Thread: Really good analysis by Newt

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1 Really good analysis by Newt 
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,029
    Yes we have to run a campaign like american idol.
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Yes we have to run a campaign like american idol.
    Including people who you want to vote for you in the conversation isn't the same as running a campaign like american idol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Including people who you want to vote for you in the conversation isn't the same as running a campaign like american idol.
    On the face of it I agree with inclusion in the conversation. The trouble is treating someone or a group of people as special only gets them to thinking as they are special and then the demands come. Somewhat like all the free stuff that got us to the point we are at now.
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    On the face of it I agree with inclusion in the conversation. The trouble is treating someone or a group of people as special only gets them to thinking as they are special and then the demands come. Somewhat like all the free stuff that got us to the point we are at now.
    Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard, and there wouldn't have been any real concessions from a Conservative standpoint. But let's be honest... you don't want Paubots for their votes, you want to use them for their tireless activism and grassroots organization, and the fact that organization reaches deeply across the aisle. Romney would have just needed to appear serious about personal liberty and auditing the Federal Reserve (neither of which are bad ideas). This is how you get the youth vote.

    The real group that was important to include are hispanic voters and young, single women. Hispanics that come to this country have a very high incidence of small-business ownership and small-business participation. There's common ground there. As I said elsewhere George W Bush managed to pick up 40% of the hispanic vote... Romney only picked up 20%. This is to Bush's credit.

    I highly doubt young single women actually care about whether the government picks up their $15/mo birth control tab. Republicans just have to stop using dumbass/insulting language when talking about the issue.

    You know, Reagan wasn't some magic prophet. He was just a really sincere guy who considered liberals his "friends" and worked with them where there was common ground, and had a "I strongly believe in my convictions, but reasonable people can disagree" approach where there wasn't. Reagan didn't demonize other Americans. He didn't insult people's intelligence. Romney (and lets expand this to the RNC beltway elite crowd) on the other hand couldn't even work with people who were supposed to be in his own party. His campaign considered other Republicans his enemies, but still demanded their vote. It doesn't work like that.

    Newt when he was speaker worked with a Democrat president to balance the budget. All the politics aside, when it came down to the wire, Newt and Clinton worked together on economic issues where they could agree (aka... we have to balance this budget, somehow). Romney worked together with democrats when he was Governor and was quite successfully, so I had high hopes in the early primaries. But he seriously burned some important bridges throughout his campaign. And those bridges had voters on them.

    "Campaign Mitt" was like the worst of both worlds -- a moderate that couldn't reach across the aisle, or even deeply appeal to anyone other than a narrow segment of Republicans (coincidentally, the Republicans that are the beltway elite crowd).

    Just my take.
    Last edited by m00; 11-07-2012 at 03:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard, and there wouldn't have been any real concessions from a Conservative standpoint. But let's be honest... you don't want Paubots for their votes, you want to use them for their tireless activism and grassroots organization, and the fact that organization reaches deeply across the aisle. Romney would have just needed to appear serious about personal liberty and auditing the Federal Reserve (neither of which are bad ideas). This is how you get the youth vote.

    The real group that was important to include are hispanic voters and young, single women. Hispanics that come to this country have a very high incidence of small-business ownership and small-business participation. There's common ground there. As I said elsewhere George W Bush managed to pick up 40% of the hispanic vote... Romney only picked up 20%. This is to Bush's credit.

    I highly doubt young single women actually care about whether the government picks up their $15/mo birth control tab. Republicans just have to stop using dumbass/insulting language when talking about the issue.

    You know, Reagan wasn't some magic prophet. He was just a really sincere guy who considered liberals his "friends" and worked with them where there was common ground, and had a "I strongly believe in my convictions, but reasonable people can disagree" approach where there wasn't. Reagan didn't demonize other Americans. He didn't insult people's intelligence. Romney (and lets expand this to the RNC beltway elite crowd) on the other hand couldn't even work with people who were supposed to be in his own party. His campaign considered other Republicans his enemies, but still demanded their vote. It doesn't work like that.

    Newt when he was speaker worked with a Democrat president to balance the budget. All the politics aside, when it came down to the wire, Newt and Clinton worked together on economic issues where they could agree (aka... we have to balance this budget, somehow). Romney worked together with democrats when he was Governor and was quite successfully, so I had high hopes in the early primaries. But he seriously burned some important bridges throughout his campaign. And those bridges had voters on them.

    "Campaign Mitt" was like the worst of both worlds -- a moderate that couldn't reach across the aisle, or even deeply appeal to anyone other than a narrow segment of Republicans (coincidentally, the Republicans that are the beltway elite crowd).

    Just my take.
    Well you rather emphasized my point. The ronbots were unwilling to bend/give,as evidence by their behavior on this and multiple other boards) but more than willing to take/make demands.

    With the hispanics I don't know if it was the Brother from a different mother complex that helped Obama and hurt Romney.

    As shallow as it seems I do believe the female vote was more emotional than intellectual.

    I don't see not kissing someones ass as demonizing them, it's just more of the "I'm special so what you got for me"

    I think there are way to many "Republicans" insisting they are standing on principle while they insist others abandon theirs.

    In many aspects of life are instances calling for give and take, this can be done without compromising principle, those not willing to give are takers. 10% of something will always be more than 100% of nothing.

    Politicians the likes of Reagan , Tip O'Neill or a Gingrich will not be elected in today's political atmosphere.
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard
    And nobody could have done that any better than Paul himself. Where was he?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    And nobody could have done that any better than Paul himself. Where was he?
    This isn't true, actually. I think this is a common misconception about people. Endorsements don't matter, adopting positions do. If Paul endorsed Romney, and Romney didn't add a few key points to his stump speech not only would it not have made a difference, but the Paul people would have dropped Paul. If Romney really wanted that vote, he'd just have to work in 5 minutes worth of "auditing the fed" and "personal liberty" whenever he gave an interview (and seemed genuine).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    This isn't true, actually. I think this is a common misconception about people. Endorsements don't matter, adopting positions do. If Paul endorsed Romney, and Romney didn't add a few key points to his stump speech not only would it not have made a difference, but the Paul people would have dropped Paul. If Romney really wanted that vote, he'd just have to work in 5 minutes worth of "auditing the fed" and "personal liberty" whenever he gave an interview (and seemed genuine).
    Bullshit. Paul could have easily gotten enough Paulbots on board to have made a difference. Personal liberty would certainly have a better chance under Romney than the marxist leaning Bronco Bama but either Paul is too stupid to know that or he's an arrogant, self centered SOB. Perhaps he's both........................
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    Bullshit. Paul could have easily gotten enough Paulbots on board to have made a difference. Personal liberty would certainly have a better chance under Romney than the marxist leaning Bronco Bama but either Paul is too stupid to know that or he's an arrogant, self centered SOB. Perhaps he's both........................
    You don't think it would have cost Romney nothing not to make them feel like second-class Republicans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •