Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #14

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #6

---

The problem isn't the GOP. It's the electorate.

---

Amen and bravo!

---

You go to war with the army you have. The results over the last few days; ideas okay, messengers not.

But we hear Levin and Limbaugh, professional entertainer personalities, claiming it is the electorate, it is the media, it is always somebody else. It suits their market niche. It plays to the audience.

That is the old analysis: "we're okay, you're not." aka denial

The fact is the GOP has lost the potus national popular vote count 5 of the last 6 times. Prior to that they won elections 7 of 10 times. Five of those seven would be called "rinos" and the only win in the second era would too.

first era
52, gop win, rino
56, gop win, rino
60, dem win
64, dem win, old school conservative clobbered
68, gop win, rino
72, gop win, rino
76, dem win
80, gop win, conservative
84, gop win, conservative
88, gop win, rino

second era
92, dem win
96, dem win
00, dem win popular vote, gop win, rino
04, gop win, rino
08, dem win
12, dem win

So the facts tell a different story, from "gop can only win with pure, true conservative," because they won 7 times with rinos.

In order to win, the candidate (either party) must make the pitch which matches the national mood and aspirations the most closely. An attractive personality helps a lot.

Finally this binary conservative-rino categorization is so fluid that one week Rubio and Rand Paul are conservatives, the next they are rinos.

---

Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #14

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #6

---

The problem isn't the GOP. It's the electorate.

---

Amen and bravo!

---

You go to war with the army you have. The results over the last few days; ideas okay, messengers not.

But we hear Levin and Limbaugh, professional entertainer personalities, claiming it is the electorate, it is the media, it is always somebody else. It suits their market niche. It plays to the audience.

That is the old analysis: "we're okay, you're not." aka denial

The fact is the GOP has lost the potus national popular vote count 5 of the last 6 times. Prior to that they won elections 7 of 10 times. Five of those seven would be called "rinos" and the only win in the second era would too.

first era
52, gop win, rino
56, gop win, rino
60, dem win
64, dem win, old school conservative clobbered
68, gop win, rino
72, gop win, rino
76, dem win
80, gop win, conservative
84, gop win, conservative
88, gop win, rino

second era
92, dem win
96, dem win
00, dem win popular vote, gop win, rino
04, gop win, rino
08, dem win
12, dem win

So the facts tell a different story, from "gop can only win with pure, true conservative," because they won 7 times with rinos.

In order to win, the candidate (either party) must make the pitch which matches the national mood and aspirations the most closely. An attractive personality helps a lot.

Finally this binary conservative-rino categorization is so fluid that one week Rubio and Rand Paul are conservatives, the next they are rinos.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #19

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #11

---

As I see it, there are two possibilities for the GOP going forward - the "easy" way and the "hard" way.
Any guesses as to which way - easy or hard - the GOP will choose?

---

Until and unless someone figures out how to "educate" the voting public about conservatism while the MSM adamantly refuses to allow such concepts to be aired, I think the GOP will be forced to take the "easy" way.

There simply aren't enough dollars available to do it through paid media.

{I think that's what Gillespie was alluding to yesterday in the matter of debate moderator selection.}

---

Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #14

---

first era
52, gop win, rino
56, gop win, rino
60, dem win
64, dem win, old school conservative clobbered
68, gop win, rino
72, gop win, rino
76, dem win
80, gop win, conservative
84, gop win, conservative
88, gop win, rino

second era
92, dem win
96, dem win
00, dem win popular vote, gop win, rino
04, gop win, rino
08, dem win
12, dem win

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #21

---

Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #14

---

first era
52, gop win, rino
56, gop win, rino
60, dem win
64, dem win, old school conservative clobbered
68, gop win, rino
72, gop win, rino
76, dem win
80, gop win, conservative
84, gop win, conservative
88, gop win, rino

second era
92, dem win
96, dem win
00, dem win popular vote, gop win, rino
04, gop win, rino
08, dem win
12, dem win

---

You are glossing over some key points here.

64' was basically a vote for a dead Rat President.

72' McGoverns campaign was a mess with his VP selection and Nixon ran as a Conservative/Hawk even though he didn't lead as one.

88' Bush ran as Reagans third term. He lost because he didn't lead as a Conservative. "No New Taxes" anyone?

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #18

---

Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #14

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #6

---

The problem isn't the GOP. It's the electorate.

---

Amen and bravo!

---

You go to war with the army you have. The results over the last few days; ideas okay, messengers not.

But we hear Levin and Limbaugh, professional entertainer personalities, claiming it is the electorate, it is the media, it is always somebody else. It suits their market niche. It plays to the audience.

That is the old analysis: "we're okay, you're not." aka denial

The fact is the GOP has lost the potus national popular vote count 5 of the last 6 times. Prior to that they won elections 7 of 10 times. Five of those seven would be called "rinos" and the only win in the second era would too.

first era
52, gop win, rino
56, gop win, rino
60, dem win
64, dem win, old school conservative clobbered
68, gop win, rino
72, gop win, rino
76, dem win
80, gop win, conservative
84, gop win, conservative
88, gop win, rino

second era
92, dem win
96, dem win
00, dem win popular vote, gop win, rino
04, gop win, rino
08, dem win
12, dem win

So the facts tell a different story, from "gop can only win with pure, true conservative," because they won 7 times with rinos.

In order to win, the candidate (either party) must make the pitch which matches the national mood and aspirations the most closely. An attractive personality helps a lot.

Finally this binary conservative-rino categorization is so fluid that one week Rubio and Rand Paul are conservatives, the next they are rinos.

---

Good summary. I would only nit pik a couple of points: At the time in '68, Nixon wasn't considered a RINO. Nor was he in '72 when he was running against McGovern. (I think Nixon has been re-defined by history as a RINO, however, in that he created some massive government boondoggles like the EPA)

But putting all that aside, perhaps you can clear something up for me.

Are we to be cheering for the success of the GOP? If so, then your analysis is spot-on.
But - if we're to be more concerned with the health of the country, then . . .

<b>. . . the life and/or death of the GOP is irrelevant.</b>

---