republicans, put on a happy face

It will be interesting to see what the GOP runs on in 2016......they can't run as the "not Obama" candidate, they know that being the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-healthcare, anti-Social Security, anti-medicare, anti-taxes on the wealthy, party won't win a national election.....

archer wrote: It will be interesting to see what the GOP runs on in 2016......they can't run as the "not Obama" candidate, they know that being the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-healthcare, anti-Social Security, anti-medicare, anti-taxes on the wealthy, party won't win a national election.....

:crying2: Why can't they run on Anti-Obama? Barack is still blaming "W" five years later. Barack only won the popular vote by less than 3% and lost 10 million voters from 2008 to 2012. Debt is still at record levels, unemployment is still high. The economy is still stagnant.

archer wrote: It will be interesting to see what the GOP runs on in 2016......they can't run as the "not Obama" candidate, they know that being the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-healthcare, anti-Social Security, anti-medicare, anti-taxes on the wealthy, party won't win a national election.....

What they need to do is not let themselfs be defined by democrats. I see few similarties between your list and the people I know.
The similarities I do see represent fractions. Sometimes the wing nut fraction but still fractions that get painted as the face of the right.

When was the last time President Obama blamed W? Of course, W deserves some of the blame as well as others.

President Obama won over Romney by 3.85%, not less than 3%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... ote_margin

President Obama had 3.6 million less votes in 2012 than in 2008. 69,498,516 in 2008 and 65,899,660 in 2012, a difference of 3,598,856 between elections. Not even close to your claim that he lost 10 million votes between 2008 and 2012.

It's hard to discuss this with someone who isn't being honest with the facts.

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: It will be interesting to see what the GOP runs on in 2016......they can't run as the "not Obama" candidate, they know that being the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-healthcare, anti-Social Security, anti-medicare, anti-taxes on the wealthy, party won't win a national election.....

:crying2: Why can't they run on Anti-Obama? Barack is still blaming "W" five years later. Barack only won the popular vote by less than 3% and lost 10 million voters from 2008 to 2012. Debt is still at record levels, unemployment is still high. The economy is still stagnant.

And it isn't 2016 yet is it. But seeing that running as "not Obama" did not get them the White House in 2012, I would find it rather amusing if the GOP tried it again in 2016.

Soulshiner wrote: When was the last time President Obama blamed W? Of course, W deserves some of the blame as well as others.

President Obama won over Romney by 3.85%, not less than 3%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... ote_margin

President Obama had 3.6 million less votes in 2012 than in 2008. 69,498,516 in 2008 and 65,899,660 in 2012, a difference of 3,598,856 between elections. Not even close to your claim that he lost 10 million votes between 2008 and 2012.

It's hard to discuss this with someone who isn't being honest with the facts.

OK, so my memory was incorrect, it is still the rare Presidential incumbent who loses votes in his re-election, millions of votes.

And running against Obama was very successful in 2010, Barack took a real shellacking, losing Congress and getting Nancy Pelosi fired as Speaker of The House.

Rubio to deliver GOP response to Obama State of the Union address

Seeking to counter President Obama's speaking skills with a great orator of their own, Republicans have tapped Sen. Marco Rubio to deliver the official GOP response to Mr. Obama's State of the Union address next week — in both English and Spanish.

"Marco Rubio embodies the optimism that lies at the heart of the Republican vision for America," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

Washington Times

FredHayek wrote: And running against Obama was very successful in 2010, Barack took a real shellacking, losing Congress and getting Nancy Pelosi fired as Speaker of The House.

The operative word there is "WAS", the 2010 successes all but disappeared by 2012......wishful thinking will not bring them back in 2014 or 2016...

Not all of them, despite Congress having a 9% approval rate, most Republicans in the house were re-elected in 2012. And current predictions about the upcoming Senate races on left leaning [url=http://www.electoral-vote.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.electoral-vote.com[/url] thinks the Dems will lose seats in the Senate, already 2 incumbent Democrat Senators have retired.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: And running against Obama was very successful in 2010, Barack took a real shellacking, losing Congress and getting Nancy Pelosi fired as Speaker of The House.

The operative word there is "WAS", the 2010 successes all but disappeared by 2012......wishful thinking will not bring them back in 2014 or 2016...

True on "wishful thinking" part. The GOP has to change, to re-market themselves if they hope to have an impact in future elections. I don't know if they can or will but some fundamental changes are going to have to be made. They have allowed themselves to be painted as the party of the rich white business owner. As the party who opposes all women and minorities. Whether the GOP can make a comeback in 2014 or 2016 is going to depend a lot on the economy, the middle east, and basically how good and safe Americans feel over the next 2 to 4 years. At some point more and more people are going to start realizing that we are spending our children,s future for today's goodies.