Isn't it part of the first amendment that different opinions are allowed? That's why there will never will be a time when everyone is a Democrat; or everyone is a Republican. This has been going on since the founding of the country.
Every once in a while Rush has an interesting insight. Read one of the transcripts yesterday, and he posed: when Dems lose an election do they ever run around saying that they should change their position on this issue or that issue? When the Dems got whacked in the mid-terms, what was Obama's reaction? He said he had not "told the story right."
When certain voter groups will throw all their values to the wind to worship one individual, are those votes that any Republican can get? Many blacks and Latinos strongly disagree with gay marriage and abortion, yet they still supported Obama in the election ... even though it's on his record that he not only is in favor of abortion, but also voted in favor of 3rd trimester abortions and for allowing babies who survived late-term abortions die. I can't buy into the fact that those groups voted against R's because of of those two social issues, if they are willing to vote FOR someone who would stand there an watch a baby die. I simply do not believe that they are really aware of where Obama stood on that. Once those babies survive, they are protected by our Constitution; not according to Obama's voting record.
Surely immigration reform is needed, but if amnesty didn't work for Reagan ... it just resulted in even more illegal immigration later, then why should R's embrace amnesty just to please one minority group? (who will likely find another reason to vote Dem)
For every vote they might possibly gain, they will lose, I think, at least the same number. A third party might actually become a reality if the R's become indistinguishable from the D's. Maybe they already have? Maybe Libertarians will finally get their "fair shot"? Too many reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul ... but I could vote for Rand