There's Gotta Be an Important Lesson Here

But I don't understand the first question! Splain yourself!

I have a sudden urge to go out and buy a pygmy hippo.

Clint Eastwood would be a good vice president.

Speaking of important lessons. If you go to Ace of Spades; http://ace.mu.nu/ and scroll down to the following article you will see what may be the smoking gun.

The Unmitigated Disaster Known As Project ORCA
—JohnE.

Friendly-fire as they say.

The #1 problem was not attacking Obama's character. What good does being a nice loser do?

Maybe decades from now a new fact will be added to the list,

Obama's place of birth was never confirmed, he even refused $5 million for simply showing his passport to businessman Donald trump

"Before he was president, Grover Cleveland was a hangman. As sheriff of Erie County, he personally carried out two hanging sentences."

I never knew that about President Cleveland, but I like it!

One aspect of the election battle that I haven't seen in most comments and analysis is how the conservative message is undermined or lost in the popular culture. This article by Andrew Klavan, on the "Long Game", suggests that conservatives have to put more of their resources into the MSM and Hollywood. http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1107ak.html

I agree. I don't think a short-term pitch to women or Hispanics will be successful, especially when the MSM and Hollywood will demonize the conservative candidate and twist (or lie about) the message. I think the answer is to use the huge PAC moneys toward purchasing a MSM network and installing more balanced editorial control. FOX Newscan't do it by themselves.

Mrs. Presidentress? I like!

Also, did anyone find it disturbing that Bill Clinton apparently watched "My Little Pony"?

It seems like everyone has missed the point of the post. Until today, I was not aware of this fact. Doesn't it blow your mind?

More importantly, is there not an important lesson here for the powers at be at the GOP to look within and change something about how they find presidential candidates?

Or will they go in the other direction and only allow those with the last name of Bush or Nixon to get the nod?!

If the Kennedys hadn't this habit of getting killed or killing someone their would have been one on every dem ticket since 1948:

Joe then John then Robert then teddy then john junior

According to Hugh Hewitt if you apply the demographics of America to that of the percentage of votes Romney got from that demo he gets a bigger majority than Reagan got.

The problem is the Reagan's America literally doesn't exist anymore. The keys to the White House for the GOP lie in getting MORE - not all - of the Hispanic and female vote. You get that by softening the social policy plank - make it more libertarian ; broaden abortion laws beyond rape and incest, allow some form of amnesty deal with an iron clad quid pro quo on an effective barrier at the border and making SSM legal in all fifty states.

Do that and the GOP holds the whitehouse for a generation after Obama finishes his term.

Sorry I made an error in my last post ... When you apply the demo graphics of Reagan's America to the support levels that Romney got Romney wins a bigger majority than Reagan got.

Prediction:
Jeb Bush runs for Pres in 2016. He is married to an Hispanic.

Gord Tulk, essentially what you're suggesting is making the situation worse by giving away amnesty to illegal immigrants. Most will vote for bigger government and more mass immigration, hasting the demise of America. And Reagan tried giving them amnesty, which only resulted in more illegal immigration resulting in the demographic decline. And with every vote you gain from selling out to liberalism, you'll lose two conservative votes.

I think the bloom might be off the Bush rose. (But maybe Paul Ryan should have changed his name to "Nixon". Good branding, couldn't hurt.)

My impression is that the GOP is doing a better job of promoting upcoming younger and more diverse (a dishonourable game, racial head-counting, but it is what it is) politicians than the Dems are. Rubio (Hispanic), Jindal (Indian background), Ryan, Palin even... (and I still have hopes for West, although he lost his seat dammit)...

Who's the bright star in the Dem future? Hillary? Michelle!!?? (I wouldn't rule it out.)

I'm not trying to be gung-ho. Tuesday was a nightmarish disaster. But Robert's point is well taken. If you allow for the possibility of a worthwhile future, what does our side need to do?

"Doesn't it blow your mind?"

No,it's a "so what" statement.

"what does our side need to do?" Same thing in both Countries, engage with young people,and educate them in the history of socialism.It won't be easy,as we're fighting against the entire education,media,and entertainment establishments.

People will always want "free" stuff,and it's going to be damned hard to fight Santa Claus. We have to keep our fringe from diluting the message that socialism doesn't work, with anti-gay,anti-abortion rhetoric.The MSM fairly salivates at the prospect of the next conservative "anti" those now-sacred cows.

Stephen Harper successfully stifled this wing of the Conservatives,and won,that should be a clear message to that constituency.

And we have to realise that what we saw as "common sense" no longer resonates with the generation inculcated with anti-establishment propaganda for the last fifty years.

We'll have to fight them using their own guerilla tactics, no sense marching in a red-clad thin line while they snipe at us behind trees, we lost that war long ago.

The first item on a conservative agenda should be to stop feeding the liberals, by purchasing their products,IOW,boycott the bastards,even if it hurts. DO NOT attend Hollywood movies,unless the star or director is clearly one of US.

And,from there, expand that boycott to every charity and business that espouses liberal causes.

Hit 'em where it hurts, in the wallet.

I have noticed that we conservatives are getting old,when I attend meetings,there are very few people under forty. We MUST connect with the young people,or eventually,the Santa Claus Parties will become permanent fixtures in power,no matter how bad a job they do running things.

The Mitt Romney's of the political world are NOT they type of candidate that appeals to the new generation of voters,so we have to build up the Ryans,Jindals,Rubios.

In 2016, if the Democrats will give Hillary Clinton the payoff they believe she deserves,and probably does, the Republicans can be the "hope and change" Party,with a credible, young candidate,against a bitter old woman from the establishment.

George P. Bush (Jeb's son) just made a campaign filing in Texas.

Just think how much better off we'd be if Giuseppe Zangara had been a few inches taller and a better shot.

In fact, that would be a good headline for anything related to the New Deal:

"Shooting Lessons for Giuseppe Zangara"

The last Democrat to replace a Democrat in the White House by election was James Buchanan who was elected in 1856 to succeed Franklin Pierce.