Electoral Votes

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[RPB]

Social Centrist candidate

That's what Mitt was, he was for abortion, then against
he was for gun bans, then against
He's been far left and far right ... so "on the average" he's centered (I voted for him reluctantly)

News station on TV had 1 Yankee say "I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but guess I'll vote Obama now"

Marijuana got legalized in a couple States ... States rights and local control seemed important

Apparently, people wanted less govt like Paul offered, not more like Mitt offered

Mitt was booed when telling people he'd get rid of Obamacare when talking to poorer crowds and booed by Unions, which secure the jobs the Northerners have; in both instances asserting centralized Federal powers

But, the GOP did select the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in '08... almost like it was intentional, I had hopes, but there were a couple that could have won, maybe Herman Cain, maybe Ron Paul (Ok, I said "maybe" ) I know I was uneasy voting for Mitt, but I did thinking maybe he can prove he changed his spots and is 100% different than he used to be, looks like others couldn't.

Guess I'll look for Texas Gun shows and private sales and standard capacity magazines while they are still legal

[sjfcontrol]

Two hour in -- and the market is now down 365 points, 2.68%

[donkey]

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......

......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.

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

[Oldgringo]

Social Centrist candidate

That's what Mitt was, he was for abortion, then against
he was for gun bans, then against
He's been far left and far right ... so "on the average" he's centered (I voted for him reluctantly)

News station on TV had 1 Yankee say "I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but guess I'll vote Obama now"

Marijuana got legalized in a couple States ... States rights and local control seemed important

Apparently, people wanted less govt like Paul offered, not more like Mitt offered

Mitt was booed when telling people he'd get rid of Obamacare when talking to poorer crowds and booed by Unions, which secure the jobs the Northerners have; in both instances asserting centralized Federal powers

But, the GOP did select the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in '08... almost like it was intentional, I had hopes, but there were a couple that could have won, maybe Herman Cain, maybe Ron Paul (Ok, I said "maybe" ) I know I was uneasy voting for Mitt, but I did thinking maybe he can prove he changed his spots and is 100% different than he used to be, looks like others couldn't.

Guess I'll look for Texas Gun shows and private sales and standard capacity magazines while they are still legal

[anygunanywhere]

So what you are essentially saying is that in order to get elected one must give up all principles and toe the social agenda line? Kill more babies, more elderly? We have to tolerate more social engineering when the enemy does not tolerate us or anything about us?

NIce.

Sell your soul for public office.

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

Anygunanywhere

[SQLGeek]

This is simple and I'm sad to say, last night was not a surprise. It is a symptom of the direction our country is already heading and has been heading for years. The idea of shrinking government and increasing personal freedom is untenable to the majority.

Like it or not, the United States is shifting to a Western European model. Socialist based ideals are becoming more mainstream and considered the norm. The democrats will become the de facto party nation wide as my generation and the one following mine will continue to age and become the majority. The republicans will have to shift their platform to include more socialist ideals to remain viable within the mainstream or they will become the de facto minority party always clammering for a few more seats away from the left. I would not be surprised at all to see the republican party fracture and vanish, to be balkanized within itself and splinter off into multiple smaller parties.

True small government conservatives and libertarians are going to become regarded as the extremist right as they are in Europe. Not to be taken seriously by the mainstream, only a small minority. It's already happening and has been for some time.

I have felt this way for a while now. I started to when Bush was still in office and everything I've seen since then has only reinforced this notion. It is inevitable. The only question is how long until we get there and we have our own NHS?

[Robert*PPS]

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.

I agree with this to some degree only because my greenie wienie sister told me that she knows republicans are more fiscally responsible but cannot vote for one that does not support gay marriage. I understand what she is saying, but what I tried (unsuccessfully) to convey to her is that if the country falls under the burden of the impending financial collapse, then social issues like gay marriage become moot by default because the whole country, the whole idea of being free, the whole idea of being able to even SPEAK of certain issues are all in question. Who knows how that will end up...socialist nation, dictatorship, or perhaps a total union collapses (like USSR).

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

I gathered you would disagree.

Defend whatever you must. Free will is yours to exercise. No one will stop you.

Actions have consequences.

Anygunanywhere

[mamabearCali]

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.

[snatchel]

What RoyGBiv said.

100%

While I am a Christian and would like to see some degree of morality retained in our government, it appears that the majority of Americans do not. That said, about the only thing that would get a anti-abortion/anti-same-sex marriage president in office in 2016 is a 3rd Great Awakening.

[donkey]

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.

[rwg3]

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.

Well said and a fair analysis!

Also this has some fair points: http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The old saying about being all things to all people surely applies to the Romney trail.