Where does the GOP go from here?

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Chuck Todd was saying yesterday that if the Republicans don't figure out how to reconnect with a broader base, they are going to face every presidential election with the Dems sitting on 242 electoral votes before the contest even starts.

Nate Silver says 285

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...2E52943E2B2B8D




also, lol
@adamkotsko #DoesAnyoneKnowWhereICanFind liberals concern-trolling Republicans on strategies they should use to be competitive again?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The kids will destroy the GOP

READ MORE: http://bit.ly/RmsLSN

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Blart

Nate Silver says 285

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...2E52943E2B2B8D

If that doesn't wake those dopes up, nothing will. Keep in mind that Obama almost won North Carolina. It's actually kind of beautiful and validates the founders' design. In a sense, trusting in the good sense of the American people, the system ensures that extremism can't gain control over all, even if it does take over some states, or even a region. You've got to come to the table and compromise at some point if you wish to garner enough electoral votes to win the highest office.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Out of all the data in the exit polls, nothing should scare Republicans more than the chart above. President Barack Obama won the 18-29-year-old vote 60-37. He lost the 65 and older vote 56-44. Guess who will be around longer?

And for Republicans hoping that young voters would stay home, the opposite happened—in 2008, the 18-29-year-old vote was 18 percent of the total. It was 19 percent this year.

Political science dogma states that partisan preferences get baked in after voting in two elections. I'm not sure I've ever seen a study proving that, but Republicans better hope that conventional wisdom is wrong, because after 2008 and 2012, millennial voters are giving Democrats massive advantages, and they'll need that to change to stay competitive over the long haul.

But this will be particularly hard for the GOP because the youth vote overlaps with another problem demographic for Republicans—non-Anglo voters. Latinos, in particular, are significantly younger than the overal population, but African Americans and Asians are also growing at higher rates than the white vote.



Latinos grew by 15 million between 2000 and 2010, while African Americans and Asians both grew by 4 million. Meanwhile, the white vote grew by a stunningly small 2 million. Asians voted for Obama by a 73-26 margin. Latinos did so by a 71-27 margin. And African Americans did so by a 93-6 margin. Democrats may have only won 39 percent of the White vote, but that's all we need these days.

Smart Republicans will spend the next two years talking about how they need to better appeal to non-white Americans. Problem is, they're a tiny minority in their party. Can they embrace comprehensive immigration reform in the face of their xenophobic wing? Can they suppress their base's racist instincts in order to present a more tolerant facade to millennials? Can they cast aside their anti-gay bigotry and push for equality?

The obvious answer is no. Heck, most of the GOP base don't even consider non-Whites to be "real" Americans! But the winner of that intra-party civil war will determine whether Republicans can remain a viable national party in the cycles to come.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The kids will destroy the GOP

READ MORE: http://bit.ly/RmsLSN

My oldest son (21) and all his buddies voted Green Party, so the Dems have some waking up to do as well.

BTW, Rocky Anderson took in over 35,000 votes.

[Old Dude]

Alec Baldwin: "You know your party is in trouble when they ask you if the "rape guy" won, and you have to ask, "which one?"

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

I don't know... seems like civil rights such as gay marriage (or at least civil unions) is "the" civil rights issue. But I guess now we have to divide and conquer every question for some reason.

I agree, and the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue for almost a decade now. They lost this battle a LONG time ago, but have opted to lose it in SLOOOOOOOOOOW motion.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Blart

The left ignores racial disparity in the enforcement of drug laws? I wonder what the "Fair Sentencing Act" Obama signed was about.



If that's how you think a majority of people will look at a man - in 2012 - who thinks Woolworths had a right to refuse blacks because "founders" and "property!" then by all means, nominate away.

You may be correct - the GOP might go extreme with a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz / Tea Party nomination, but I don't think you represent the current GOP majority. The majority that nominated a moderate, who was once pro-choice, pro-healthcare, and not afraid to work with Democrats.

Some other issues with the Tea Party 2016 idea:

Exit polls showed Tea Party favorability at 21%.

Romney's biggest rise in polls came when Etch-a-Sketched into a moderate in the Denver debate, where he said he'd increase Medicare spending, wouldn't cut taxes on the rich, would force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc. You may be viewing politics from inside a paleocon bubble.

I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I agree, and the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue for almost a decade now. They lost this battle a LONG time ago, but have opted to lose it in SLOOOOOOOOOOW motion.

They're not "opting to lose it in slow motion." They're opting to lose it. Period. They refuse to believe that gay brothers and sisters are PEOPLE.

And yes, it really is that simple.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

They're not "opting to lose it in slow motion." They're opting to lose it. Period. They refuse to believe that gay brothers and sisters are PEOPLE.

And yes, it really is that simple.

This is one thing that really never ceases to amaze me.

A good portion of the GOP are extremely hypocritical.

"Don't tread of me" they say.

But you can sure as hell tell women, gays, pot smokers, and non Christians what they can or cannot do. Until they change these awful attitudes that lead into this hypocrisy and reach out to more Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups, they will not be able to win another election. There just aren't enough christian men and women to make up for it.

The number of Latino's and young people that vote each election cycle will continue to increase, and the GOP better as hell figure out how to come to the middle more to appeal to these groups. Unfortunately, they're so tied to the evangelicals that it is going to be really tough.

But if you ask Fox News or its viewers, it was because Chris Christie said something nice about Obama, Hurricane Sandy helped the dirty liberals, and the dirty liberal media influenced viewers overwhelmingly by failing to criticize Obama.. ever. It had nothing to do with the lacking appeal to independents like myself, Latinos, African Americans, Women and other minority groups whatsoever right?

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

If you want to get even less of a growing minority, Rand Paul is the answer. It will be Jindal in 2016, who is at least sane. The Dems, who knows...

Rand Paul, I could tolerate. Jindal, no thanks.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Dexter

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

There is also a pretty big difference between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible, IMO. I wholly reject the idea that democrats cannot be fiscally responsible...a look at Bill Clinton's two terms shows that, and obviously we'll never know what kind of policies Obama would have sought to put in place had his hand not been forced with the bailouts, etc? Of course the point may be moot anyhow, considering that a large part of the reason he was elected in the first place was to clean up after Bush.

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Every one I've known, if given a choice between, say, spending money to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, and lowering taxes, they take the money every time. To me, social issues should almost always come before fiscal issues.

Again I'm not saying all libertarians are like this, but the 5 or 6 I know have that opinion.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by houghtam

There is also a pretty big difference between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible, IMO. I wholly reject the idea that democrats cannot be fiscally responsible...a look at Bill Clinton's two terms shows that, and obviously we'll never know what kind of policies Obama would have sought to put in place had his hand not been forced with the bailouts, etc? Of course the point may be moot anyhow, considering that a large part of the reason he was elected in the first place was to clean up after Bush.

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Every one I've known, if given a choice between, say, spending money to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, and lowering taxes, they take the money every time. To me, social issues should almost always come before fiscal issues.

Again I'm not saying all libertarians are like this, but the 5 or 6 I know have that opinion.

Oh, I completely agree with you

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Dexter

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

That would be an impossibly hard sell. Red state voters are about as socially conservative (the exact opposite of social libertarianism) as it gets.

The red staters who vote GOP already embrace libertarian economic philosophy, which is about as extreme as it gets (Ayn Rand is the model.)

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

That would be an impossibly hard sell. Red state voters are about as socially conservative (the exact opposite of social libertarianism) as it gets.

The red staters who vote GOP already embrace libertarian economic philosophy, which is about as extreme as it gets (Ayn Rand is the model.)

Yeah, totally. Cuz freedom is really only safe when it's locked in the bedroom.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

Really?

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were all kings of deficit spending and those are the idols the current GOP prays to.

The days of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are over. Those republicans are long gone. Now fiscal conservatism is nothing but a talking point, and when office they rush to flood money into corporate coffers via military expansionism, massive tax cuts, and irresponsible gov't. contracts.

At this point the mature path towards fiscal stability as a nation is an "all of the above" approach that Obama is currently championing. He is more of a fiscal hawk than the vast majority of the current GOP.

And if we see Schweitzer run in 2016, a dem governor from Montana who took the state's historic average of $50M annual surpluses and turned them into $400M annual surpluses, that argument is going to get a LOT harder for the GOP to make.

The democratic party is already moving at a healthy clip into true social liberalism. If people like Obama, Schweitzer, and Bill Clinton have their way the party will reign in government spending quite effectively in the near term.

What does that leave for the GOP who right now can't stop talking about abortion, rattling sabers towards Iran, and giving fiscal reform ideas that consist of closing down entire branches of the government (DoE, EPA, etc.)?

Not much.

If Obama strikes a deal with Boehner before the fiscal cliff he's going to go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time and will galvanize the U.S. in a way like we haven't seen since FDR. That was a 36 year period with only 8 with a republican POTUS who was the supreme commander in Europe for WWII and was such a moderate that he actually expanded New Deal programs and launched the highway system.

The only path to relevance the GOP has, as far as I can see it, is Neo-Confederacy. They need to throw out the party platform and start over with one centered on state's rights across the board on social issues. That is how they can appease the base without completely scorching the earth with moderates. Gay marriage? If your state wants to allow it. Legal dope? If your state wants to allow it. States get to pick their social stances and with 50 states you can bet that one of them will meet your personal views.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Taco John

The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward.

Wow. To believe the first comment begs the question as to whether or not you've been paying attention to politics over the last several years. The GOP, in its current state, winning a race to the center? And being fiscally conservative? That's laugh out loud funny stuff right there. And then "the question" you reference in your second point? I think the answer to it is rather clear right now. Think about it. You'd expect 2008 would've woken the party up. 2012 proves that it clearly didn't.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Wow. To believe the first comment begs the question as to whether or not you've been paying attention to politics over the last several years. The GOP, in its current state, winning a race to the center? And being fiscally conservative? That's laugh out loud funny stuff right there. And then "the question" you reference in your second point? I think the answer to it is rather clear right now. Think about it. You'd expect 2008 would've woken the party up. 2012 proves that it clearly didn't.

Republicans have trouble living up to their ideals, true. But it's not hard to see why. Spending is easy. Cutting is hard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Republicans have trouble living up to their ideals, true. But it's not hard to see why. Spending is easy. Cutting is hard.

You're right, it's easy to see why.

They're ****ing hypocrites. The lot of em.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

You're right, it's easy to see why.

They're ****ing hypocrites. The lot of em.

This.

Today's GOP is nothing more than organized crime.

Republicans' use the power of government to siphon the contents of the treasury into the coffers of banksters, fat cat corporations, oil companies, war profiteers, and Wall Street grifters.

Can you think of the last time republicans did anything for working people or the middle class?

[TonyR]

...too many conservatives believed their own propaganda. This is what it’s like to live in a cocoon. The apparent inability to appreciate why any sane person might contemplate voting for Barack Obama is evidence of, well, of the closing of the conservative mind.

Hence the recourse to fantasies of the sort that leave the average, sober-minded voter wondering just what kind of crazy juice you’re hooked on. Obama wants to make the United States a kind of France? Check. Obama wants to crush religious liberty in America? Check. Our colleges are indoctrinating yet another generation of sadly-impressionable young American minds? Check. (Bonus: perhaps it would be better and certainly safer if fewer Americans risked going to college!) There is a War Against Americanism and Barack Obama is the enemy general? Check. The media are hoodwinking poor, gullible Americans? Check. Universal healthcare is the road to serfdom? Check. The people, damn them, are too stupid to know any better and deserve what they get? The fools. Check.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-ma...stemic-closure

[bombay]

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone:

There's been a lot of hand-wringing among conservatives of the Rush/Hannity school in the last few days, a lot of concern about this outreach question, and honestly, the tone of the discussion is beginning to sound like the last days of a failed 1950s marriage. The husband who's gone all day at work comes home and throws his hands up in the air in mock frustration: what do you want from me, another Cadillac? Another fur coat? I just got you new shoes last week!

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen to her, or take a day off work sometime and take her for a drive in the country, or make some spontaneous show of affection, maybe popping home for lunch like in the old days – just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse, because in his very manner of asking her what's wrong, all hubby does is reveal that he thinks of his wife entirely as a nagging, financial parasite who's always on his ass about something.


Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.


But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.


It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues.

Exactly.

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.

I do, however, see right-Libertarians fighting for privatized highways and corporate rights.

What about voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and religion taking over politics? I see the left fighting, but am waiting on those socially liberal/fiscal conservative folks to join.


Libertarians are more likely to apologize for social abuses.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises, after Mussolini seized Italy.