TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:Alfonzo Rachel gives a great explanation on why Republicans lost. If y'all haven't been watching his videos, you should.

http://alfonzorachel.com/915/one-of-the ... presidency

Not the complete story.. but.. very well said.
Worth watching. Thanks for sharing.

donkey wrote:"Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters" are a minority. Americans are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms.

Neither major (electable) party has produced a candidate that fits that description in quite some time. Clinton was smart enough to move towards the fiscal center after mid-terms gave him a GOP Congress. That's as close as we've been in a while. I'd wager that if such a candidate could grab some air, people would rally to them. Well, I was more sure about that a few years ago.

Social Conservatives will need to find their way to a "stop abortion" plan that doesn't involve legislation. I don't think anyone espousing a legislative solution (via Congress or via stacking SCOTUS) can get elected any more. I'm not sure why "legislation" is such an imperative. I know what the impetus is, certainly, but, at some point you reach the base of the mountain and you have to ask yourself.... "Up & over or around? " Because a straight line through is no longer a productive path.

Here's what scares me most...

For holding abortion as a litmus test, what have we sacrificed in terms of other Liberties that could have been better protected by a non-Democrat Executive & Senate? How many candidates that would support National Reciprocity have lost a seat because of "bedroom" issues? Is anyone surprised that that idiot Akin lost his MO Senate race? Looking back to his primary, would we now choose the "less conservative" Republican if we could wind back the clock?

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/0 ... ill-hoped/
Akin was considered the most conservative of the nominees and the weakest general election candidate. The McCaskill team even took the unusual step of running ads “against” Akin during he primary which labeled him the true conservative. While the message of the ads should technically hurt Akin in the general it seems the bigger point of the ads run right before the primary was to help Akin with conservatives voters.

Polling before the primary found that of the three Republican candidates, McCaskill did the best against Akin. A Mason-Dixon poll from last month found that McCaskill trailing Brunner by 11 points, trailing Steelman by 8 points, but only losing to Akin by five points.

Is there no other way to approach solving the abortion issue? I've proposed Civic action. It's slower, harder and leaves the door open for those who disagree. It's less than ideal. But what else are we giving up for taking the current apparently unwinable path? Is not a crooked path forward still forward?

Side note: Thanks for the open and (relatively) non-judgmental discussion. A less mature forum would have gone completely sideways by now, instead of just off topic. My apologies to the OP for taking this off the original path... I'll make this my final comment in this thread and again, thanks to all for the discussion.

donkey wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

donkey wrote:This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.

So all these fiscally responsible, small government voters decided to forget all about small government and responsibility and vote based off of their "stay out of my bedroom" values? That seems to go against what people said in the exit polls. 59% of voters said the economy was the most important issue. 81% of those who voted for Obama said that government should do more to solve problems. Look at states like Ohio and Michigan where more than 60% of voters approve of the Federal bail out to GM and Chrysler. Voters in blue states want to keep or even expand ObamaCare. Maybe some people refused to vote Republican because of the party's stance on gay marriage, but Romney lost the election because most voters want more government not less.

I think they got hoodwinked into thinking that Obama would be "good enough" on government and and fiscal issues and then Obama played the "far-right-extremist" card well enough to win the election. I do not believe that "most" voters want more government.

Is it not possible that 59% thought Obama would be "acceptable" on the economy?
You and I would certainly call them "unsmart" (forum friendly word).

Honestly, I'll admit that I believe a fat chunk of people are just too darn lazy and want the government to take care of them. Not "most", not 47% as Romney was accused, but a fat chunk.

So....... Do we stick to our principals and go down with the ship? Or admit that we're in the minority and change tactics to try and save at least some of the things we value? Note that "change tactics" is not "surrender"... Still, not a pleasant or easy choice...

Or... perhaps we should go further right... that Romney was not right-enough and that a further-right candidate like a Santorum would have had a better chance at beating Obama.? I don't believe that, but, I suppose it's not unreasonable to want to go down that path.

mamabearCali wrote:Well if they did as you suggest and they say to the Conservative Christians go fly a kite....you are still not going to win. Because we WILL NOT vote for a person who thinks that killing children that are inconvenient is just fine and dandy.

I will not sell my soul to win an election. I fear God. End of Story.

MBC states, quite succinctly, the issue.

If, like me, you prefer to advocate your personal social agenda outside of government mandates, then it's possible to vote for a pro-choice candidate that checks all the boxes labeled "Government should be involved here" and still advocate against abortion privately.

The final analysis on abortion, for me, comes down to this.... Even if it was 100% illegal, people would still choose to do it. Societal pressure, creating options, changing hearts and minds... is more effective than changing laws. Better to focus government on the things that only government can do and let the Citizenry work out the rest without using laws to impose my standards on others....

I believe many people could come to this view for issues other than abortion.. that abortion is the impasse....

anygunanywhere wrote:You can't defend your social liberty and maintain religious freedom. They are not mutually inclusive.

Anygunanywhere

I disagree very much with this statement, obviously.
Not only CAN we, we MUST.

donkey wrote:This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.

I'll go out on the limb....

The GOP lost the WH last night because of its (in some cases real and other cases perceived) "Social Agenda".

Requiring our candidate to pass the "Conservative Enough" test to get nominated means that the candidate has to come out against "choice", against "same sex protections under law" and a whole list of other things that, frankly, are "get out of my bedroom" issues for a majority of Americans.

The fact that a small-minded, blatantly dishonest, Marxist can pull in 52% of the vote is PROOF that if the GOP doesn't find a way to restore itself to it's "Small Government" high ground while at the same time opening itself up to TOLERANCE and LIBERTY on social issues, then the GOP is destined to the sidelines until the next national or global tragedy sufficiently shake voter confidence in the Dem party that their clear and overwhelming lead on social issues is OBE (overcome by events).

I'm a small-government, fiscal-responsibility voter. Do I like the GOP's stance on social issues? Not very often. But I'm prepared to fight it out within the party, realizing that without small government and fiscal responsibility the Country will cease to function and we'll decline into a copy of Western Europe. I'm content to push aside my social views for the "good of the economy/country" and vote Red. If there was a viable candidate that favored "Economic Responsibility" and a "Libertarian Social Agenda", they'd have received my vote. Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? Even if I could swallow their myriad shortcomings, they weren't going to get elected.

Far-right voters need to find room for a Social Centrist candidate that supports their religious freedoms. Clearly the far right have reason to worry that religion is under attack in this country. The Dems clearly want "Freedom FROM Religion". But can the far right embrace a candidate that espouses Freedom OF Religion, a candidate that wants to reverse the religious paranoia of the Left while advocating a Libertarian view on social issues? Can a candidate who advocates strongly for First Amendment religious freedom, while at the same time advocating for same sex unions on "equal protection" grounds ever win the GOP primary? Can a candidate that advocates for prayer being banned from public schools while at the same time advocating in favor of religious displays on other public property ever win your vote.? [logic: I can admire the nativity display at City Hall as I walk past it, but my child cannot so easily disengage from in-school displays of religious preference that I may prefer for them not to engage in.]

What happened yesterday?.... Social-centrist voters like me "broke" for their social agenda over "saving the economy" in sufficient numbers that they gave the Dems the win. This is a mistake that will hurt this country for the rest of my life, I'm afraid. I didn't get much sleep last night out of worry.

Going forward, the GOP is faced with a tough decision... Without a shred of doubt in my mind, the GOP wins on economic issues and loses badly on a social agenda that fails to honor the ideal that we are all free to choose the life we want to lead. We readily defend free speech that makes our blood boil, but we cannot yield the same Liberty to "social" choices. The GOP platform is pushing back in the wrong way against the Left's "Freedom From Religion" movement. In the same way we defend free speech we must also defend Social Liberty, while assuring our religious freedom.

America voted for social liberty over economic responsibility last night.

IMHO, YMMV.