Reasons Republicans will lose to Obama in 2012

[Dan Druff]

I hate to admit it, but Obama looks pretty likely to get re-elected, despite the majority of the country being dissatisfied with his first 3+ years in office. The Republicans are beating themselves. Here's why:

- They failed to field a Presidential candidate who is relatable to the general public. Michelle Bachman is crazy. Rick Santorum is too religious. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have way too much personal baggage. Mitt Romney, the best of the pack, is the type of guy you'd love to see as your company's CEO, but very much projects a rich-guy-out-of-touch image. Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic GOP candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism? Surely the Republicans could find one person of this description out of the 55 million registered Republicans in this country. The inability to find and promote a great candidate for the leader of the most powerful country on earth is mind-boggling. This is the 2nd election in a row where the GOP field, as a whole, sucked.

- They are allowing the Democrats to successfully paint them as the intolerant party of religious nuts and super-rich assholes. The last election in 2010 was successful for Republicans, but that was misleading, because it was a referendum on frustration with Obama rather than being pleased with the GOP. The last time the GOP really captivated the country was in 1994. Newt Gingrich, who led the party to sweeping midterm victories, got it right. He convinced the party to unify and stop the infighting, and then focus on the big issues Americans really cared about. People in 1994 were concerned with high crime. Most Democrats were a lot softer on violent criminals than Republicans, and the GOP made sure the electorate knew it. Smart. Americans were frustrated with high taxes and Clinton's plan to keep raising them. Republicans successfully convinced everyone that they were the party looking to lower your taxes, regardless of your income. The GOP did this with all of the big issues of the day where Republicans held the viewpoint that the majority of the country shared. Thus, the Democrats looked like out-of-touch elitists, while the Republicans looked like friends of the everyman. Brilliant. The results were predictably great for the GOP that year. This year, Republicans are sticking to their own narrow focus, and the average American doesn't know what the Republicans will do for them that Democrats won't. Right now the only thing I'm seeing is the attempt to derail Obama's health care bill, but without a viable alternative on the GOP side, this isn't going to score many points with people who weren't already voting Republican anyway (see next point)...

- Republicans are too obsessed right now with pleasing their die-hard supporters. Why is this a bad thing? You don't win elections by bending over backwards for people that are voting for you no matter what. While you shouldn't betray your supporters to where you turn them off completely, you need to focus on bringing the middle-of-the-road and independent voters into your corner. Take gay marriage, for example. The majority of the country is against it, so Republicans are spending a lot of time talking about it. This is wrong! Most of the people against gay marriage are already voting for you, yet you're turning off many independents who see you as intolerant. I'm not saying that the GOP should come out FOR gay marriage, but they should keep quiet about the whole thing, as most Democrats are.

- Republicans have been shy about answering the "1%" Occupy talk. The Occupy movement was very flawed and most of the general public never really got behind it. But it did make a lot of noise, and it did popularize the term "1%" to refer to the privileged few that get everything easy in life. Unfortunately, Republicans are seen as the party of the 1%, and that will hurt come election time. Republicans missed their opportunity to answer back, where they should have said that while it is impossible to completely equalize everyone's opportunity in a free country, America gives the opportunity for anyone to be successful who wants to work hard at it. They missed the chance to express the popularly-held belief that people who work hard and strive for success deserve the material rewards they eventually receive from it. Instead, most of the country was left with the impression that, while most of Occupy's fanatics were a bunch of smelly hippies, America really does have a problem with the privileged few getting all the breaks.

It's too late to right the ship for 2012, but I really hope the GOP gets their act together over the next 4 years. On the bright side, the Democrats don't have a good candidate to run in 2016 -- at least not yet.

[donkeykilla]

I hate to admit it, but Obama looks pretty likely to get re-elected, despite the majority of the country being dissatisfied with his first 3+ years in office. The Republicans are beating themselves. Here's why:

- They failed to field a Presidential candidate who is relatable to the general public. Michelle Bachman is crazy. Rick Santorum is too religious. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have way too much personal baggage. Mitt Romney, the best of the pack, is the type of guy you'd love to see as your company's CEO, but very much projects a rich-guy-out-of-touch image. Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic GOP candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism? Surely the Republicans could find one person of this description out of the 55 million registered Republicans in this country. The inability to find and promote a great candidate for the leader of the most powerful country on earth is mind-boggling. This is the 2nd election in a row where the GOP field, as a whole, sucked.

- They are allowing the Democrats to successfully paint them as the intolerant party of religious nuts and super-rich assholes. The last election in 2010 was successful for Republicans, but that was misleading, because it was a referendum on frustration with Obama rather than being pleased with the GOP. The last time the GOP really captivated the country was in 1994. Newt Gingrich, who led the party to sweeping midterm victories, got it right. He convinced the party to unify and stop the infighting, and then focus on the big issues Americans really cared about. People in 1994 were concerned with high crime. Most Democrats were a lot softer on violent criminals than Republicans, and the GOP made sure the electorate knew it. Smart. Americans were frustrated with high taxes and Clinton's plan to keep raising them. Republicans successfully convinced everyone that they were the party looking to lower your taxes, regardless of your income. The GOP did this with all of the big issues of the day where Republicans held the viewpoint that the majority of the country shared. Thus, the Democrats looked like out-of-touch elitists, while the Republicans looked like friends of the everyman. Brilliant. The results were predictably great for the GOP that year. This year, Republicans are sticking to their own narrow focus, and the average American doesn't know what the Republicans will do for them that Democrats won't. Right now the only thing I'm seeing is the attempt to derail Obama's health care bill, but without a viable alternative on the GOP side, this isn't going to score many points with people who weren't already voting Republican anyway (see next point)...

- Republicans are too obsessed right now with pleasing their die-hard supporters. Why is this a bad thing? You don't win elections by bending over backwards for people that are voting for you no matter what. While you shouldn't betray your supporters to where you turn them off completely, you need to focus on bringing the middle-of-the-road and independent voters into your corner. Take gay marriage, for example. The majority of the country is against it, so Republicans are spending a lot of time talking about it. This is wrong! Most of the people against gay marriage are already voting for you, yet you're turning off many independents who see you as intolerant. I'm not saying that the GOP should come out FOR gay marriage, but they should keep quiet about the whole thing, as most Democrats are.

- Republicans have been shy about answering the "1%" Occupy talk. The Occupy movement was very flawed and most of the general public never really got behind it. But it did make a lot of noise, and it did popularize the term "1%" to refer to the privileged few that get everything easy in life. Unfortunately, Republicans are seen as the party of the 1%, and that will hurt come election time. Republicans missed their opportunity to answer back, where they should have said that while it is impossible to completely equalize everyone's opportunity in a free country, America gives the opportunity for anyone to be successful who wants to work hard at it. They missed the chance to express the popularly-held belief that people who work hard and strive for success deserve the material rewards they eventually receive from it. Instead, most of the country was left with the impression that, while most of Occupy's fanatics were a bunch of smelly hippies, America really does have a problem with the privileged few getting all the breaks.

It's too late to right the ship for 2012, but I really hope the GOP gets their act together over the next 4 years. On the bright side, the Democrats don't have a good candidate to run in 2016 -- at least not yet.

Druff I couldn't agree with you more. I have been a long time democrat. This year if Ron Paul got in which would never happen, I would have voted for him. I really like how he has the belief that all of these other countries should fight there own wars and we have no business there. I also like how he stresses how important civil liberty is and how government has no business being involved in every facet of someones life. Another thing is that the Republicans still have not found a clear candidate while Obama continues to raise Billions of dollars in campaign money and they are wasting there money battling each other.

[HEX]

Didn't read, of course, but it's certainly gonna happen for some reason(s) that you probably at least partially specified. I'm gonna vote for Obama, but I will have to hold my nose to do so, and I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

[Vwls]

Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism?

They're called Democrats.

[General Bonkers]

Druff, I'm not so sure. I live in the middle of a heavy democrat area and I am hearing from a lot of buddies that never vote for republicans say they wouldn't vote for Obama again.
The gas prices is really kicking the construction industry in the ass and a lot of Obama saying he wants to double down on green energy is really pissing people off around here..

Ok back to lurking

[SixToedPete]

I hate to admit it, but Obama looks pretty likely to get re-elected, despite the majority of the country being dissatisfied with his first 3+ years in office. The Republicans are beating themselves.

It's only April 2 and you're ready to give up the ship?! You must watch too much NFN (Non-Fox News)

Choosing the GOP candidate through the primary process is how our system works. When it's over the GOP will have fielded a strong candidate. The current GOP primary battle pales in comparison to the vicious, bloody infighting we all witnessed during the 2008 Democratic primary, especially the savage back and forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Although the Dems truly beat each other up in 2008, it mattered not at all during the general election. The same thing will happen with the GOP in November. It's just the way it works.

This is the 2nd election in a row where the GOP field, as a whole, sucked.

Wow, how soon you forget. In 2008 the Dems fielded these 'strong candidates', Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh and the least experienced of them all, Barack Obama.

Not exactly a Murderers' Row lineup hey? Yet, the rookie with a .150 batting average won.

They are allowing the Democrats to successfully paint them as the intolerant party of religious nuts and super-rich assholes.

The problem with this statement is that it only applies to the far-left Lame-Stream Media. They will always run interference for Obama. Who cares? They only preach to the choir. No one but Moonbats watch their networks and read their drivel. Their ratings have tanked year after year. Plus, thanks Andrew Breitbart and others, social media and citizen journalism have made the 'Main Stream Media' far less relevant than ever before.

The Democratic Party Machine is formidable at pulling the wool over the electorate's eyes. I don't underestimate them or the effectiveness of their lies. However, Obama is a very flawed President. Perhaps the worst President in our nation's history. I agree McCain ran a stupid, uninspired campaign in 2008. Mitt Romney (should he get the nod) and the GOP will not make the same mistakes.

Take gay marriage, for example. The majority of the country is against it, so Republicans are spending a lot of time talking about it.

This simply is not true. The liberal media are talking about it. The Repubs mostly just state where they stand on the issue. This will not be a major topic in the 2012 general election. The GOP has a wing called 'Log Cabin Republicans', a national gay and lesbian grass roots organization. Plus, Barack Obama has consistently stated that he is opposed to gay marriage.

Republicans have been shy about answering the "1%" Occupy talk.

Shy? Newt masterfully destroyed the #OCCUTARDS whenever confronted with their nonsense. Santorum and Romney also handled those idiots with ease. #OCCUTARDS have a socialist agenda that never caught on with Americans. Again, non issue.

They missed the chance to express the popularly-held belief that people who work hard and strive for success deserve the material rewards they eventually receive from it.

That is flat out wrong. Where do you get your news? Turn off MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS and watch a real news network, FOX NEWS. Newt, Mitt and Rick Santorum have hammered home the benefits and opportunities of a true capitalistic society over and over.

In 2008, the Dems didn't have a nominee until June of that year! Good grief Druff, you've thrown in the towel before the bell has even rung.

The Republican candidate will win and that will be a great victory for all Americans.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Because the President is decided way before election time. Pretty much all Presidents will be two term Presidents until shit hits the fan and many are scapegoated and/or sacrificed. The same people will then take over under the guise of New World Order only it will obviously have a different name.

+1

[shortbuspoker]

The only way that I see the Republicans salvaging what seems to be a Romney led ticket is to put in a vp candidate that can get people excited. I would like to see Bobby Jindal out of Louisiana or Marco Rubio from Florida.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

The only way that I see the Republicans salvaging what seems to be a Romney led ticket is to put in a vp candidate that can get people excited. I would like to see Bobby Jindal out of Louisiana or Marco Rubio from Florida.

Some Republican will make a late run and seem very good but he has no chance. I'd take Obama at -9900

[Vwls]

Some Republican will make a late run and seem very good but he has no chance. I'd take Obama at -9900

Jesus holy Christ - what is this I am looking at here?

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Some Republican will make a late run and seem very good but he has no chance. I'd take Obama at -9900

Jesus holy Christ - what is this I am looking at here?

The same thing that number 30 is smelling and the guy in row one would be seeing if Brittney didn't have her jock strap on.

[son of lockman]

Didn't anyone save some DNA from Reagan?...They could always clone him...

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

At least Reagan made no bones about being an actor.

[Steve-O]

I hate to admit it, but Obama looks pretty likely to get re-elected, despite the majority of the country being dissatisfied with his first 3+ years in office. The Republicans are beating themselves. Here's why:

- They failed to field a Presidential candidate who is relatable to the general public. Michelle Bachman is crazy. Rick Santorum is too religious. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have way too much personal baggage. Mitt Romney, the best of the pack, is the type of guy you'd love to see as your company's CEO, but very much projects a rich-guy-out-of-touch image. Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic GOP candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism? Surely the Republicans could find one person of this description out of the 55 million registered Republicans in this country. The inability to find and promote a great candidate for the leader of the most powerful country on earth is mind-boggling. This is the 2nd election in a row where the GOP field, as a whole, sucked.

Having lived under a Mitt Romeny governorship I can say that the Mitt that presided over Massachusetts would have made a wonderful candidate; a center-right moderate compared to the center-left moderate that is in the White House. The Republicans cannot find a suitable candidate (and corrupt the ones they do have) because of the current party dynamics which strongly mirror the Republican party of the early 60's, when they first started moving towards a party of social conservative idealogy --a fate sealed when the last faction of Dixie-crats left the democratic party in the late 60's and became Republicans.

Until true social conservatism is seen as a losing prospect they will continue to drift to the right --which is why Republicans should be rooting for a Rick Santorum win, so the notion of millions of voters with "real" conservative values finally having a candidate they can get behind can be debunked.

There are plenty of solid conservatives in the party that would appeal to a broad base of voters, John Huntsman, Condoleeza Rice, and Michael Steele are three that come to mind

- They are allowing the Democrats to successfully paint them as the intolerant party of religious nuts and super-rich assholes. The last election in 2010 was successful for Republicans, but that was misleading, because it was a referendum on frustration with Obama rather than being pleased with the GOP. The last time the GOP really captivated the country was in 1994. Newt Gingrich, who led the party to sweeping midterm victories, got it right. He convinced the party to unify and stop the infighting, and then focus on the big issues Americans really cared about. People in 1994 were concerned with high crime. Most Democrats were a lot softer on violent criminals than Republicans, and the GOP made sure the electorate knew it. Smart. Americans were frustrated with high taxes and Clinton's plan to keep raising them. Republicans successfully convinced everyone that they were the party looking to lower your taxes, regardless of your income. The GOP did this with all of the big issues of the day where Republicans held the viewpoint that the majority of the country shared. Thus, the Democrats looked like out-of-touch elitists, while the Republicans looked like friends of the everyman. Brilliant. The results were predictably great for the GOP that year. This year, Republicans are sticking to their own narrow focus, and the average American doesn't know what the Republicans will do for them that Democrats won't. Right now the only thing I'm seeing is the attempt to derail Obama's health care bill, but without a viable alternative on the GOP side, this isn't going to score many points with people who weren't already voting Republican anyway (see next point)...

The issue with the republican party as it now exists is that they don't simply see the government as overreaching; they legitimately want to return to laissez faire economic's model of the early 20th century. Coupled with their religious intolerance, which shines through the moment they gain control of any statehouse or body of congress makes the current incarnation of the party appealing to about half the country, but extremely unappealing to the other half --the Democrats appeal to the same 50% but they have a 10% swath of the electorate that finds them the lesser of two evils most of the time.

- Republicans are too obsessed right now with pleasing their die-hard supporters. Why is this a bad thing? You don't win elections by bending over backwards for people that are voting for you no matter what. While you shouldn't betray your supporters to where you turn them off completely, you need to focus on bringing the middle-of-the-road and independent voters into your corner. Take gay marriage, for example. The majority of the country is against it, so Republicans are spending a lot of time talking about it. This is wrong! Most of the people against gay marriage are already voting for you, yet you're turning off many independents who see you as intolerant. I'm not saying that the GOP should come out FOR gay marriage, but they should keep quiet about the whole thing, as most Democrats are.

Totally agree

- Republicans have been shy about answering the "1%" Occupy talk. The Occupy movement was very flawed and most of the general public never really got behind it. But it did make a lot of noise, and it did popularize the term "1%" to refer to the privileged few that get everything easy in life. Unfortunately, Republicans are seen as the party of the 1%, and that will hurt come election time. Republicans missed their opportunity to answer back, where they should have said that while it is impossible to completely equalize everyone's opportunity in a free country, America gives the opportunity for anyone to be successful who wants to work hard at it. They missed the chance to express the popularly-held belief that people who work hard and strive for success deserve the material rewards they eventually receive from it. Instead, most of the country was left with the impression that, while most of Occupy's fanatics were a bunch of smelly hippies, America really does have a problem with the privileged few getting all the breaks.

Totally agree

It's too late to right the ship for 2012, but I really hope the GOP gets their act together over the next 4 years. On the bright side, the Democrats don't have a good candidate to run in 2016 -- at least not yet.

If you are a true conservative (meaning you see the need for slow, gradual, measured progress) than you should be hoping for Santorum so you can lose the battle but possibly win the war.

[408Mike]

Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism?

They're called Democrats.

WP

Walked right into that one Druff.

Also this election was Obama's to LOSE not win. He is not unlikeable enough to be ousted with the crappy economy we are still stuck with. It would take a huge scandal or perhaps a disaster that he handles horribly to lose his seat as president.

I can't say I am happy or unhappy to be honest. I fail to see the benefit to following politics now, there is always so much to be angry about and at the same time you gain little if anything by investing time and emotion into learning where each candidate stands etc. They typically lie anyway, say whatever to get elected and then bend over backwards to make the people who got them elected (by investing campaign monies etc) happy. I know the saying "Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you" (Pericles I believe) but quite frankly who here honestly thinks their day to day life really benefits from staying up on the current political scene? I did for years and just fail to see the value. Maybe that's just me though...

[ErickAA]

I have no interest in politics and do not follow it at all. However, I am not retarded, and until the Republicans stop being retarded on certain social issues (stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution etc.) I will vote Democrat. Period.

[Vwls]

Until the Republicans stop being retarded on certain social issues (stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution etc.) I will vote Democrat. Period.

This sums up how I feel as well.

[SixToedPete]

They're called Democrats.

WP

Walked right into that one Druff.

Also this election was Obama's to LOSE not win. He is not unlikeable enough to be ousted with the crappy economy we are still stuck with. It would take a huge scandal or perhaps a disaster that he handles horribly to lose his seat as president.

I can't say I am happy or unhappy to be honest. I fail to see the benefit to following politics now, there is always so much to be angry about and at the same time you gain little if anything by investing time and emotion into learning where each candidate stands etc. They typically lie anyway, say whatever to get elected and then bend over backwards to make the people who got them elected (by investing campaign monies etc) happy. I know the saying "Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you" (Pericles I believe) but quite frankly who here honestly thinks their day to day life really benefits from staying up on the current political scene? I did for years and just fail to see the value. Maybe that's just me though...

Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism?

Democrats? LOL. In your dreams. Obama can't string three sentences together during a speech without a teleprompter. Joe Biden (when he's not plagiarizing) is the King of Gaffes.

Personal baggage? Obama has more than would fit in ten steamer trunks. The guy is just now being vetted.

Religious fanaticism? Jimmy Carter recently called for the Democratic Party to stop supporting abortion. Oh, you didn't see that? Stop getting your news from the Lame-Stream Media. Plus, the Dems have something far more sinister and dangerous than 'religious fanaticism'. It's called 'Secular Progressive Fanaticism' and threatens to unravel the very fabric of America.

The 'value' of staying informed about politics is found in electing a President who actually knows how to be an effective leader and who can bring real change to remove the bloated federal government's heavy-handed, destructive presence in people's lives as well as in free market capitalism.

A leader who will defend and protect our country while allowing the economy to grow instead of bankrupting it by saddling future generations with debt payments caused by failed tax and spend policies that have never worked in all of civilized history.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Until the Republicans stop being retarded on certain social issues (stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution etc.) I will vote Democrat. Period.

This sums up how I feel as well.

Silly me, I figured it was because your illiterate ancestors signed their name with a circle instead of a cross when they entered Ellis Island. Druff is like the Anti-Jew in that regard.

[Steve-O]

WP

Walked right into that one Druff.

Also this election was Obama's to LOSE not win. He is not unlikeable enough to be ousted with the crappy economy we are still stuck with. It would take a huge scandal or perhaps a disaster that he handles horribly to lose his seat as president.

I can't say I am happy or unhappy to be honest. I fail to see the benefit to following politics now, there is always so much to be angry about and at the same time you gain little if anything by investing time and emotion into learning where each candidate stands etc. They typically lie anyway, say whatever to get elected and then bend over backwards to make the people who got them elected (by investing campaign monies etc) happy. I know the saying "Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you" (Pericles I believe) but quite frankly who here honestly thinks their day to day life really benefits from staying up on the current political scene? I did for years and just fail to see the value. Maybe that's just me though...

Where are the intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic candidates without personal baggage and without religious fanaticism?

Democrats? LOL. In your dreams. Obama can't string three sentences together during a speech without a teleprompter. Joe Biden (when he's not plagiarizing) is the King of Gaffes.

Personal baggage? Obama has more than would fit in ten steamer trunks. The guy is just now being vetted.

Religious fanaticism? Jimmy Carter recently called for the Democratic Party to stop supporting abortion. Oh, you didn't see that? Stop getting your news from the Lame-Stream Media. Plus, the Dems have something far more sinister and dangerous than 'religious fanaticism'. It's called 'Secular Progressive Fanaticism' and threatens to unravel the very fabric of America.

The 'value' of staying informed about politics is found in electing a President who actually knows how to be an effective leader and who can bring real change to remove the bloated federal government's heavy-handed, destructive presence in people's lives as well as in free market capitalism.

A leader who will defend and protect our country while allowing the economy to grow instead of bankrupting it by saddling future generations with debt payments caused by failed tax and spend policies that have never worked in all of civilized history.

Well, pretty obvious where you get your news from I think you hit on ever talking point out there.

P.S. I'm NOT a DEMOCRAT