Another example

[shrewsbury]

this is why i could never be a democrat, anyone who would change their stance based on getting votes is way more foolish than those that won't and don't get the votes. but this is what the democrats are saying the republicans should have done and should do

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...-election?lite

this is just the first link, if you don't like the source google it yourself,

[duwal]

not even going to say it. Would get suspended for it

[shrewsbury]

can't figure out how to say it without going there?

i could give some other examples, if it helps

[habsheaven]

I read the article, even watched the video. Not sure what it has to do with Democrats. As for changing your stance to garner more votes; you change your stance because the electorate (by voting) tells you they think your stance is WRONG. And if you can't be a Democrat because of this (and single them out), what is your stance on being a Republican? The Republican nominee, changed HIS stance on just about everything to gain the support of his own party.

[Wickabee]

And then changed it back for the Presidential election.

[Wickabee]

OK, I've read the article now, a couple thoughts:

1: I'm actually not against Romney's "make it so difficult they pretty much have to go home" idea, but he presented that as a plan. It's not a plan, it's an overview. Overview is all he gave. Plans work on details, overviews are just ideas. With that said, it's the right basic idea. If you're not a citizen, there's no legitimate reason for you to be here. The problem is that a life of crime and/on the streets here is still more lucrative than any life there. You sell the US as a place where a man can go from bum to millionaire and people are going to want to go there. Where they live it's born poor die poor and the only exceptions are the ones who make it to America. Mailing life difficult for illegals only solves part of the issue and by itself actually causes more problems in other areas like crime rates. Not because they're all criminals, but for the reasons set above.

2: The best thing that can happen for the Republican party, and the nation, is a split. Let the Tea Party be a party and not just some lame faction of an actual party. Let them be the right wing voice of the nation, the Dems the left wing and Republicans be the center. Moderate Republicans always look good, fiscally responsible but socially conscious, until the run for President. Then they have to appeal to voters who should be gimmes. They become fiscal misers and completely antisocial. TheUS is a nation that wants a fiscally responsible but socially conscious ggovernment but they're forced to pick between one side that is socially liberal and a fiscal crap shoot most of the time and another side that basically screams "I've got mine, screw you if you didn't get yours." This is what I see as an outsider. As much as many of you love to think otherwise, I'm not partisan and I don't have an agenda. This past election America sais , "The economy comes second to what the government can tell me what I can and cannot do." Many feel that, as far as money goes, every politician is going to screw them, it's just a matter of how. They don't like being told what to do. Republicans are seen as a stifling "don't do this, don't do that" group who themselves go do those things themselves. Democrats are seen as less stifling. The majority of Americans aren't business owners. As such, they're is favour of government regulating business, not people. And who can blame them? Look at Canada and what heavy regulations have done here. The Republicans want seem to have the goal of letting business do what it wants while heavily regulating people. The Democrats seem to have the goal of letting people do what they want while heavily regulating business. That's why the Republicans lost.

[MadMan1978]

Jay I am missing your real point here. This happens on both sides, everyday!

[yanksfan1]

OK, I've read the article now, a couple thoughts:

1: I'm actually not against Romney's "make it so difficult they pretty much have to go home" idea, but he presented that as a plan. It's not a plan, it's an overview. Overview is all he gave. Plans work on details, overviews are just ideas. With that said, it's the right basic idea. If you're not a citizen, there's no legitimate reason for you to be here. The problem is that a life of crime and/on the streets here is still more lucrative than any life there. You sell the US as a place where a man can go from bum to millionaire and people are going to want to go there. Where they live it's born poor die poor and the only exceptions are the ones who make it to America. Mailing life difficult for illegals only solves part of the issue and by itself actually causes more problems in other areas like crime rates. Not because they're all criminals, but for the reasons set above.

2: The best thing that can happen for the Republican party, and the nation, is a split. Let the Tea Party be a party and not just some lame faction of an actual party. Let them be the right wing voice of the nation, the Dems the left wing and Republicans be the center. Moderate Republicans always look good, fiscally responsible but socially conscious, until the run for President. Then they have to appeal to voters who should be gimmes. They become fiscal misers and completely antisocial. TheUS is a nation that wants a fiscally responsible but socially conscious ggovernment but they're forced to pick between one side that is socially liberal and a fiscal crap shoot most of the time and another side that basically screams "I've got mine, screw you if you didn't get yours." This is what I see as an outsider. As much as many of you love to think otherwise, I'm not partisan and I don't have an agenda. This past election America sais , "The economy comes second to what the government can tell me what I can and cannot do." Many feel that, as far as money goes, every politician is going to screw them, it's just a matter of how. They don't like being told what to do. Republicans are seen as a stifling "don't do this, don't do that" group who themselves go do those things themselves. Democrats are seen as less stifling. The majority of Americans aren't business owners. As such, they're is favour of government regulating business, not people. And who can blame them? Look at Canada and what heavy regulations have done here. The Republicans want seem to have the goal of letting business do what it wants while heavily regulating people. The Democrats seem to have the goal of letting people do what they want while heavily regulating business. That's why the Republicans lost.

the only problem with #2 is that it would help the democrats, which they obviously dont want to do. republicans would be split among two candidates and dems would rally around one, leading to an easy democrat win.

take the 1912 election for example. although roosevelt was a "progressive", most probably saw him as the republican president they once had. this caused a split among republican voters between roosevelt and taft, allowing the democratic nominee, woodrow wilson to win an electoral colleges landslide, garnering 435 EC votes

[Wickabee]

the only problem with #2 is that it would help the democrats, which they obviously dont want to do. republicans would be split among two candidates and dems would rally around one, leading to an easy democrat win.

take the 1912 election for example. although roosevelt was a "progressive", most probably saw him as the republican president they once had. this caused a split among republican voters between roosevelt and taft, allowing the democratic nominee, woodrow wilson to win an electoral colleges landslide, garnering 435 EC votes

It would be a step away though. While it would split the Reps more, it would also split the Dems to enough of a degree, I believe, to make all three parties legitimate threats to one another. Democrats would have the advantage for a little bit, but not as long as one might think. There are a lot of Democrats who would be all for a fiscally responsible yet socially conscious party regardless of name. One of the big problems in America is the divisiveness of a two party system. I think in the short term it would help the Democrats, but long term it would hurt them if the Republican party split.