• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did Republicans/Conservatives Fail?

Why did Republicans/Conservatives Fail?


  • Total voters
    27
The real reasons:
* Because you can't win an election on "let me get into office first and then I'll give you the details."
* Because there's only so many times you can change your position or "reboot" your campaign before people question your resolve.
* Because not everybody bought the out of context B.S. like "that".
* Because most people don't watch the epic level of misinformation and hypocrisy that comes out of fox news.
* Because the president didn't botch a second debate.

What the reasons should be:
* Because current republican economics is entirely a faith, there is zero evidence to support their ideas.
* Because you can't sell the same crap for 30 years (supply side economics) before people start to wonder when you'll actually deliver.
* Because you can't sell the same crap for 30 years (supply side economics) and rebrand it every year in trying not to deliver.
* Because the tea party doesn't know what the hell they are talking about - government expenditures have been roughly 20% of GDP for 60 years. The part that changed to give us this debt is the revenue side of the equation.
* Because the deficit and debt really is more than a 4 year old issue
* Because people understand that a "20% across the board cut" really means a 2 point drop for the poor and 7 points for the rich.
* Because 4 out of 6 countries ranked higher than us in global competitiveness have much stronger progressive systems than we do. The other 2 are facing the same economic disparity issues.
* Because an uncompromising house under Grover Norquist's boot needs to take much of the blame.
* Because the economy has been recovering for the duration of the current term
* Because the angry white guy is a declining demographic
* Because "together" and "ask not" have not been completely crushed by rugged-go-F-yourself individualism.
* Because you can't expect a speedy recovery and austerity at the same time.
 
As a talk show host stated this morning, it is hard to beat Santa Claus

Death of a Democracy"

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:



How old is our Country?
 
Last edited:
the u.s. has moved further and further towards the evil of democracy, (a state where people create rights for themselves, and any materiel good or service they wish), as they infringe on the rights of those having to pay the cost for those new rights, good and services.

democracies always die, because of the excesses of the people, creating anything they can imagine, this leads to a devaluation of the currency, huge debt, fewer rights for the people, and lastly enslavement......as the founders say, .....the end for democracies is a dictator.

as the people become more the way of sheep ,and clamor for those politicians that will promise them anything, seek to destroy those whom the (politicians deem) is the people's enemy, hate and envy shall grow, and tear the fabric of American society apart.

with democracy, there is no civic pride, no duty too the union, it is just a cycle over and over of, men, me, me, of self-interest of the people.

for such a long time now the interest of individual states has been lost, after the 17 th amendment, and the electoral college mean to be in the interest on the union itself, has turn into a self-interest of the people, on what will the "president do for me"

as government continues seek to bestow new rights, to quell hunger of the people more and more, and apply the people with (bread and circuses,) as the roman emperors did america will head down the path of apathy, then mediocrity, until we no longer cease to be.

our union will be over with those individuals left, fighting over the tiny fragments that shall remain.

one cannot predicate when our union shall fail, but it will fail, because of the excesses and self-interest of the people, as they turn away from the things that made America great, and end the dream of the American founding fathers.
 
The Tea Party forces are hurting the party with the right of center bend of the majority.
George Bush had good support among Latino voters because he supported immigration reform. Many Latinos in America have family members who they want to see immigrate to America. The Republican Party rejected this Bush idea and the Latino vote went away. Many Latinos are a better idealogical fit with the Republicans. However, family comes before party, everytime.
 
The republicans lost because they continue to put up candidates that are-
1.Not Rockstar popular. Lets face it the young voters are primarily voting for who is cool not who is best suited for the job.
2.Not even popular amongst there own party. It wasn't until after the primaries that they started to warm up to Romney and even then it was "I guess I will hold my breath and vote for the lesser of two evils".
3.Not much different than who was already in office.

I don't feel sorry for them or the country. We are making bad decisions again and again. I don't see it stopping anytime soon. Both candidates totally sucked and neither would or will fix the problems this country faces. If anything we are more divided than ever. Anyone who is applauding what happened last night is simply looking at this like a sports game with your favorite team winning or losing. Some hard decisions are going to have to be made and soon. We can not continue to kick the can down the road, although I am certain that is what will happen. Either way I am prepared for what the future holds good or bad. JMO
 
The Tea Party forces are hurting the party with the right of center bend of the majority.
George Bush had good support among Latino voters because he supported immigration reform. Many Latinos in America have family members who they want to see immigrate to America. The Republican Party rejected this Bush idea and the Latino vote went away. Many Latinos are a better idealogical fit with the Republicans. However, family comes before party, everytime.


then my question would be " what about the law".

as the president, he takes an oath the faithfully executive the laws of the land, of coarse he is not doing that, he is enforcing the law, to his will, not as it is written.

shall we cast aside the laws we have, in favor of seeking favor from a group of people.....(its come to that way)

it is law, that makes A union strong, ......if in its willingness, to abuse the law, or disregard law, and only do things which is only in the personal interest of getting elected...the me, me, me mentality...then we are finished.

the founders wanted us so much, to be civic minded, and care for the union, the laws of it.

but that is over as we have seen, with our government promising, give to one citizen and take from another, using the tool of vengeance...as obama said ........."no no don't boo, vote!....that's the best way to get revenge"
 
Last edited:
I think it's the social conservatives are the reason why the GOP lost.
 
This is true. Very true. It's a sad day because I really used to love America.

However, sometimes the old has to die away so that something new and better can replace it.

As a talk show host stated this morning, it is hard to beat Santa Claus

Death of a Democracy"

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:



How old is our Country?
 
Multifaceted question. I'll take it in four parts.

Why did the Republicans fail to take the white house - Uninspired candidate who couldn't rally the type of turnout needed in a base election and suffered from a general unfavorable image coupled with being the "Devil you don't know".

Why did the Republicans lose seats in the senate - Far Right social conservative comments by two candidates who won their primaries (one dethroning an incumbant) failed to win elections to gain/hold seats that likely would've been won had they not taken such social stances. Also, Massachusetts returning to the norm going from a Moderate candidate to a Left Leaning Ideologue.

Why did the Republicans lose seats in the house - I believe this largely was simply part of the wave of yesterday, where you had stronger Democratic turnout than Republican which translated to a few pickups in the house.

Overriding factor - The Republican party has a number of issues that are "barrier of entry" keeping potential voters from gravitating to the parts of the party that may be attractive to them (maybe more attractive as a whole than the Democratic party). These "barriers of entry" are key issues that the party appears to be too extreme on and turn off a potential voter to the point where they can't even contemplate the vast majority of the platform. With the increasing change in demographics in terms of potential youth, african american, hispanic, and women voters these issues acts as a governor upon the Republican parties voting totals.
 
And I think Romney should have embraced his moderate background more, and maybe even have embrace that he was the origin of Obama care ( but of course mentioning that in it's current form is not meant to be design nationwide.) He should have, with every 10 sentences he spoke, said how he was the better candidate to pass bi-partisan solutions, because we has been successful in the past.
 
They can't pander to minorities, women, and young people without compromising on the principles of the party, which are primarily those of liberty, self-sufficiency, and capitalist system ideals. I don't blame them in the least. When you start buying votes, rather than getting votes based on shared values, you are nothing more than your opposition. The world is going the way of entitlement mentality, and reality TV standards. The republicans can't compete in a world where they have to try and steal votes from democrats by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Good point, because as we know, young people, women, minorities don't believe in liberty, self-sufficiency, and capitalist system ideals. They are the exclusive purview of the Republican Party and especially angry white males.

God I hope this attitude prevails with the Tea - sorry - the Republican Party.
 
For decades, the elected president has one very obvious similarity - he came off as an everyman.

Reagan was very affable and charismatic. He seemed like the grandpa who would sneak you cookies when Grammy Nancy wags the finger at you. Bush 41 also had somewhat of the same characteristic, although not as obvious as Reagan.

Clinton was hugely charming, young, attractive, and was a guy you would want to have a beer with. He'd be the guy at the bar who would point out who the hottest chick in the place was, or which one wasn't wearing panties. He could also grab his sax and play with the band. It seems like an obvious choice over a cantankerous Kansas Senator who speaks of himself in the third person.

Bush was your hunting buddy who would split a six-pack with you while you sit in the forest with your camouflage. He had to beat out the, arguably, most self-absorbed politician I've ever met who invented everything, and a windsurfing chickenhawk who used women for money. Easy enough.

Obama will play basketball with you and brag about how he beat your ass in a fantasy league...before his bitch of a wife makes him come home for dinner with the kids and lecture you about how you spend too much time with your friends. He had to beat a cryptic, skeletal figure who bought his wife...and a smug Mormon who tried to act like he belongs when he clearly doesn't.

Perception is reality.
 
1. Lack of Immigration reform
2. Abortion
3. Gay rights
 
The most fundamental reason is because the GOP starting to feel the strain of pushing the short term economic interests of 10% of the population against the short term interests of 90% of the nation and the long term interests of 100% of the population.

For some weird reason they selected the richest, most quintessentially Establishment Republican they could find to rub America's nose in it.
 
I missed the "Americans are idiots" option.

Indeed. Romney was clearly the intelligent choice. Who wouldn't vote for someone who contradicted almost every position he's held, not over the course of his political career, but since the election cycle began? Total idiots.

I guess everyone was too stupid to follow the clues to find out what Mitt Romney really stood for.

Hint: I followed the clues, and they went nowhere good.
 
Morality Games said:
Indeed. Romney was clearly the intelligent choice.

Romney won the GOP nomination. My argument becomes stronger.
 
Oh, so you think that the smart Americans chose Romney for the GOP nomination. Just checking.
 
Oh, so you think that the smart Americans chose Romney for the GOP nomination. Just checking.

Your statement can be read that way, yes. One of the dangers of not specifying.
 
then my question would be " what about the law".

as the president, he takes an oath the faithfully executive the laws of the land, of coarse he is not doing that, he is enforcing the law, to his will, not as it is written.

shall we cast aside the laws we have, in favor of seeking favor from a group of people.....(its come to that way)

it is law, that makes A union strong, ......if in its willingness, to abuse the law, or disregard law, and only do things which is only in the personal interest of getting elected...the me, me, me mentality...then we are finished.

the founders wanted us so much, to be civic minded, and care for the union, the laws of it.

but that is over as we have seen, with our government promising, give to one citizen and take from another, using the tool of vengeance...as obama said ........."no no don't boo, vote!....that's the best way to get revenge"

Okay, I guess you're right. The Country has a problem, best not to try and deal with it. Maybe some other party can come up with a solution.
 
Morality Games said:
Your statement can be read that way, yes. One of the dangers of not specifying.

Well, in my defense of the lack of a distinct sarcasm font, when I said that "Americans are stupid" I was being 100% serious.
 
Other..... Failure to actually articulate a CONSERVATIVE alternative to Mr. Obama. Failure to nominate a candidate who actually IS an alternative (and not just a copy of) Obama.
 
This makes sense. They appealed primarily to the rich white male. That may be insulting to some, but it's true. Likewise, women's rights weren't valued either, costing them the election. Republicans need to broaden their base.

It's more than that. I'm a successful (although rich would be a stretch) white male, and I've had zero interest in voting for a republican president in the last 3 elections. If republican's would drop this trickle-down crap and return to the conservatism prior to 1980, they'd have my vote in a second. I want zero corporate taxes, a big military, and gun rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom