jmdrake]

The social issues are what kill any one I can almost get to vote for a Republican candidate. Get religion out of politics please.

And here I was thinking all along that the goal wasn't to get people in general to vote republican, but to get republicans (and others) to vote for liberty candidates. My bad. /sarcasm

If in the process of "turning on" some pro choice liberal to voting republican, you lose all of the pro-life republicans, what have you gained? I was pro-choice when I first began rethinking my political position. This was before Ron actually ran, but I had heard of Ron through an Alex Jones listener. I was done with the democrats because of the wars and civil liberties. I thought about Kucinich, but decided against him when I heard his strong anti-gun stance. (If I don't trust the government with any of my other civil liberties, why should I trust them on my right to bear arms?) Eventually I came around to Ron's view on abortion. (It should be given back to the states so that the states can end it.) I think anybody serious about the wars and civil liberties would consider for voting for a Ron Paul type of candidate even if they disagree on abortion. Those who would vote for someone like Obama because of abortion or gay marriage aren't serious about ending wars and protecting the bill of rights. I see no reason to waste time with them until they at least come to the conclusion that social issues are not the most pressing issues of the day.

[Butchie]

Uh oh... did you guys miss the part where I said we could all get along? :o

I'd love to, I can accept someone having a different opinion than me, but others on here seem to be taking offense to my opinion, ofcourse they aren't even taking offense to my opinion, they are taking offense to what they seem to think my opinion is.

[CaptUSA]

I'd love to, I can accept someone having a different opinion than me, but others on here seem to be taking offense to my opinion, ofcourse they aren't even taking offense to my opinion, they are taking offense to what they seem to think my opinion is.Who cares? I have a lot of opinions that offend people. Let them be offended. As long as they don't try to take away my liberty, we're cool. We may not be friends, but we're cool. ;)

[Butchie]

Who cares? I have a lot of opinions that offend people. Let them be offended. As long as they don't try to take away my liberty, we're cool. We may not be friends, but we're cool. ;)

Fair enough. I wasn't even trying to start some big debate on these issues, my OP was about how they didn't impact the election, but I guess it will always devolve into people's views on the issues themselves. It's funny to me tho how I always find myself defending Christians even tho I am not Christian myself but it does get on my nerves how so many liberals and libertarians just unfairly smear Christians and so casually throw out the bigot, racist, anit-woman meme in lieu of mounting any logical disucssions on the subject. Anyhow, it was fun.

[devil21]

Fair enough. I wasn't even trying to start some big debate on these issues, my OP was about how they didn't impact the election, but I guess it will always devolve into people's views on the issues themselves. It's funny to me tho how I always find myself defending Christians even tho I am not Christian myself but it does get on my nerves how so many liberals and libertarians just unfairly smear Christians and so casually throw out the bigot, racist, anit-woman meme in lieu of mounting any logical disucssions on the subject. Anyhow, it was fun.

Didn't impact the election? Seriously? I know people that mostly subscribe to libertarian and conservative ideals but refuse to vote for the religion centric GOP of today. No one is suggesting the GOP has to become an atheistic voting block or individual voters abandon their social views. The party just needs to stop making it's entire public platform about social issues and warmongering. That's all. And yes it did impact the election, particularly with women. You do realize that the social issue crowd was only a wing of the party as recent as 30 years ago, right? Besides, as Akin and Mourdoch showed once you get a candidate to start running his mouth about abortion he's bound to say something stupid eventually that the media will pounce on and in turn demonize other Republicans.

[Butchie]

Didn't impact the election? Seriously? I know people that mostly subscribe to libertarian and conservative ideals but refuse to vote for the religion centric GOP of today. No one is suggesting the GOP has to become an atheistic voting block or individual voters abandon their social views. The party just needs to stop making it's entire public platform about social issues and warmongering. That's all. And yes it did impact the election, particularly with women. You do realize that the social issue crowd was only a wing of the party as recent as 30 years ago, right? Besides, as Akin and Mourdoch showed once you get a candidate to start running his mouth about abortion he's bound to say something stupid eventually that the media will pounce on and in turn demonize other Republicans.

Oh boy, how many times must I say this. Approximately 3M Republicans who voted last time stayed home, and that is down from McCain, which was down from Bush, - WHY? Because Romney didn't support abortion or GM, hardly. I will ask a simple question again, do you really think if Romney had embraced GM and abortion he would have won? The warmongering I will agree with you on, for those of you who apparently weren't paying attention Romney's numbers with women actually were going UP after the first debate and that was AFTER the "legitimate rape" comment.

I also think it's insulting that so many of you seem to think women are so shallow that all they care about is abortion and free birth control, trust me, the only women this was a deciding factor for were the extreme left types who never would have voted for Romney in the first place, maybe you ought to look at the fact that Obama was promising everyone free everything and that Romney just plain sucked as a candidate.

[The Free Hornet]

Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues.

I keep seeing this everywhere "Republicans have to change their views on social issues if they want to win in the future" - this is BS. Do people really think this is why Romney lost?

Romney isn't Republican for any meaningful use of the term. Once you accept that, your red-state/blue-state issues will go away. Regardless, these discolarations tend to be personal problems.

Am I being a smartass? No. There is simply no seat at the grown-ups table until you realize there is no philosophical difference between Romney and Obama.

Their difference was political in a key sense. Obama can rule for, at most, 4 more years. Romney could have been with us for 8. Or maybe Obama comes back in 2016/2020 for 4 more. Given the ballot options, a GJ win was the best outcome. Goode, 2nd. Anderson, 3rd. Obama, 4th. Stein, 5th. Romney LAST. Yes, I'd prefer a kicks-you-in-the-face socialist that might wake some people up over Romney.

[Brett85]

Rand Paul is opposed to abortion rights and gay marriage, so it's not like the GOP is going to be nominating a liberty candidate for President in 2016 who's socially liberal. So if it's the social issues that are killing the GOP, then Rand doesn't have any chance to win the Presidency either. The only difference between Rand and the other Republicans that he'll be running against is that he doesn't support the Federal marriage amendment.

[sailingaway]

I hadn't seen anyone here say that. Here people say Romney lost because he was just like Obama and four years longer in duration, from what I've seen.

[libertariantexas]

Pro-drug is more popular than Pro-Gay.

And the Republicans have social issues they can run on against the Democrats. Gay might be a little less than 50/50

It seems that support for gay marriage is now above 50%. Otherwise, a chicken shit politician like Obama would have never had the courage to come out and support it.

[RickyJ]

If I didn't know anything about the Federal Reserve or Dr. Paul, and I still believed that the Republican party was really interested in freedom then I would have seriously considered voting for Romney. But even then I could not vote for him after researching his record on abortion. His record on abortion clearly shows he is really pro-choice. For that reason I wouldn't have voted for him. He didn't lose because of his stated position of being pro-life. He lost because he is such a flip-flopper and no one can really believe a word he says.

[devil21]

I hadn't seen anyone here say that. Here people say Romney lost because he was just like Obama and four years longer in duration, from what I've seen.

And this is the main point. When the only marketable difference between the two candidates is rhetoric on social issues, it's clear which issues will end up being the swing issues.

[BAllen]

The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business making any decisions on social issues. Those are state and local issues. The Feds don't need a Dept. of Education, and other tax wasting depts., either. I thought Romney was pretty clear on that. He offered a stronger economy with jobs instead of handouts. The people on the dole either didn't believe it, or would rather stay on the government money, without realizing that the system cannot sustain itself at current levels, and they're not going to keep it anyway. I suppose he could have pressed that point more.

[shoshanshopon]

So it is not OK for a bureaucrat/politician in DC to meddle in my personal affairs but perfectly OK for a bureaucrat/politician at the state capital/city hall to meddle in my personal affairs?
I am so tired of this state/local issue meme. As long as someone who is not you meddles in your personal affairs does it matter where he/she is located?


The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business making any decisions on social issues. Those are state and local issues. The Feds don't need a Dept. of Education, and other tax wasting depts., either. I thought Romney was pretty clear on that. He offered a stronger economy with jobs instead of handouts. The people on the dole either didn't believe it, or would rather stay on the government money, without realizing that the system cannot sustain itself at current levels, and they're not going to keep it anyway. I suppose he could have pressed that point more.

[Origanalist]

So it is not OK for a bureaucrat/politician in DC to meddle in my personal affairs but perfectly OK for a bureaucrat/politician at the state capital/city hall to meddle in my personal affairs?
I am so tired of this state/local issue meme. As long as someone who is not you meddles in your personal affairs does it matter where he/she is located?

Yes, it does somewhat. If it's a State issue, at least you can find a suitable State. If it's a federal issue, nowhere on the planet is safe.

[Origanalist]

To answer the OP, "Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues." The answer is obviously no, some people will never stop saying that no matter what.

[shoshanshopon]

My point is that social issues are neither federal nor state issues. They are nobody's issues except the persons concerned.


Yes, it does somewhat. If it's a State issue, at least you can find a suitable State. If it's a federal issue, nowhere on the planet is safe.

[Origanalist]

My point is that social issues are neither federal nor state issues. They are nobody's issues except the persons concerned.

And I don't argue that point, but there has to be a point of turning to get there. If you bring it down to the State and then the local level, you have a much greater ability to excercise autonomy.

It used to be thought that the feds were a shield against State abuses...........

[Occam's Banana]

RPFs sez: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again."

I was going to reply to shoshanshopon, but Originalist said everything I was going to say.

So I'll just reiterate/elaborate: there is nothing "better" about state/local tyranny relative to federal tyranny. What is "better" are the chances of fighting back effectively against state/local tyrannies.

Federal "one-size-fits-all" tyrannies are harder to fight. Those are often driven by well-connected special interests. Imagine if those special interests were forced to expend resources fighting 50 seperate battles, instead of just one ...

[pochy1776]

This thread is like a football game on William F Buckley Crack

[BAllen]

Right! You're much closer to the government and representatives. Case in point: forced annexation got out of hand here. It was to the point where cities would spot annex: pick a wealthy subdivision that was not even connected to the city, and claim it. So, citizens took action and went to Raleigh to fight it. A new law was passed this year banning forced annexation in North Carolina.

[Gravik]

The biggest turn off is how a lot of Republicans (and Democrats) think they know what is best for me and think they should decide what I can and cannot put in my own body. So if a Republican candidate supports the war on drugs, or anything else that undermines our personal liberty, they will not ever ever ever get my vote.