It may well be true that nationwide in local elections Republicans receive more votes than Democrats, but we have been talking about the National Republican Party, not states, cities and local organizations. I wouldn't discredit you for not finding a source for your statement, but it would be interesting to see this.
PrairieSeasons wrote:
RixPix wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
The Republican party is a party that place symbolism above action and the good of their donors above the good of the nation. I guess when Rush Limbaugh the defacto voice of the Republican party states the problem is that they (the Republicans) are not conservative enough, he is in fact illustrating the very issues why they cannot get enough votes to elect anyone. Republican candidates receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. Their platform is quite simply not what the majority of Americans want. It is that simple. Now, you can fuss and fume and say that the electorate is incorrect but that is your opinion or your friends opinion and you are out-numbered. So complain, fuss and fume all you want. You are now in the minority of the electorate and your voice will be heard but unheeded.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
Actually, the Republican candidates don't receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. That bit of sophistry is true for national offices and elections, but not for statewide and local elections.
quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 After this past ... (
show quote)
The Democratic Party is not nearly as liberal as many Republicans think it is, and that's because their vantage point is on the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. To those people, ANYTHING other than their own positions would be liberal. I don't consider the Democratic Party liberal enough.
NOSLEEP wrote:
RixPix wrote:
NOSLEEP wrote:
RixPix wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
The Republican party is a party that place symbolism above action and the good of their donors above the good of the nation. I guess when Rush Limbaugh the defacto voice of the Republican party states the problem is that they (the Republicans) are not conservative enough, he is in fact illustrating the very issues why they cannot get enough votes to elect anyone. Republican candidates receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. Their platform is quite simply not what the majority of Americans want. It is that simple. Now, you can fuss and fume and say that the electorate is incorrect but that is your opinion or your friends opinion and you are out-numbered. So complain, fuss and fume all you want. You are now in the minority of the electorate and your voice will be heard but unheeded.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
You are so wrong. Liberal thinking and Liberal support is subject to the same fate as in all democracies. It will continue to hold wide support for a time. It took over 30 years in Canada for the Liberal party to become a pariah. Big government and the socialism that spawns it, eats itself from the inside out. A time will come, and it will come when the eyes of the voting public have a clear illustration of what has unfolded before them. Conservatives need not discard their values. The man how trades an ounce of principles for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated...
quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 After this past ... (
show quote)
My post was clearly stated and accurate. Your response is inane as it does not address the issue of the topic Republican Rebranding. Your biggest error is that you think the current Democratic Party is liberal. It is very far from being a truly liberal agenda. In fact, it is more like the Republican Party of the 1970s. You state that Conservatives need not discard their values. I agree. In fact, that's what I am hoping they do. I hope they double-down on the antiquated ideology for at least the next six years. That will ensure a brighter future for the country as not one of them will be elected to national office and the old codgers behind their Party will be dead...as dead as their policies.
quote=NOSLEEP quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 A... (
show quote)
Your kidding right. Your not really that niave... Really.
Your post was clearly not accurate, just hopefull.
You state the Democraticic party is not Liberal. Your not really that niave... Really. The antiquated ideology you despise is responsible for the U.S. prosperity over the last 65 + years. You go a head and puff your chest out. Feels good doesn't it. Your party of self absorption has already laid the seeds, and its roots are set for its own destruction. Just a little more rope...
quote=RixPix quote=NOSLEEP quote=RixPix quote=... (
show quote)
Penny, the devil is in the details. You claim you just want your money to be used "wisely." Your definition of "wisely" must be "the way I want it used, not the way someone else wants it used." The Republican Party is definitely anti-women (you should think about that), anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti-the disenfranchised. If being told that offends you and your friends, then you are in a state of denial.
Penny, the majority of Republican policies towards woman are based on the dictum that "a woman's place is in the stove."
Penny MG wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
Funny thing, many of my friends are republican and they take offense to your statement, as do I. WE are NOT for the wealthy, and we are NOT againt minorities, women, gays, immigrans, POOR and disenfranchised. So I do believe your definition of republican is not exactly correct. We are conservative in he fact that we want our MONEY used wisely!! Not thrown out to everyone that is too darn lazy to get off their asses and work, who want everything handed to them. If the liberals want to support that crap, they can. So please stop painting all republicans or Non-liberals in this way.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
Your hilarious... lol
A typical liberal rant and a perfect illustration of a tortured liberal mind...
Richard94611 wrote:
Penny, the devil is in the details. You claim you just want your money to be used "wisely." Your definition of "wisely" must be "the way I want it used, not the way someone else wants it used." The Republican Party is definitely anti-women (you should think about that), anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti-the disenfranchised. If being told that offends you and your friends, then you are in a state of denial.
Penny, the majority of Republican policies towards woman are based on the dictum that "a woman's place is in the stove."
Penny MG wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
Funny thing, many of my friends are republican and they take offense to your statement, as do I. WE are NOT for the wealthy, and we are NOT againt minorities, women, gays, immigrans, POOR and disenfranchised. So I do believe your definition of republican is not exactly correct. We are conservative in he fact that we want our MONEY used wisely!! Not thrown out to everyone that is too darn lazy to get off their asses and work, who want everything handed to them. If the liberals want to support that crap, they can. So please stop painting all republicans or Non-liberals in this way.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
Penny, the devil is in the details. You claim you... (
show quote)
BW326
Loc: Boynton Beach, Florida
PrairieSeasons wrote:
Actually, the Republican candidates don't receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. That bit of sophistry is true for national offices and elections, but not for statewide and local elections.
Good point. I hadn't thought about it that way before.
I may be part of that phenonmenon as I have always found some Republicans in state and local elections that I prefer over their Democratic rivals.
Richard94611 wrote:
It may well be true that nationwide in local elections Republicans receive more votes than Democrats, but we have been talking about the National Republican Party, not states, cities and local organizations. I wouldn't discredit you for not finding a source for your statement, but it would be interesting to see this.
PrairieSeasons wrote:
RixPix wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
The Republican party is a party that place symbolism above action and the good of their donors above the good of the nation. I guess when Rush Limbaugh the defacto voice of the Republican party states the problem is that they (the Republicans) are not conservative enough, he is in fact illustrating the very issues why they cannot get enough votes to elect anyone. Republican candidates receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. Their platform is quite simply not what the majority of Americans want. It is that simple. Now, you can fuss and fume and say that the electorate is incorrect but that is your opinion or your friends opinion and you are out-numbered. So complain, fuss and fume all you want. You are now in the minority of the electorate and your voice will be heard but unheeded.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
Actually, the Republican candidates don't receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. That bit of sophistry is true for national offices and elections, but not for statewide and local elections.
quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 After this past ... (
show quote)
It may well be true that nationwide in local elect... (
show quote)
For state offices, I will cite Wikipideia. It's not always the best source, but seems accurate on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
Really.....more taxes, more spending, more people on government assistance ( able bodied), forced health care......
RixPix wrote:
NOSLEEP wrote:
RixPix wrote:
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
The Republican party is a party that place symbolism above action and the good of their donors above the good of the nation. I guess when Rush Limbaugh the defacto voice of the Republican party states the problem is that they (the Republicans) are not conservative enough, he is in fact illustrating the very issues why they cannot get enough votes to elect anyone. Republican candidates receive fewer votes than Democratic candidates nation wide. Their platform is quite simply not what the majority of Americans want. It is that simple. Now, you can fuss and fume and say that the electorate is incorrect but that is your opinion or your friends opinion and you are out-numbered. So complain, fuss and fume all you want. You are now in the minority of the electorate and your voice will be heard but unheeded.
quote=Richard94611 After this past weekend's big ... (
show quote)
You are so wrong. Liberal thinking and Liberal support is subject to the same fate as in all democracies. It will continue to hold wide support for a time. It took over 30 years in Canada for the Liberal party to become a pariah. Big government and the socialism that spawns it, eats itself from the inside out. A time will come, and it will come when the eyes of the voting public have a clear illustration of what has unfolded before them. Conservatives need not discard their values. The man how trades an ounce of principles for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated...
quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 After this past ... (
show quote)
My post was clearly stated and accurate. Your response is inane as it does not address the issue of the topic Republican Rebranding. Your biggest error is that you think the current Democratic Party is liberal. It is very far from being a truly liberal agenda. In fact, it is more like the Republican Party of the 1970s. You state that Conservatives need not discard their values. I agree. In fact, that's what I am hoping they do. I hope they double-down on the antiquated ideology for at least the next six years. That will ensure a brighter future for the country as not one of them will be elected to national office and the old codgers behind their Party will be dead...as dead as their policies.
quote=NOSLEEP quote=RixPix quote=Richard94611 A... (
show quote)
Richard94611 wrote:
After this past weekend's big Republican convention/meeting, participants seem to believe that what they need to do is to "rebrand" the party. Rebranding is essentially a publicity/public relations maneuver with the purpose of convincing the public that a product is something that they have not previously seen it as.
The assumption seems to be that people will not perceive what the party continues to stand for (the wealthy) and against (minorities, women, gays, immigrants, the poor and the disenfranchised). We definitely need an active second party, but if the Republican thinkers continue to believe that rebranding rather than essential change will do the trick and let them win future elections, they are wrong. People aren't that stupid. They will continue to perceive who the Republican Party really stands for, not whom they say it stands for.
After this past weekend's big Republican conventio... (
show quote)
I happen to agree with Penny, republicans aren't against anyone minority or otherwise, I will say that it is time for the republican party to shake the influence that the evangelicals have over the party.... You guys are crowing over Obama's win as if signals the end of the party, Romney with the help of Akin, Murdock, and the insanity of the Virginia legislature gave the presidency away with 47%, Transvaginal Ultrasounds, "Real Rape won't result in pregnancy", only to be contradicted by "pregnancy from rape was something god intended". Obama would have never been reelected were it not for the lunacy of the last cycle.
Now immigration reform is a big political chip and it may have a lasting effect but it is not the biggest issue for all Latinos, in fact the economy remains the largest issue in the Latino community and the dems just are not making a lot of progress there, they have damn sure spent a lot of money will dismal results..
The republicans don't have to change their principles, nor do they need to compete with the democrats with handouts and minority targeted vote buying... They just need to learn how to reach out and tailor their messaging so that it is heard by the minorities. Washington can not continue to spend the way it has been, and if they were to raise taxes to the point that it would make a real difference in our country's debt it would further slow any recovery that might be going on... There are plenty of conservative solutions that most people would agree are reasonable, they just need to get serious about a reform agenda and make sure that they can explain it in a way that everyone, minorities, low inome, and middle class can understand and buy into. We have seen the death of both parties before, it has never happened no matter how many times they have both been pronounced dead...
Are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot again ? Watching the current Republican refusal to bring the gun bill to a vote, I wonder if this is the right tactic in the long run to increase the strength of the Republican Party.
To read the posts in some of these threads, a lot of conservatives here seem to think that the country is overwhelmingly against "gun control" (whatever the features of such a bill).
However, I think they are taking their statistics from tainted, inaccurate sources. I saw one of you a while back claiming that something like 90% of the people in this country oppose "gun control." Yet the January 28th issue of time states that 55% of the people favor stricter gun control laws versus 44% of the people who oppose them. CBS News this morning stated that the percentage favoring stricter gun control laws is now around 90%. I would tend to believe the Time statistic, which was listed as a "Time/CNN" poll.
But if a majority of people favor stricter gun control laws and the Republicans in Congress refuse to bring matters to a vote, who in the long run is going to lose political power ?
Richard94611 wrote:
Are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot again ? Watching the current Republican refusal to bring the gun bill to a vote, I wonder if this is the right tactic in the long run to increase the strength of the Republican Party.
To read the posts in some of these threads, a lot of conservatives here seem to think that the country is overwhelmingly against "gun control" (whatever the features of such a bill).
However, I think they are taking their statistics from tainted, inaccurate sources. I saw one of you a while back claiming that something like 90% of the people in this country oppose "gun control." Yet the January 28th issue of time states that 55% of the people favor stricter gun control laws versus 44% of the people who oppose them. CBS News this morning stated that the percentage favoring stricter gun control laws is now around 90%. I would tend to believe the Time statistic, which was listed as a "Time/CNN" poll.
But if a majority of people favor stricter gun control laws and the Republicans in Congress refuse to bring matters to a vote, who in the long run is going to lose political power ?
Are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot ag... (
show quote)
It's possible that you saw a report different than the one I saw, but the news this morning was regarding Harry Reid stating that 90% of Americans wanting more gun control - not the results of a poll, but of a politician making a statement.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
