[BashBeissedat]

You are using stupid terminology. Anti-New Deal Cons?

But leaving that aside, the GOP coalition is more than broad enough to beat the Dems like a drum forever. However, the internal factions have to scratch each others' backs better, or the party as a whole suffers. The social conservatives need to understand that in order to win, they need the enthusiastic votes of the fiscal conservatives who have formed the backbone of the New England GOP. Further, they need to understand that social conservative hispanics are part of the coalition, so anti-hispanic xenephobia should be curtailed. Lastly, the social conservatives need to generate good presidential candidates consistently. They did none of these this time around.

That said, realistically, with this economy, no candidate from the GOP was going to win. The headwinds were just too great.

[KatoabamyHant]

But leaving that aside, the GOP coalition is more than broad enough to beat the Dems like a drum forever. However, the internal factions have to scratch each others' backs better, or the party as a whole suffers. The social conservatives need to understand that in order to win, they need the enthusiastic votes of the fiscal conservatives who have formed the backbone of the New England GOP. Great. The fiscal conservatives need to understand that defense of traditional marriage and ditching Roe are non-negotiables.

If they can't swallow those, then we are better off without them, then with them.

Lastly, the social conservatives need to generate good presidential candidates consistently. They did none of these this time around. McCain was a socon?

In case you didn't notice, socons voted for Huckabee or Romney who was a NE GOP.

McCain was pushed by the moderates.

We have excellent candidates for the presidency, but the problem is the fiscal conservatives refuse to vote for anyone who is socially conservative, and would rather have someone who was socially moderate. That needs to stop.

[strollerssfsfs]

Then who would make a good presidential candidate, DanS?

[herawaq]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then who would make a good presidential candidate, DanS? Nobody that I know of. Romney didn't have the support of the social conservatives. Neither did McCain, by the way. Huckabee was unelectable, but had the support of the social conservatives.

The social conservatives are the largest part of the GOP, so they have a responsibility to develop good candidates that the other members of the coalition can support and can pass muster with the American people. They are doing a piss-poor job of it right now.

[exschke]

Originally posted by DanS
You are using stupid terminology. Anti-New Deal Cons?

But leaving that aside, the GOP coalition is more than broad enough to beat the Dems like a drum forever. However, the internal factions have to scratch each others' backs better, or the party as a whole suffers. The social conservatives need to understand that in order to win, they need the enthusiastic votes of the fiscal conservatives who have formed the backbone of the New England GOP. Further, they need to understand that social conservative hispanics are part of the coalition, so anti-hispanic xenephobia should be curtailed. Lastly, the social conservatives need to generate good presidential candidates consistently. They did none of these this time around.

That said, realistically, with this economy, no candidate from the GOP was going to win. The headwinds were just too great. Don't forget that social conservatives should continue with their usual gay bashing.

[affozyBoomi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Great. The fiscal conservatives need to understand that defense of traditional marriage and ditching Roe are non-negotiables.

If they can't swallow those, then we are better off without them, then with them. 1. What is this "we" of which you speak, Canadian carpetbagger?

2. Single-issue voting is the OPPOSITE of coalition-building.

[konanoileaski]

In the general, sure. He'd been on the Daily Show more than basically any pol of either party. The McCain brand was strong for a fairly long time. Who do you believe would've done better?

[quack!]

Specifically, who?

[nikolapegayyyaasss]

[viagsjicguara]

I hear the kids dig that Mittmentum.

[KLIMOV25gyi]

He wouldn't have been stomped any worse among twenty-somethings than McCain was. McCain didn't appeal to that demographic at all; at least Paul had the nutty conspiracy theorists on his side.

[lookanddiscover]

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman frequently dismissed as a long shot candidate with no real chance at winning the Republican presidential nomination, has won nearly twice as many total votes to date as Rudy Giuliani, a candidate still widely viewed as a strong contender. ...

Paul’s performance is a testament to his appeal to young voters, who have disproportionately supported his candidacy. According to exit and entrance polls, Paul came in second among 18 to 24-year-olds in New Hampshire and finished a close third in Iowa after Mitt Romney among the 17 to 29-year-old demographic.

“There are a lot of things in Ron Paul’s message that resonate with younger voters,” said Ethan Eilon, executive director of the College Republican National Committee. “The anti-establishment ring to what he’s got to say, typically younger voters tend to gravitate to that to some degree.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8062.html

[bushomeworkk]

I repeat, in the general.

[Pa33anger]

This is just an assumption on your part. You have no real evidence for it.

Pollsters that showed Obama and McCain statistically tied (among all voters), showed Obama up in the neighborhood of 20% against Paul. That really isn't consistent with Paul outperforming McCain in any significant demographic group. I can't find any internal breakdowns, but I think this is a safe assumption.

You can also check out how Paul performed in the states where he was on the ballot (MT, LA).

[layevymed]

That was a secondary point. I repeat, if you lose 20% with all voters, you're probably not gaining anything with under 30's.

[investmentonlinev2006x]

According to exit and entrance polls, Paul came in second among 18 to 24-year-olds in New Hampshire and finished a close third in Iowa after Mitt Romney among the 17 to 29-year-old demographic.

Who was #1? If it was McCain, then your argument doesn't hold muster.

[AricGoffgog]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to exit and entrance polls, Paul came in second among 18 to 24-year-olds in New Hampshire and finished a close third in Iowa after Mitt Romney among the 17 to 29-year-old demographic.

Who was #1? If it was McCain, then your argument doesn't hold muster. Not to mention that it would be among voters in the Republican primary, not all voters.

[andrekuper]

Who was #1? McCain in New Hampshire, Huckabee in Iowa

Not to mention that it would be among voters in the Republican primary, not all voters. The Republican primaries are all we have to go on when comparing the popularity of various Republican candidates amongst young voters.

[JosephEL]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If they can't swallow those, then we are better off without them, then with them. Who is "we"? Have you been a voting Republican primary voter for how long a time in the US?

McCain was pushed by the moderates. No, moderate Republicans pushed Giuliani. Conservative Republicans pushed Huckabee.

McCain was a compromise candidate whose support was in the single digits until he was pushed hard by the part of the media which was sympathetic to the Democrats (Jon Stewart, NYT, Time, et aliae).

[arcalmanard]

1. What is this "we" of which you speak, Canadian carpetbagger?

Why are democrats continuing to give Republicans advice on how to win elections?

2. Single-issue voting is the OPPOSITE of coalition-building. Right. How long do you last in the Democrat party if you happen to be prolife?

If the Republicans abandon their defense of traditional marriage and their opposition to Roe, then they are going to get destroyed every election.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.