I got to disagree that they need the Tea Party vote... well they need the Tea Party's great love, Fox News, Rush. and all the other far right nutters, so they try to appeal to the Tea Party more specifically, but I think that's why they've lost the last two elections.

McCain, had he ran as the centralist candidate he has been in the Senate, was very electable. Unfortunately for the party he stepped to the right in his campaign to appeal to what would become the Tea Party. Then he went over the deep end by choosing a VP candidate that was certifiably crazy and too far to the right for the Nation to take seriously. All in an attempt to appeal to the far right.

Then the party mishandles Obamacare. Rather than own up to it, and say "hey, this is the same plan we tried to pass 3 times into federal law. The Democrats wanted a single payer system, Obama was promising a government option, but they in the end took our plan." Instead they try to run the thing into the ground, and build on the far right anger over it, rather than appeal to where the Nation actually was. Obama's re-election was largely because of Obamacare, something the party and it's media machines like Fox don't understand. To be fair in 2008, I don't think anyone could have predicted the rise of Obama, but the fact his message took off so well, should have been a sign to the Republican party the country was trying to move back to the center from the pull to the right of the Bush years.

Romney could have ran with that further, saying how Romneycare is the model for Obamacare and that his state was the one who really started the ball rolling. Romney as he was as governor was far more electable at the national level than the Romney we got during the campaign... and again there is an appeal to the Tea Party with a Washington Insider but solid Tea Party member in Ryan.

The Republican party has a near solid slam dunk if they put up Rubio/Kasich ticket. It's a moderate ticket that has broad appeal to the masses of America without making most liberals/progressives so afraid that they'll show up in droves the way a Trump ticket does (or a Cruz ticket to a slightly smaller extent). The far right would still vote for Rubio/Kasich over Clinton/Sander (or Clinton/Warren, Clinton/Kucinich... she needs a solid, well known progressive to give her the best chance of winning), so the Rubio/Kasich is safe from all sides.

I agree though, a Trump ticket spells doom for the party period. Not only do they loose the Presidential election, the fact so many Republicans fear Trump's near Fascism will mean they might stay home, and the liberals/progressives will show up in greater than normal numbers to insure he doesn't win, which means a possible to likely loss of control of the Senate. Cruz won't scare away the Republican base as much, but still bring out more liberals/progressives than normal, which likely means a loss of the Presidential election, but perhaps not as much of a loss of the Senate. A Rubio/Kasich combo ticket is safe and gives the best broad appeal... or course if they did go Rubio, they'd tie him up with a Tea Party candidate to pull those votes in, as they don't understand they need to really shed those people and let them form their own party... I think they fear that Fox News, Rush and the like will follow the new Tea Party line rather than the mainstream Republican party and they want that attention... they are so wrapped up in the echo chamber now they don't see the nation is far more to the center than they are willing to go. The fact that Obama is far closer to Regan era style Republicans than most anyone in the race today speaks volumes to how disconnected the party is from reality.

Meanwhile, I'll wish for a Sanders/Warren or Sanders/Kucinich ticket... though realistically, he needs a young moderate up coming Democrat to broaden his appeal... and let's face it, odds are it'll be Clinton, whom I fear the Republican's first day of action will be to try an impeach her over the email and Benghazi... I mean we've had what? 3 or 4 times as many hearings on how she handled Benghazi than we had over 9/11, even though there are tons of fishy things going on with that too (without having to go into crazy conspiracy theories). So go... Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.

I still want to see President Drumph.

The fact that he represents the biggest trainwreck that American politics has ever faced is precisely *why* I hope he gets elected. The system is already a hopelessly broken dog and pony show; maybe the faster we shit on its grave, the faster it becomes blatantly fubared enough to prompt the amount of revolutionary outcry needed to fix it.

Even if *that* doesn't happen, though, Drumph has already started the self-destruct timer on the GOP. That *desperately* needed to happen -- but the impact will be all the better if he beats out the GOP "great white hope" establishment candidates like Rubio. Drudge Report even claims that Mitt Romney will "enter the race" or possibly run as an independent (propped up by GOP $$$) if Rubio and Cruz don't make up ground.

I don't see the GOP surviving much more of this, which is a very positive outcome. So, thank you Drumph, and keep up the good (by which I mean abysmal) work!

I really never thought I'd look back at Mitt Romney and say "there was a reasonable republican candidate", but compared to these morons....

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

To that end then all the American people can do is stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils and vote for the one who will truly start to make a difference., regardless of outcome.

I did not vote for McCain nor did I vote for Romney and of course Obviously not Obama.

Once the sheeple wake up then another party will rise and take form.

I like you statement
" find it interesting that the only real difference is who you feel are the "greater" of two evils.this is the exact same things democrats say about republicans...interesting yes?"


When I watch MSNBC it is funny that it is an opposite of FOX. Fox is more balanced for sure. I'm talking about news not pinheads like Hannity and O'Reilly that stir the pot like Maddow, Sharpton and Sholtz.

The best news of ALL news is Brett Baier and for commentary I like The Kelly file. Both from FOX.

love how everyone starts chuckling when he declares that Obamacare *will* be killed

I'll never understand why democrats do not show up to vote on midterms. The Republicans didn't win the midterms...Dems just didn't show up so R just won by forfeit

They'll show up to vote against Palin and McCain, and to vote against Romney/Ryan. But they're silent during midterms.

On the lighter side though, Nothing has really changed though, Obama can still veto anything the R puts out and they don't have enough control of congress to override the veto. If anything If Reps really are emboldened and think they have a mandate to go full retard..even moreso than usual. Then in the long term, this will benefit the liberals when the public ultimately rejects GOP ideas as they have increasingly done so.

Just because women voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama over Romney doesn't really mean they're going to decide the election. People have to show up at the polls..period. Midterms traditionally have lower turnout because of the perception that they don't matter and low voter turnouts tend to favor the R

To me it just means Romney failed miserably connecting with women (just like he failed miserably to connect with most humans, even fellow republicans)

Republicans are "attempting" to make up for a long history of treating women as second class citizens so they're desperate, but it's just coming off as patronizing.

If Republicans could put forth a candidate that wasn't a complete stereotype of someone in the 50s maybe they'd have better luck. Women aren't the only demographic Republicans are having trouble with.

wow, you've been brainwashed. how's that "soon to have" mentality working out for you? How much in capital gains tax did you pay last year? Let me guess...none.

you are the poster child for voting against your own interests.

nice strawman. I don't see a lot of people sitting around, I see people trying to change things. and *gasp* making it part of the national conversation is part of that.

the right loves to rail against the European mentality of people being born into wealth, but that's exactly what we are creating. Romney - born into wealth. The Bush family - born into wealth. maybe a long time ago, someone in their family did work hard to get where they are, or in all likelyhood, they got lucky, they were in the right place, right time. From then on, it's just a game of maintaining that wealth. which buys you politicians to help you keep that wealth.

You probably can't hear me, probably still planning out what you're going to do with your lottery winnings.

Stewart was pretty dumb here...why would they ask Romney if he would run when he has proven a million times that he would? The MORE grandchildren you have the less you need to ask. The only grandchild you have, the question is relevant. Sexist, but relevant.

That was a totally disingenuous argument from Friedman.

Yes, at some point you must place a dollar figure on human life, but it depends on what is going to be done with the money saved. If you say, we're not going to treat a dozen patients with a rare disease that would cost the state tens of millions of dollars, and instead use that money on highway safety, or to improve healthcare for others, with the net impact that you save MORE lives with the money, that is a valid argument.

What he's proposing is that some billionaire (or at the least, multi-millionaire) should pocket a few million extra they saved by not installing the safety feature.

Not all money is equal. That's easy to prove.

Give a million dollars to ten families that are on the edge of bankruptcy and it will change their lives.

Give a million dollars to Mitt Romney and he'll forget your name as soon as you walk out of the room.

not to mention Romney wanted to expand the military.

but we shouldn't expect honest evaluations from lantern53

EDIT: oops, it wasn't lantern53 who said it, so I apologize. It's so hard to tell our trolls apart.

> Maybe they should of voted for Romney who did
> say 'we shouldn't kill our way to victory.'

yes vote for politicians based on what they say

All the ignorant Obamatwits here, including Jon Stewart, thinking he would change in regards to drones are wrong, as usual. Maybe they should of voted for Romney who did say 'we shouldn't kill our way to victory.'

"The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.""

Um, is this really what they taught you in those private schools you attended? Yikes! The redcoats were the British army/police. The colonies were British (until a small group of colonists claimed otherwise).

"You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points"

I have done no such thing. Like I said, you've done nothing to interest me in correcting any of your errors in thinking.

"Well, I'm confused."

Yes, I'd say so.

"shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous"

If serfdom make you happy, then by all means, be a serf! For me, there are many legal ways to avoid the non-duty. Just ask Romney and practically any/every crony and rich non-crony, and anyone who's actually paying attention. In the meantime, I've far better things to do with my time than attempting to argue you out of the kind of thinking which conduces the bottom of the social ladder.