Obama win is best for long term Good of the Union

[Count Steeler]

Bear with me for a moment.

With Obama winning the election, several good things happened for the long term well being of the Union. If Romney won, the RNC would not be looking for another candidate for 2016, so Romney would run for re-election. This would give the US at least 8 more years of the status quo. The Democrats, in this scenario would still put up a left to middle ground liberal.

With Obama winning, his policies and tactics are sure to run the US into further debt and more unemployment. The DNC, will most likely need to put up a candidate in 2016 that will at least preach fiscal responsibility and improve the economy to create more jobs.

The RNC, if they act responsibly, will indeed find a candidate that is fiscally conservative and will appeal to those out of work and those that see a diminishing future due to the heavy debt burden being built by the Democrats. IF the RNC decides to stay middle to left, the US will need a 3rd party to rise up and lead. In 4 years, there will be a great appetite in America for jobs, fiscal responsibility and a new vision for the future. None of this would be possible in 4 years, if Romney won.

[Seven]

I see what you're trying to say, but I can't buy in. I don't know what this country is going to look like in 2016. I saw a petition on Facebook the other day called "Allow Obama to Run in 2016" for Christ's sake.

Condi Rice 2016... Anyone on board? Could capture some of the black vote and make the party look more progressive which might lead to a victory if enough people can see through Obama's entitlements and realize he's literally ruining this country.

[GBMelBlount]

I am getting the sense you have never read "Atlas Shrugged."

In 4 years MORE people will be getting free stuff and the successful people will STILL be blamed if they can't fund everything.

[Mach1]

The demorat candidate will be Foot in his Mouth Biden.

[Godfather]

Condi Rice is a Bushie. No thanks.

[Seven]

The demorat candidate will be Foot in his Mouth Biden.

Think he carries the day over Hillary if they both run?

- - - Updated - - -


Condi Rice is a Bushie. No thanks.

Yeah, that's the only problem with her is she has the stank of the Bush presidency.

[Count Steeler]

Also, by Romney losing, the RNC should re focus on conservatism and get their act together for 2014. At least make a run at a greater majority in the House and possibly take the Senate. If that would happen, Obama would be handcuffed.


I was always a fan of Condi.

[Seven]

I was always a fan of Condi.

Me too. I think she's been with the 49ers since leaving office? Or there was a rumor about that at one point at least. Not sure if it happened.

- - - Updated - - -

Nevermind, that didn't happen.

But regardless. If there wasn't such a Bush stigma on her I think she'd be a great candidate. Unfortunately perception of her time in that administration is probably too much of an obstacle.

[Godfather]

Think he carries the day over Hillary if they both run?

He has a good shot. The Kool-Aid drinkers would see him as the heir to their Messiah. And the hard left will take any idiot with a Y chromosome over a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

[ALLD]

People who think Obama is good for this country other than giving stuff away and running up the debt and ruining the economy, is ignorant. Without a strong economy the US dollar could realistically lose its reserve currency status. This country needed a business man to jump start the world economy and the parasites voted for free stuff instead of freedom.

I am going to laugh when they all end up in FEMA camps and still talking how Obama is going to come and save them.

[Count Steeler]

People who think Obama is good for this country other than giving stuff away and running up the debt and ruining the economy, is ignorant. Without a strong economy the US dollar could realistically lose its reserve currency status. This country needed a business man to jump start the world economy and the parasites voted for free stuff instead of freedom.

I am going to laugh when they all end up in FEMA camps and still talking how Obama is going to come and save them.

If Romney won, you would be assured of at least 8 more years of the same moderate/liberal agenda. Don't forget, some analysts had Romney in even deeper debt if he won. With Obama only in for the next 4 years, and if the economy tanks and unemployment is at or near 10%, I can see even the Dem candidate talking about fiscal responsibility and improving the economy. The real upside, if the Republicans wake up, is that they can present a candidate with a real agenda and ideals that can fix the country.

The election of Obama paved the way for the pendulum to swing back to conservatism, big time. Let's just hope the RNC doesn't fumble this opportunity.

[GoSlash27]

I absolutely agree with this. Had Romney won, he would've pushed through a bunch of liberal big government crap that Obama can't and destroyed whatever credibility the Republican Party has left. It would've been a disaster.

[Seven]

Can you guys tell me what policies of Romney's you're referring to when you say he would have implemented liberal economic strategies?

[silver & black]

That's all well and good.... and I understand what you're saying, but........... I need to survive the next 4 years. I'm not very optimistic about my future employment.

[GoSlash27]

Can you guys tell me what policies of Romney's you're referring to when you say he would have implemented liberal economic strategies?

Not trying to be a smartass, but it would be easier to point out Romney economic policies that weren't liberal. The list would be a lot shorter.
All of Romney's economic policies were Keynesian with the exception of making the Bush era tax cuts permanent, which is trickle-down.

[Seven]

Not trying to be a smartass, but it would be easier to point out Romney economic policies that weren't liberal. The list would be a lot shorter.
All of Romney's economic policies were Keynesian with the exception of making the Bush era tax cuts permanent, which is trickle-down.

I realize that his healthcare program had similarities to Obamacare, but that was at the state level so I'm throwing it out, because Romney believed in state specific healthcare.

But other than that I'm really not familiar with any of his planning that wasn't "trickle down", so I'm not trying to be a smartass lol, but please, explain. Give me a few examples.

[ALLD]

I want mass investment in the energy sector, oil, gas and coal. Build the pipeline to Canada and drill in the US everywhere. Get us out of the middle East and half of our problems disappear. There will also be several new domestic wealthy people created with that policy alone.

[silver & black]

I want mass investment in the energy sector, oil, gas and coal. Build the pipeline to Canada and drill in the US everywhere. Get us out of the middle East and half of our problems disappear. There will also be several new domestic wealthy people created with that policy alone.

THIS! And................ I want a fiscally responsible person in the White House.

[venom]

Anyone besides me see a Rubio vs Clinton in 2016 ?

[GoSlash27]

I realize that his healthcare program had similarities to Obamacare, but that was at the state level so I'm throwing it out, because Romney believed in state specific healthcare.

But other than that I'm really not familiar with any of his planning that wasn't "trickle down", so I'm not trying to be a smartass lol, but please, explain. Give me a few examples.

I can't give you a comprehensive list, but here's a few.
He was planning on ramping up deficit spending to 28 Trillion by 2020. He was going to do another round of stimulus spending. He was also going to implement QE4 and request that the FED keep interest rates artificially low.

- - - Updated - - -


Anyone besides me see a Rubio vs Clinton in 2016 ?

Anything could happen. If the Republicans haven't learned anything from these last 2 elections, then Rubio wouldn't surprise me.

[Seven]

I can't give you a comprehensive list, but here's a few.
He was planning on ramping up deficit spending to 28 Trillion by 2020. He was going to do another round of stimulus spending. He was also going to implement QE4 and request that the FED keep interest rates artificially low.

I know he was planning on significantly increasing spending on military projects, but I can't say I ever heard him speak to another round of stimulus spending. And I heard him condemn QE3 on at least one occasion, and can't find anything that supports your statement he wanted to implement QE4?

Not trying to blindly cheerlead Romney on, but I think there was a little more substance to the differences in his plans compared to Obama's than you guys are giving credit for. No offense, but your facts on this issue are kind of weak. I don't buy the argument that "Obama and Romney are exactly the same."

[zulater]

I know he was planning on significantly increasing spending on military projects, but I can't say I ever heard him speak to another round of stimulus spending. And I heard him condemn QE3 on at least one occasion, and can't find anything that supports your statement he wanted to implement QE4?

Not trying to blindly cheerlead Romney on, but I think there was a little more substance to the differences in his plans compared to Obama's than you guys are giving credit for. No offense, but your facts on this issue are kind of weak. I don't buy the argument that "Obama and Romney are exactly the same."

QFT.

Regardless Romney's gone, I don't see where beating that dead horse is doing us any good right now.


As far as a Republican or any non Democrat winning the White House in 2016? Well assuming Obama doesn't revoke the 22nd amendment, you wont have an incumbant to deal with. So that will help. After that in today's political climate it comes down to style trumps substance. So you've got to find a more charismatic candidate than the Dems put up to have any chance. But truthfully I don't think a Ronald Reagen clone would have a chance in 2016. No matter how bad off this country is the Democrats will naturalize enough illegal aliens across the country to gain a virtually insurmountable voting bloc when combined with blacks and white and Jewish liberals.

[Seven]

QFT.

Regardless Romney's gone, I don't see where beating that dead horse is doing us any good right now.


As far as a Republican or any non Democrat winning the White House in 2016? Well assuming Obama doesn't revoke the 22nd amendment, you wont have an incumbant to deal with. So that will help. After that in today's political climate it comes down to style trumps substance. So you've got to find a more charismatic candidate than the Dems put up to have any chance. But truthfully I don't think a Ronald Reagen clone would have a chance in 2016. No matter how bad off this country is the Democrats will naturalize enough illegal aliens across the country to gain a virtually insurmountable voting bloc when combined with blacks and white and Jewish liberals.

Yeah, it doesn't matter. I was curious simply for my own information. Because I keep seeing a few posters here touting this idea that Romney had the same big government plans as Obama and I just don't see it. But we'll never find out now

Puerto Rico, anyone? The Democratic party is seriously already making moves that sets them up for 2016. If Obama gets Puerto Rico in as a state, the Dems undoubtedly get about 98% of the PR vote. Add that to the entitlements he is already handing out and the party is basically buying another term.

Hopefully when that election does roll around and unemployment is at 12% with a median household income of about $17000 people will be smart enough to make a change.

[GoSlash27]

Yeah, it doesn't matter. I was curious simply for my own information. Because I keep seeing a few posters here touting this idea that Romney had the same big government plans as Obama and I just don't see it. But we'll never find out now

Puerto Rico, anyone? The Democratic party is seriously already making moves that sets them up for 2016. If Obama gets Puerto Rico in as a state, the Dems undoubtedly get about 98% of the PR vote. Add that to the entitlements he is already handing out and the party is basically buying another term.

Hopefully when that election does roll around and unemployment is at 12% with a median household income of about $17000 people will be smart enough to make a change.

So long as the Republicans hold the House, Puerto Rico won't become a State.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, it doesn't matter. I was curious simply for my own information. Because I keep seeing a few posters here touting this idea that Romney had the same big government plans as Obama and I just don't see it.
I posted all sorts of links about it over the last few months. Your best source for what he would've done is his own budget proposal. All of it was in there. I'll see if I can dig you up another link.

[Seven]

So long as the Republicans hold the House, Puerto Rico won't become a State.

- - - Updated - - -


I posted all sorts of links about it over the last few months. Your best source for what he would've done is his own budget proposal. All of it was in there. I'll see if I can dig you up another link.

Good point.

Okay, I read his budget proposal and nothing stuck out to me the first time. Maybe I missed something but if those things you mentioned above are included I feel like it would have caught my attention.

[steeldawg]

So long as the Republicans hold the House, Puerto Rico won't become a State.

- - - Updated - - -


I posted all sorts of links about it over the last few months. Your best source for what he would've done is his own budget proposal. All of it was in there. I'll see if I can dig you up another link.

You posted a great link about his plan, with really great explanations but i cant find it or remeber what thread it was in.

[st33lersguy]

Obama re-election pretty much ensured that this country and it's economy would be destroyed beyond repair. With Romney, America at least had a chance to rebuild and an opportunity not to destroy this country, especially since he HAS PRIVATE MARKET EXPERIENCE and HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE FIXING THINGS THAT WERE ON THE VERGE OF BANKRPTCY. You seem to assume that this country actually still has a chance of not being permanently damaged by 4 years of Obama unleashed and also that the two are remotely similar, which you are wrong on

[Seven]

Obama re-election pretty much ensured that this country and it's economy would be destroyed beyond repair. With Romney, America at least had a chance to rebuild and an opportunity not to destroy this country, especially since he HAS PRIVATE MARKET EXPERIENCE and HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE FIXING THINGS THAT WERE ON THE VERGE OF BANKRPTCY. You seem to assume that this country actually still has a chance of not being permanently damaged by 4 years of Obama unleashed and also that the two are remotely similar, which you are wrong on

Yeah. I've asked for proof of this not only here but at a number of my other hangouts and I've pretty much come to the conclusion this is BS.

[stillers4me]

I feel so sad that Americans couldn't see how much Mitt WANTED to help this country. We wanted the challange of making thing s better for all of us. Obama just wants the power. You didn't see him cry over the loss of 4 americans. You didn't see him cry over 100+ dead suffering from Sandy. You don't see him crying about millions of Americans out of work, their families suffering. He cried because of a personal victory. It's all about HIM.

[GBMelBlount]

Be prepared for a libertarian circle jerk the next 4 years folks until the either end up with 1% of the vote or if go through the republicans get obliterated in the general election.

Libertarianism is great in principle but they can never win because they will not compromise, negotiate or make concessions.

[Seven]

Be prepared for a libertarian circle jerk the next 4 years folks until the either end up with 1% of the vote or if go through the republicans get obliterated in the general election.

Libertarianism is great in principle but they can never win because they will not compromise, negotiate or make concessions.

Yep. Even though to a man they admitted Romney would be better for the country than Obama, most libertarians I know refused to vote for him because they still had their panties in a bunch over Paul not winning Republican primary.

I can understand the frustration, but those votes could have made difference at the end of the day. I don't think Romney could have won the race because of it, but he could have won popular vote if they had turned out.

[st33lersguy]

The DNC, will most likely need to put up a candidate in 2016 that will at least preach fiscal responsibility and improve the economy to create more jobs

First of all, democrats who are preaching fiscal responsibility are a nearly extinct breed. Almost all of today's democrats are big spending liberals and all the conservative democrats are now republicans. Second of all, if there was validity to this point, Obama would have lost and the Democrats would have lost at least 8 senate seats this election

[GBMelBlount]

Yep. Even though to a man they admitted Romney would be better for the country than Obama, most libertarians I know refused to vote for him because they still had their panties in a bunch over Paul not winning Republican primary.

I can understand the frustration, but those votes could have made difference at the end of the day. I don't think Romney could have won the race because of it, but he could have won popular vote if they had turned out.

Agreed but that is the past.

...and I am sorry for changing the direction of your thread Count. I get libertarianism and I embrace their beliefs more than any other party.

But the point is that many libertarians and Paul supporters leave the party because they realize the conundrum of strict libertarian rigidity dooming their own cause.

If you are not willing to work with the majority through compromise to build a consensus there can never be any serious change....and if you are willing to compromise then you are consider a traitor to many of the libertarian base.

...and unfortunately the "gridlock" is good response just doesn't cut it when you are heading off a cliff on auto pilot.

I am sorry to stir the pot here because on a personal level I like every one of you and agree in spirit with libertarianism and the principles this country was founded upon.

To me this is an example where something makes perfect sense in a classroom or in a vacuum but when you get in there and have to work with and compromise with other people who have completely different views in order to get things done it becomes a dilemna.

[GoSlash27]

GBMel,
It's unreasonable to put a product on the market, not maintain it's quality, and then blame the consumers for refusing to buy it. It's not their job to buy your product, it's your job to provide a product they *want*.

Romney lost because he was a poor candidate and didn't offer anything to differentiate himself from Obama or for people to rally behind.
Instead of complaining and finger- pointing, we should really be discussing how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last two elections.

[Seven]

GBMel,
It's unreasonable to put a product on the market, not maintain it's quality, and then blame the consumers for refusing to buy it. It's not their job to buy your product, it's your job to provide a product they *want*.

Romney lost because he was a poor candidate and didn't offer anything to differentiate himself from Obama or for people to rally behind.
Instead of complaining and finger- pointing, we should really be discussing how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last two elections.

I can't keep accepting this as a statement of fact from you when I have seen no evidence supporting the case that Romney offered nothing different. Because from what I've seen (repeal of Obamacare, more funds allocated to military, fighting Dodd-Frank) he offered quite a bit different of an approach to Obama. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but this keeps getting thrown out there as fact when there isn't anything supporting it. I'll be happy to concede that I'm wrong if I have reason to do so, but no one here or anywhere else can give me anything close to proof of this being correct.

With that in mind, I don't think you can point to a reason why the Republicans lost. Because they offered a clear alternative to what the country has been getting the last four years and the country chose to hold fast to its entitlements.

[Wallace108]

Be prepared for a libertarian circle jerk the next 4 years folks until the either end up with 1% of the vote or if go through the republicans get obliterated in the general election.

Libertarianism is great in principle but they can never win because they will not compromise, negotiate or make concessions.

I don't think anyone should ever compromise, negotiate, or make concessions when it comes to liberty and freedom.


GBMel,
It's unreasonable to put a product on the market, not maintain it's quality, and then blame the consumers for refusing to buy it. It's not their job to buy your product, it's your job to provide a product they *want*.

Romney lost because he was a poor candidate and didn't offer anything to differentiate himself from Obama or for people to rally behind.
Instead of complaining and finger- pointing, we should really be discussing how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last two elections.
Bingo!

Republicans can't continue to do the same things and expect different results. Something has to change, whether it's their platform, how they deliver their messages, or both. But keeping the status quo isn't going to work.

[Wallace108]

I can't keep accepting this as a statement of fact from you when I have seen no evidence supporting the case that Romney offered nothing different. Because from what I've seen (repeal of Obamacare, more funds allocated to military, fighting Dodd-Frank) he offered quite a bit different of an approach to Obama. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but this keeps getting thrown out there as fact when there isn't anything supporting it. I'll be happy to concede that I'm wrong if I have reason to do so, but no one here or anywhere else can give me anything close to proof of this being correct.

With that in mind, I don't think you can point to a reason why the Republicans lost. Because they offered a clear alternative to what the country has been getting the last four years and the country chose to hold fast to its entitlements.

Do you really believe that Romney is a small-government conservative who would follow the Constitution? If so, why do you believe that?

[Seven]

Do you really believe that Romney is a small-government conservative who would follow the Constitution? If so, why do you believe that?

No, I don't believe that at all. But to say he is "no different" from Obama and expect that to be viewed as some sort of indisputable claim isn't going to work.

[GoSlash27]

With that in mind, I don't think you can point to a reason why the Republicans lost. Because they offered a clear alternative to what the country has been getting the last four years and the country chose to hold fast to its entitlements.

I think that most of us can and have. If you truly believe what you said here (and I have no reason to doubt that you do), then what's your conclusion?
If we can't point to specific reasons for why Romney lost, then there's no hope of winning the next one. And if it requires that Republicans embrace entitlements in order to be competitive, then what's the point?

[Seven]

I think that most of us can and have. If you truly believe what you said here (and I have no reason to doubt that you do), then what's your conclusion?
If we can't point to specific reasons for why Romney lost, then there's no hope of winning the next one. And if it requires that Republicans embrace entitlements in order to be competitive, then what's the point?

I'm not saying the party can't do things a little different next time around, I think there are plenty of reasons why Obama came out on top. But I don't think the right can just change a couple of their strategies and expect to come out victorious because of doing so. My main point is that if everyone realized how poor of a job the incumbent has done, Romney should have done enough to win this election. But that proved untrue, which tells me the country isn't ready to give up on Obama and admit they were wrong.

2016 is going to be more about what Obama does between now and then in my opinion, than it will be about what the Republican party changes about itself.

[GoSlash27]

I'm not saying the party can't do things a little different next time around, I think there are plenty of reasons why Obama came out on top. But I don't think the right can just change a couple of their strategies and expect to come out victorious because of doing so. My main point is that if everyone realized how poor of a job the incumbent has done, Romney should have done enough to win this election. But that proved untrue, which tells me the country isn't ready to give up on Obama and admit they were wrong.

2016 is going to be about what Obama does between now and then in my opinion, less than it will be about what the Republican party changes about itself.

All due respect, but your own post explains why I disagree with you. You thought that Obama sucked out loud (which he did) and therefore would lose. You were mistaken, but for some reason still believe that it'll be correct next time despite that.
I'm telling you that's not enough. An election is not merely a referendum about the incumbent. You can't just dangle any ol' candidate and expect people to vote for him merely because he's not the other guy. They have to want to vote *for* your candidate.
Neither McCain nor Romney provided that. Obama, OTOH, had people lined up around the block not to vote against Romney, but to vote *for* him.

[Seven]

All due respect, but your own post explains why I disagree with you. You thought that Obama sucked out loud (which he did) and therefore would lose. You were mistaken, but for some reason still believe that it'll be correct next time despite that.
I'm telling you that's not enough. An election is not merely a referendum about the incumbent. You can't just dangle any ol' candidate and expect people to vote for him merely because he's not the other guy. They have to want to vote *for* your candidate.
Neither McCain nor Romney provided that. Obama, OTOH, had people lined up around the block not to vote against Romney, but to vote *for* him.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I believe Romney did enough to be a compelling candidate, but the public and media simply wouldn't accept him as such. And again, no offense, but I think it's partially due to the spread of misinformation by people such as yourself who claim that he is "no different" than Obama without offering any kind of proof to back it up. If you throw things out there enough, they will stick - and I think that is a prime example.

- - - Updated - - -

But then again, if the public and media wouldn't accept him as such, then I suppose he didn't do enough. But against the Obama train I don't see any other players in the field who could have. With the electoral college in place, anyway.

[GoSlash27]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I believe Romney did enough to be a compelling candidate, but the public and media simply wouldn't accept him as such.
You caught this down-stream. If the public didn't accept him, then by definition he didn't.
*edit* and our media will never accept any Republican candidate, no matter how liberal he may be. They are fully in the bag for Democrats.


And again, no offense, but I think it's partially due to the spread of misinformation by people such as yourself who claim that he is "no different" than Obama without offering any kind of proof to back it up. If you throw things out there enough, they will stick - and I think that is a prime example.

I think you give folks like myself a little more credit than we deserve. I don't think we quite have the influence you think we do.

- - - Updated - - -


But then again, if the public and media wouldn't accept him as such, then I suppose he didn't do enough. But against the Obama train I don't see any other players in the field who could have. With the electoral college in place, anyway.

We were discussing this very thing in another thread. http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/15402-Second-Guessing

[Seven]

I think you give folks like myself a little more credit than we deserve. I don't think we quite have the influence you think we do.

- - - Updated - - -

We were discussing this very thing in another thread. http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/15402-Second-Guessing

I was a member of another Steelers forums when I was quite a bit younger and my political views were heavily influenced by that board. Imagine if there are three lurkers who read this conversation and believe every word you/I say just because we seem like we are well informed, and they make those same points to three other people, etc... As a whole, we all shape public perception - even just one person can make a pretty big difference.

Thanks I'll check it out.

And no hard feelings intended, I think you're a smart poster.

[GoSlash27]

And no hard feelings intended, I think you're a smart poster.
Thank you, Sir. None taken. :tea:

[Count Steeler]

First of all, democrats who are preaching fiscal responsibility are a nearly extinct breed. Almost all of today's democrats are big spending liberals and all the conservative democrats are now republicans. Second of all, if there was validity to this point, Obama would have lost and the Democrats would have lost at least 8 senate seats this election

But you take my statement from 4 years hence and put in into the present. In 4 years, after the public sees the further increased deficits and further unemployment, the Dems will have to respond. They will not be able to get away with this spend, spend, spend if the Republicans do their job in 2014 and continue to espouse the benefits of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. My packaging would be something like this: "If the government continues on its way, it will continue to take more and more money from the economy and from the public's pockets. We have to reduce the size of government, give you back more of your hard earned money, and let prosperity come back to our borders."

[steelerdude15]

IMO the Republican party needs to fix things within itself over these next four years. It seems that no one can ever agree with the person who is picked to run for President. I feel like I see everyone complaining with the nominee and everyone says they don't like him or that they wouldn't do anything to fix anything. Whether the Republican party needs to become more moderate, pick a stronger candidate, or whatever, something has to be done for them to hold the presidency again.

[SteelerEmpire]

The only Repub that could win the Pres in 2016 is Colin Powell (in my opinion) even after the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco... any other candidate would be a toss up...

[zulater]

The only Repub that could win the Pres in 2016 is Colin Powell (in my opinion) even after the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco... any other candidate would be a toss up...

All that would be is 4 more years of Obama without the party affiliation.

[7SteelGal43]

Count, regarding your original post, nice hypothesis. Only problem is we thought the same thing after the first Obama election. We got Mitt Romney. Nuff said

[Count Steeler]

Count, regarding your original post, nice hypothesis. Only problem is we thought the same thing after the first Obama election. We got Mitt Romney. Nuff said

That is the key. The RNC has to learn, or they are going to repeat the same mistake again.

[7SteelGal43]

That is the key. The RNC has to learn, or they are going to repeat the same mistake again.

you mean like we learned after TWO Clinton administrations ? WOOT