Should the Republican nominee support SSM?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They should not support it for the primary, they should support it for the general.

I could definitely see Christie doing that.

No... the right would revolt, and he'd lose.  You'd see the party split into two.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Best you're gonna get is Rubio's states-rights stance.

This is the correct answer.

They should not support it for the primary, they should support it for the general.

I could definitely see Christie doing that.

No... the right would revolt, and he'd lose.  You'd see the party split into two.

...and?

[CountryClassSF]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

[Thomas D]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

But, I thought Romney was a severe Conservative?

[Goldwater]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

Wait, weren't both Bush's RINOs?

[CountryClassSF]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

Wait, weren't both Bush's RINOs?

I'd say they screwed up on some things, economically. But they did great with social conservative turnout as well as Latino turnout. W was able to run ideas based  campaigns, attracting moderates and conservatives both.

HW ran a terrible campaign in '92, but George W Bush really mastered it in 04

[Mr. Morden]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

Wait, weren't both Bush's RINOs?

I'd say they screwed up on some things, economically. But they did great with social conservative turnout as well as Latino turnout. W was able to run ideas based  campaigns, attracting moderates and conservatives both.

At least based on their public statements at the time of the campaign, Bush ran farther left in his 2000 campaign than McCain or Romney did in 2008 and 2012 respectively.  E.g., Bush criticized the GOP Congress for "balancing their budgets on the backs of the poor".  Limbaugh accused him of sounding like Nelson Rockefeller.  Bush seemed to spend most of his convention speech on education, health care, patients' bill of rights, etc.

Bush 2000 is probably actually the best template for the GOP going forward.  Nominate someone who the base believes is one of them.  Someone who they think of as a conservative because of his cultural affect, because he has a drawl, and because of his personal religiosity.  But nominate such a conservative who's willing to run more as a centrist, on the hope that general election voters will buy it, and he can then govern from the right once in office.  The alternative is what was done in 2008 and 2012, which is to nominate someone who the base doesn't actually believe is one of them, who then spends much of the election campaign trying to prevent the base from staying home because of apathy.

[DS0816]

I mean, at this point it's when, not if. Besides, most Americans support it already.

Do any of the R contenders support SSM? If not, do you think they will retcon their views and say they do when it's closer to election season?

Meaghan McCain and Steve Schmidt said so in the spring of 2009.

They were looking toward a change, from the citizenry, on this issue. And they were expressing concern about their party, and suggested it become a part of the platform.

There is a video in which Schmidt, now with MSNBC, and David Plouffe talked about the presidential election of 2012. It was just days thereafter. Schmidt cited a problem with his party is their intrusion into people's personal sex lives as diametrically opposed to what actual conservatism is about. And he noted that Rick Santorum was a big offender of this; in that Santorum had his strange fixation on both gay sex and contraception. Which, of course, makes sense given most presidents aren't into other people having sex the way Rick Santorum was. Then again, it may have been that Rick Santorum doesn't have sex.

in 2009, Meaghan McCain and Steve Schimdt were forward-thinking and tried to alert their party.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Don't you realize that many voters have stayedh ome in 2008 and 2012 because we didn't have a conservative running? What about us? Don't our votes matter?

We tried the RINO thing twice, and it was a disaster. Third if you count Dole. You have to bring the base AND independents out. It's about balance. RINOs are too busy tossing us overboard to understand.

Wait, weren't both Bush's RINOs?

I'd say they screwed up on some things, economically. But they did great with social conservative turnout as well as Latino turnout. W was able to run ideas based  campaigns, attracting moderates and conservatives both.

At least based on their public statements at the time of the campaign, Bush ran farther left in his 2000 campaign than McCain or Romney did in 2008 and 2012 respectively.  E.g., Bush criticized the GOP Congress for "balancing their budgets on the backs of the poor".  Limbaugh accused him of sounding like Nelson Rockefeller.  Bush seemed to spend most of his convention speech on education, health care, patients' bill of rights, etc.

Bush 2000 is probably actually the best template for the GOP going forward.  Nominate someone who the base believes is one of them.  Someone who they think of as a conservative because of his cultural affect, because he has a drawl, and because of his personal religiosity.  But nominate such a conservative who's willing to run more as a centrist, on the hope that general election voters will buy it, and he can then govern from the right once in office.  The alternative is what was done in 2008 and 2012, which is to nominate someone who the base doesn't actually believe is one of them, who then spends much of the election campaign trying to prevent the base from staying home because of apathy.

Yeah, the "compassionate conservatism" angle was pretty brilliant, admittedly.

[CountryClassSF]

What's sad is that Republicans did the exact opposite this year.  Nominated both a RINO AND an out-of-touch plutocrat. I don't get it. It's like the establishment is purposefully trying to lose.

[Cobbler]

What's sad is that Republicans did the exact opposite this year.  Nominated both a RINO AND an out-of-touch plutocrat. I don't get it. It's like the establishment is purposefully trying to lose.

You realize that people actually voted for Romney to be the nominee, right? It wasn't 100% the "establishment" picking him.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

What's sad is that Republicans did the exact opposite this year.  Nominated both a RINO AND an out-of-touch plutocrat. I don't get it. It's like the establishment is purposefully trying to lose.

You realize that people actually voted for Romney to be the nominee, right? It wasn't 100% the "establishment" picking him.

That's where you're wrong. Mitt was THE ESTABLISHMENT PICK.  Conservatives were divided on a candidate thus the moderates have had the nominee since 1988. Yes W is a moderate. We had a true conservative in the race and the party booed the man in South Carolina when...... wait for it....... QUOTED JESUS HIMSELF regarding how we should handle ourselves regarding foreign policy. Sadly these so called evangelical Christians (and I happen to be one myself) showed no respect to him (Ron Paul) or Ron Paul's Lord and Saviour Jesus. Yes I also supported Dr. Paul in the race in a lot of ways because of this.

To think Mitt had conservative support was laughable.

[Cobbler]

I like how some people pretend that even though voters actually voted for the "establishment" candidate, those votes somehow weren't real and it was as if the establishment just forced it on them.

[Zarn]

Rand Paul or Marco Rubio would be the best fit for Republicans on gay marriage.

[Mechaman]

No, and they should become more like the Prohibition party, and just be a joke party that outlived its usefullness long ago.

Well, the Republican Party eventually abandoned prohibition as an issue. Maybe the CountryClassSFs of the GOP can form the God Hates Fags Party and maybe get ballot access in Alabama, Kansas and Arkansas. (Oklahoma's insane ballot access laws make that possibility out of reach).

I'm sure Oklahoma would make an exception for this particular party...

Last time I checked, the Constitution Party can't get ballot access here.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Not in 2016. Maybe in 2024, but not before that.

[publicunofficial]

I could see Republicans nominate a pro-gay candidate in 2020 if they lose again in 2016.

[TNF]

They won't come out in favor of it until 2024 or 2028, methinks. The Republicans don't have any incentive to change when they can still rewrite the electoral rules in their favor.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Since when did the Republican Party do things that were supported by a majority of the public?

[Zarn]

Since when did the Republican Party do things that were supported by a majority of the public?

Or either party?