Interesting question. Most conservatives I know (including myself, ha ha) are pretty frustrated and feel like the liberals are more successful in advancing their agenda. Could you give a few more examples of areas where you see a conservative agenda advancing?

All the sane people I know are frustrated that no agenda is advancing. Can you please give us some examples of anyone getting anything done?

Of course we'll very quickly run into problems with the definition of conservative and liberal. Libertarian and neo-cons might both vote Republican, but they'd have pretty different agendas in some areas.

+1 ghug

The conservatives in the US advanced their agenda a long way under Bush, and Obama has done very little in moving things back. The chief reason the Republicans find it so hard to win an election is that there is no real need for them to do so. Their are no crazy left wing policies to fight against as Obama has failed to implement any.

More with electoral results, than actual policy changes, although those too.
Republicans currently hold more state legislatures than Democrats, hold the House.

In my State of Florida, we had Welfare recipients being drug tested, an electric rail line along with billions of dollars from the national government rejected, cuts to public sector employees to finance new tax cuts for large corporations, cuts to public education, overturning of anti-gerrymandering ballot initiatives (current gerrymanderin strongly favors republicans).

I'll try to find more later, if no on offers any up.

And the FL unemployment is steadily dropping. Lets get to work. ;)

I guess your original question is "why" and I think the simplest answer is that conservatives must be making their case to the public. I doubt it has much to do with tricks, strategies conspiracies, or the like. People keep calling America a center-right nation - sounds like a good environment for Republicans to win, doesn't it?

Well obviously they are getting their message across, I was curious as to actual specific strategies. I think I know the answer, but I want more outside input.

"More with electoral results, than actual policy changes, although those too.
Republicans currently hold more state legislatures than Democrats, hold the House."

My impression was this can be attributed to the "wonderful" job the President is doing. But that is just an impression.

@Alderian, I think that that is actually more due to geography than anything else. Obama won the popular vote (just barely), so we know the majority (just barely) of the country still prefers him to others, but that majority is largely focused around urban centers. The result is that in many urban districts, both on state and national levels, the Democratic candidates win in landslides, whereas the margins of victory for Republican candidates are often smaller.

There definitely is some discontent with the president, but I don't think that's all it is.

Just a few thoughts about the state level: perhaps part of the reasons fiscal conservatives win is that some (many?) states require, by law, a balanced budget. You can get elected to congress or the presidency by making all sorts of crazy promises that you can back up with endless borrowing, but at the state level you actually have to make ends meet. Maybe a bit cynical there, I don't know. Also not pointing a partisan finger.
Also, there are many rural states that vote Republican for a variety of reasons, so you could easily win 30 state legislatures and still lose a presidential race.

California has probably helped. For years, Republicans have been promising that if people run a state like the Democrats have run California, they were going to go bankrupt. For the last five years or so, there have been approximately monthly stories about how close California is to folding up completely and hiding the Golden Gate Bridge in the Pacific to keep creditors from seizing it. Maybe it's given some force to the warnings of Republicans in other states.

@ghug - You mention that the president won the popular vote by a little. You even made a point of saying (barely) twice. Just to be fair, he won by approximately 5 million votes. In contrast, President Bush won over Kerry by 3 million and over Gore by...wait for it...actually he LOST the popular vote by about 500,000 votes. Now, I don't think that your definition of (barely) really makes a bit of difference. As we have seen, you don't even have to win the popular vote. It is the electoral college that counts. And that was a trouncing.

I would say that, by modern standards, it was a comfortable victory in both the EC and PV.

Jim, I'm just pointing out that the gap isn't that big, and would probably have been smaller had Romney been competent. The country's pretty evenly split right now.

@ghug - I disagree with your opinion that the country is pretty evenly split. Even the most staunch Republicans have gone back to the drawing board after the election. You cannnot say that the President won 332 to 206 electoral votes just a few months ago and now all of the sudden it is all tied up. Not even close. The Republican's have a big job ahead of them. If they continue to "appear" to be a party of the rich white men, they will lose again in 4 years. Now, can they change that appearance. Of course. But if they stay the course, they will fall further behind.

Jimgov,

Certainly the country is pretty evenly split. While electoral vote may be the relevant standard for determining a margin of victory "by the rules," it is an almost worthless standard for figuring out how close the winning party could be to losing. Just look at the 1960 Presidential election, which the Democrats won 303-219, but would have lost had the right 23,000 votes been shifted to the GOP.

Moreover, this election was *relatively* close despite the fact that the Dems were running one of the most charismatic candidates in history, and an incumbent, against something of a dud. Indeed, no incumbent has ever lost who was unopposed in his own primary. It would have been a historic defeat had Obama lost.

So while the GOP certainly needs to change some things and appeal better to other demographics to win, and stop nominating people like Romney, there's nothing about this election that suggests they can't do it and be right back in the game. It was no more of a sea change than most other second-term elections.

Certainly there is nothing to suggest the country is not "pretty evenly split" in a 51-47 victory.

@semck - I see your point. It is not a Democratic landslide by any measure. But, there is no empirical evidence to say that it has gotten any closer. None. The two biggest things weighing on the Republican party right now, IMO, are gun control and immigration reform. The best thing the Republicans have done recently is to allow debate on the gun control bill. That would have been suicidal if it had been stopped. If, however, a gun control bill does not pass and the Republican's are seen as the party that stopped it, it will be bad. Sandyhook will come up again and again. There will be no running from it. They should help shape the bill in a way that they can live with, not kill it. The vast percent of Americans, I think the percentage I saw was over 85%, support universal background checks. You have to allow that.

Also, as we have discussed in several threads, the "minority" of voters is increasing every election. The Republicans have to be the party that spearheads some real immigration reform. Even if Rubio is their figurehead, he is not exactly saying anything that is helping the Republicans in the Latino community. This would be huge if they can make this happen.

Trust me, I am a Democrat and would love to see them win again. But if the Republicans do the above, they have a real chance of winning. But if they whiff on both, they will lose. Of course, all of this is IMO. Yours may vary.

Interesting jim.

No offense intended -- you may perhaps be right -- but I find that virtually everybody I talk to thinks that the GOP lost because of the issues with which *the speaker* disagrees with them most strongly. (That may not even be the case in your case, of course). Conservatives think it's because they didn't sell fiscal responsibility hard enough. Libertarians are sure it's gay marriage. You say it's gun control. I've even met a couple people who think that it's because they weren't sufficiently pro life.

All of which is to say, I'm getting to the point where I ignore these claims if they're not backed up by.... *something.* Obviously I agree with you about immigration reform. I think that's the one that everybody can more or less see.

But I'm extremely skeptical about gun control being a winner for the Democrats. There's a reason that just about every Democratic senator in a close seat voted against it, and support for it has already receded in the polls. Moreover, it's not a high-passion issue for very many moderate voters, and it's too easily refuted if it comes up. (All you have to do is point out that gun show and private background checks wouldn't have made a fig's worth of difference at Sandy Hook, and then discuss the problems with private background checks and people, who by and large oppose increased gun control in general, will lose interest and move on).

I'm not sure if I indicated it strongly enough, but I do completely agree with the second part of your post.

I would contend that the left has been unsuccessful lately because America is still very center-right and there is a finite limit on how far you can push your agenda in a given time. Relatively modest reforms and expansion by European standards is tantamount to communism by American standards.

Also, the left has had a recent tendency to choose losing issues, especially economic issues and gun rights.

@semk - I know that the Republicans are placing the blame on Romney, and it may be very fair. But he did win an enormous percentage of the white male vote. Massive. In the past, that won elections for the Republicans. It no longer does. IMO, it is the message, not the messenger.

I did say that if, IF, the Republicans are perceived as defeating the gun control bill they will get slaughtered over it. The gun control lobby is very powerful and controls many senators on both side of the isle. It may fail and there is enough blame to go around. That will be a Republican win. But if the Democrats back it and the Republicans shoot it down, it will be bad for them.

And once you start talking about the slaughter of kids, people will not want to hear about whether or not these checks or controls would have helped. All they will see is the parents in Washington crying again about their dead babies. That will resonate for a long time.

And again, I truly believe that the Republicans can win. The best thing going for them is Democratic overload. Eight years is enough for most people. If the American public doesn't see a change, they will vote for one.

Jimgov,

I agree about the urgent need to appeal to more than just white people.

I disagree about the importance of the gun control bill, though. This has happened before, and the Democrats always get the relatives to DC, and it has never made any difference. I just don't see why it would start now. The American people are essentially opposed to gun control, most especially in most swing states.

But, it's an interesting claim. We'll see in the long run who's right, I suppose. I just remain unconvinced at this time.

Breaking news - The background check compromise on the gun control bill was shot down in the Senate. Haven't seen the exact vote, but it looks like almost all Republicans against it and almost all Democrats for it. Now lets see what the public has to say.

Yes, I know. That's what I was referring to earlier when I pointed out that almost every Democrat in a close election next year voted against it.

The vote was 54-46.

@semck - BTW, it has been a pleasure discussing this with someone that is level headed and willing to listen. I hope to discuss many more issues with you in the future.

As for "what the public says about it," I was arguing more about what the public DOES about it. For you to be right, the public not only has to be mad, it has to affect their Presidential vote in 2016.