If Romney were to lose badly...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I said scenario 5, but probably none of the above.  I think Republicans need to educate the pubic about what they really believe, not move to the center.  "Education, not moderation" is my motto.  For that matter, I'll post another scenario, in which Dems win every state that could possibly be close:
 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Romney was a moderate, we need to a nominate a true conservative. If Obama wins a Reagan-'84-esque landslide, nothing's changing. Also this entire thread is wishful thinking; the first map is optimistic for Obama and the rest can be pretty much ruled out.

I disagree.  Even if Romney is a moderate, he was the only Republican who had any chance of defeating Obama, and the way I see it, half a loaf is better than no bread.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney's a moderate. Complete repudiation of Romney is a repudiation of the moderate win of the Republican party. The result would be that the Tea Party would jettison the Republican party, and the Republican party would go the way of the Whigs.

The best result for the progressives this election is a Romney win. Why you aren't all voting for Romney baffles me.

How would a Romney victory be the best thing for progressives?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it better to win 50 percent of your elections, or 100 percent of your elections? A Romney win is a repudiation of prolifers, and the traditional marriage folks. Progressives should be salivating over an opportunity to not only win, but to lock their ideology down in both parties.

If that were true, then it would be the best thing for Republicans because it would show them that they need to prioritize economic rather than social issues.  But Romney is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.  I recommend the book Romney Bashing for Morons on that subject.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I rest my case. Progressives like yourself ought to be voting Romney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

"He said he would do more for gay rights than Senator Kennedy". That's the money quote.

What, was he Mormon before, then he stopped being Mormon, and then changed back to Mormon now?

I'm not a progressive; I'm a pragmatic conservative (maybe even a "maverick" conservative.)  And besides, that was almost 20 years ago.  Nearly everybody changes their positions over time; I sure have.  Remember, Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching parties; so was Rick Perry.   I know Romney ran against Ted Kennedy as a Republican, but that doesn't mean he never changed his positions.  I have always been a Republican and I have changed some of my positions over time myself.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I said scenario 5, but probably none of the above.  I think Republicans need to educate the pubic about what they really believe, not move to the center.  "Education, not moderation" is my motto. 

You mean re-education, right?

Yes, if that's what you want to call it, then that is what I mean.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I said scenario 5, but probably none of the above.  I think Republicans need to educate the pubic about what they really believe, not move to the center.  "Education, not moderation" is my motto. 

You mean re-education, right?

Yes, if that's what you want to call it, then that is what I mean.

So you're for blatant, fact-free propaganda? Great! I'm not surprised though, since your party is averse to facts and logic.

Not true.  I would use facts and logic to make my party's case to people.