Republican party is DOOOOOoooooommmed....

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Again, with only two weeks since the loss, it's much too soon to have some sort of plan. You can tell from the language they use that they REALLY thought they were going to win this thing. They weren't paying attention to poll numbers, weren't looking at the ground game correctly, and as they often do, were living in their own world. That's not to say they won't try and come up with something. But not yet. They need to get over the shock still and regroup and that takes time.

I don't think they thought they were going to win...notice many of the 'top' choices didn't even run...in case you didn't catch the earlier republican debates, there was a mormon with no personality or any traits that would allow anyone making under 5 mil a year to relate to, a candidate with ideals so off the wall he would offend Jesus himself, a lady who suggested vaccines are linked with autism, a guy who could not remember the name of three federal departments, a man who originally left politics due to an ethics scandal, and a pizza owner (without any sort of government experience). This was not a strong crowd and most republicans never thought much of any of the candidates (for good reason). The two best republican candidates left because they were nominated by other parties (with more realistic social views). I am pretty sure both republicans and democrats could look at polls and tell Obama had a greater than 50% approval rating and that defeating him would be difficult based on the laws of probabilities and statistics. Perhaps Mitt Romney thought he was going to win, but I don't think many other people did. Most republicans I know forecasted his loss prior to him even being declared the candidate, especially because it was known that Obama would win a few 'historically' red areas. Most republicans I know couldn't even relate to him...

And too soon to organize? It's never too soon to organize! Do you remember back when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had a wedge the size of Texas between them? In a matter of days, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama buried the hatchet and got down to business...so I think a lot can happen in a short amount of time. Moving Bobby Jindal to a head position is a good start, strategically speaking.

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

I can speak for my own family in Ohio. My parents have always been hardcore Republican. But they also have a gay son. My parents called me on election day to say they voted for Obama, because the GOP stance on gay rights was something they could not deal with.

Now, you may say the election was close, but these are the very things that will continue to cost the GOP votes. People are done with the GOP getting into people's bedrooms.

Get the GOP off the their moral high horse, and they might win.

And that leads to the next point. The GOP HAS to adopt a more reasonable stance on gay marriage because more than half of Americans support gay marriage and this figure increases every year because not only younger persons are generally in favor of gay marriage but the values of older persons are changing as well.

Dick Cheney himself, formally opposed to gay marriage, was in my state which was voting on gay marriage. But he was here lobbying in SUPPORT of it and I am happy to say it passed.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Numbers don’t lie. 95% of African Americans voted for Obama and it’s mainly due to race. 95% is HUGE!

If you bothered to look at the numbers from prior elections you would realize that African Americans have for many years voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate. This is not something unique to Obama.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by NickZac

And that leads to the next point. The GOP HAS to adopt a more reasonable stance on gay marriage because more than half of Americans support gay marriage and this figure increases every year because not only younger persons are generally in favor of gay marriage but the values of older persons are changing as well.

Dick Cheney himself, formally opposed to gay marriage, was in my state which was voting on gay marriage. But he was here lobbying in SUPPORT of it and I am happy to say it passed.

Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter who married a few months ago. I doubt he really had any issues with it at a personal level. He's just a politician. Around the Gulf War era he opposed the idea of invading Iraq. Many of these positions were most likely politically motivated. I would be truly surprised if more than a few politicians still opposed gay marriage on a personal level, and it really annoys me that some of them waste time and resources in their attempts to block it.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by thekev

Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter who married a few months ago. I doubt he really had any issues with it at a personal level. He's just a politician. Around the Gulf War era he opposed the idea of invading Iraq. Many of these positions were most likely politically motivated. I would be truly surprised if more than a few politicians still opposed gay marriage on a personal level, and it really annoys me that some of them waste time and resources in their attempts to block it.

I am aware of Cheney's daughter. My point is that times (and people) are changing and it is time for the GOP to change with it.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I am aware of Cheney's daughter. My point is that times (and people) are changing and it is time for the GOP to change with it.

I agree. I kind of wonder what percentage of their base still cares who gets married. It shouldn't have even been an issue of debate in the last election. I'd like to see politics move past that point.

[Prof.]

Originally Posted by thekev

I agree. I kind of wonder what percentage of their base still cares who gets married. It shouldn't have even been an issue of debate in the last election. I'd like to see politics move past that point.

This is at the national level... The taller chart is from july 2012, keep in mind attitudes on gay marriage have improved greatly since then.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Dick Cheney himself, formally opposed to gay marriage, was in my state which was voting on gay marriage. But he was here lobbying in SUPPORT of it and I am happy to say it passed.

Following the long, long line of GOP members that only come to the right conclusion once it effects them in their own personal lives.

It's amazing how empathy only occurs when the subject is directly in front of their noses....

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Good riddance. To make it clear to some of you that quoted me. Im not brain washed by the Republican Party. I made no excuses to a Romney loss. As far as Obama winning by a land slide, I wouldn’t go too far with that theory. Swing states vote numbers, Obama’s 22,731,920 to Romney’s 21,011,214 popular vote. Those numbers are very close. Moyank24, How am acting like a spoiled kid? I didn’t insult anyone who voted for Obama. It seems to me you don’t want me to state my opinion because I voted for the other candidate Yes Obama won the women’s vote. Obama also won 60% of Latinos and 95% of African Americans votes. Most of them I’m sure really don’t know what Obama has done during his 4 years in office. IMO they voted manly due to race then who’s actually fit for the job. Eh, 4 years will come and go. I think everyone needs to start paying attention to a Republican Senator named Rand Paul. I know I will.

wow. just wow. pot meet kettle much?

Did the women also vote because of race? Or did they vote because of the woman candidate?

[thekev]

Originally Posted by Prof.

This is at the national level... The taller chart is from july 2012, keep in mind attitudes on gay marriage have improved greatly since then.

That's interesting. I didn't think the crossover would have happened so late.

[Prof.]

Originally Posted by thekev

That's interesting. I didn't think the crossover would have happened so late.

I think elected officials coming out in support of same-sex marriage, Obama in particular, really helped spur things along.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Yes Obama won the women’s vote. Obama also won 60% of Latinos and 95% of African Americans votes. Most of them I’m sure really don’t know what Obama has done during his 4 years in office. IMO they voted manly due to race then who’s actually fit for the job.

Funny, I heard a lot more rational thought come from left voters than right ones. I can't count how many right wingers I heard constantly saying things like "We need to get rid of these record-high taxes!" or "The economy is much worse than it was 4 years ago!" or "Gas prices are soooo much higher than they were during Bush!". All mostly false statements. Most of my right-wing friends would never consider voting for anything other than a Republican candidate. Yet, they couldn't even get their facts straight.

This is a paraphrased conversation I had with a friend:
Her: "Why are you voting for Obama?? I don't want to pay for low life people who rely on government and he supports that!"
Me: "Didn't you JUST say five minutes ago that you were so happy that you just got approved for Medicaid?"
Her: "Yeah, but that's because I can't afford normal insurance right now."
Me: "So wouldn't you say that this program is helping you greatly."
Her: "I don't know. What about taxes?? They are so high right now! They are killing business!!"
Me: "Ummm...taxes are near their lowest levels ever right now."
Her: "OK...well, there have been so many jobs lost under Obama!!"
Me: "The unemployment rate has gone down. Not as fast as it should, but it's gone down, and more jobs have been created than lost."
Her: "Oh...ummm."

A lot of misinformation out there. I voted for Obama, and I know exactly what I was voting for.

[Dmunjal]

I think this stat is the most telling with regards to taxes. Obama won the under $50k vote and Romney won the over $50k vote.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/res...ent#exit-polls

[Jackintosh]

Doomed. When finally that old, white, rascist Republican Party mired in the 19th century finally dies off, a new generation will take over and forge ahead in a new bright light. We're seeing the beginning of that process in the last election.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by thekev

I agree. I kind of wonder what percentage of their base still cares who gets married. It shouldn't have even been an issue of debate in the last election. I'd like to see politics move past that point.

It's at the point...I mean, sooner or later you have to stop and question, "what am I accomplishing by making someone else's life difficult who has done absolutely nothing to me?". As far as I am concerned, it is an ethical issue that then leads into the financial issue of why marriage is being defended...there is clearly no need to defend marriage or divert federal funds to enforcing 'acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' marriages. I cannot see how gay marriage can threaten non-gay marriage. It clearly is not a national security issue. It isn't going to impact the economy (well, unless you do weddings which it would probably impact you positively, but you get my point). Let's all just come to an equal rights agreement and move on to other issues. Other countries did this years ago and we all know that there are a ton of issues that need attention.

----------

Originally Posted by NT1440

Following the long, long line of GOP members that only come to the right conclusion once it effects them in their own personal lives.

It's amazing how empathy only occurs when the subject is directly in front of their noses....

I am hoping this changes in that people are able to expand their worldview, and I hope that Mr. Cheney continues to advocate gay marriage, as he is an influential conservative and the talking points I've heard him make were good arguments to explain why marriage equality should be part of conservative viewpoints. And if we look at other countries, many conservative parties embrace marriage equality wholeheartedly.

[APlotdevice]

^ To be fair "conservatives" in most other countries would be considered moderates in the United States. And conversely our "liberals" are their moderates.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I don't think they thought they were going to win...notice many of the 'top' choices didn't even run...in case you didn't catch the earlier republican debates, there was a mormon with no personality or any traits that would allow anyone making under 5 mil a year to relate to, a candidate with ideals so off the wall he would offend Jesus himself, a lady who suggested vaccines are linked with autism, a guy who could not remember the name of three federal departments, a man who originally left politics due to an ethics scandal, and a pizza owner (without any sort of government experience). This was not a strong crowd and most republicans never thought much of any of the candidates (for good reason).

I'm WELL aware of who was running. I watched every single minute of every single debate. And yes, while I agree with you that the ones who DIDN'T run thought their party would lose, the ones that ran, especially the one that won the primary, DID think they would win. So did the people that were backing him for President. So did the right wing media. So did many voters. It's all THOSE people whom I am talking about when I say they need to get over the shock. The RNC, the right wing media, and the super pacs allowed themselves to believe that hey...we might be able to win after all. They totally talked themselves into it. So they were utterly shell shocked when reality hit them upside the head.

And too soon to organize? It's never too soon to organize! Do you remember back when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had a wedge the size of Texas between them? In a matter of days, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama buried the hatchet and got down to business...so I think a lot can happen in a short amount of time. Moving Bobby Jindal to a head position is a good start, strategically speaking.

It's too soon to organize when you are still in shock and a little bit of grief. It's also too soon to organize when there is a split in the party and there isn't a real true direction yet. It will be chaos for awhile....not organization.

And that leads to the next point. The GOP HAS to adopt a more reasonable stance on gay marriage because more than half of Americans support gay marriage and this figure increases every year because not only younger persons are generally in favor of gay marriage but the values of older persons are changing as well.

Problem is, their right wing base won't let them. They cannot win a primary right now and be all pro gay. That isn't going to happen. Someday? Yes. Now? No. Which is one reason they are in a bind.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I'm WELL aware of who was running. I watched every single minute of every single debate. And yes, while I agree with you that the ones who DIDN'T run thought their party would lose, the ones that ran, especially the one that won the primary, DID think they would win. So did the people that were backing him for President. So did the right wing media. So did many voters. It's all THOSE people whom I am talking about when I say they need to get over the shock. The RNC, the right wing media, and the super pacs allowed themselves to believe that hey...we might be able to win after all. They totally talked themselves into it. So they were utterly shell shocked when reality hit them upside the head.

It's too soon to organize when you are still in shock and a little bit of grief. It's also too soon to organize when there is a split in the party and there isn't a real true direction yet. It will be chaos for awhile....not organization.

Problem is, their right wing base won't let them. They cannot win a primary right now and be all pro gay. That isn't going to happen. Someday? Yes. Now? No. Which is one reason they are in a bind.

I would not expect them to reach a serious level of organization anytime soon. I meant in that they are organizing, and, as you note, organizing through a bit of chaos. The GOP has largely used the Christian Right to their advantage. But this group is shrinking, as data suggests that religiosity in America is declining, and as older voters die out, someone has to replace them. Younger persons are known for being more socially progressive and they look at an issue like marriage equality as very important. This includes conservatives. As someone on the moderate to conservative side, I think marriage equality is very, very important given we are a country that prides ourselves in freedom. In fact, I think most civil rights issues are of the utmost important and that ensuring equity and equality across the board should be something we strive for as a country. And many younger conservatives do, which partially explains the rapid growth of the libertarian party. Perhaps not overnight, but in due time, the GOP will have to convince these younger persons with more progressive views towards equality to vote for them, and 'defending' marriage isn't going to cut it. And I look forward to that day.

[63dot]

GOP hit a low point when it came to the Senate and White House. If they were doomed, they would be have destroyed in races for the House. I think their absolute low point in recent years was in 2008 with McCain-Palin and they have slightly improved though they are running a distant second.

When things swing the other direction they will probably have a pretty good 2016 but I still expect the democrats to show better in midterm elections in 2014. It's an 8-12 year cycle where one party is in a slightly better position than the other.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by 63dot

GOP hit a low point when it came to the Senate and White House. If they were doomed, they would be have destroyed in races for the House. I think their absolute low point in recent years was in 2008 with McCain-Palin and they have slightly improved though they are running a distant second.

They were destroyed in terms of actual voting numbers. The only reason Republicans were able to hold on to the House was that they gerrymandered the districts in numerous states heavily in their favor.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by NickZac

It's at the point...I mean, sooner or later you have to stop and question, "what am I accomplishing by making someone else's life difficult who has done absolutely nothing to me?". As far as I am concerned, it is an ethical issue that then leads into the financial issue of why marriage is being defended...

The gay marriage issue goes deeper than that. It was really a non-issue about ten years ago, the the Republican party started making big noise about it to give their people the fear and get them to the polls to defend traditional values. It was a smokescreen to cover the putrescence that pervaded their platform, not a real issue at the time. So their dog turned on them, became a real issue, broke free and came back around to bite them in the fleshy parts. They played with a dangerous toy and it blew up their faces, they deserve what they got, deserve to be refudiated, deserve humiliation for trying to distract us from the smell of their mountain.

Now comes the question: what will they learn? Anything? Will they decide that they failed by not being conservative enough, that it is again time to double down on the crazy and hope it rolls their way this time? It would certainly not surprise me, as "conservative" tends to mean literally the opposite of learning and adapting.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Sydde

The gay marriage issue goes deeper than that. It was really a non-issue about ten years ago, the the Republican party started making big noise about it to give their people the fear and get them to the polls to defend traditional values. It was a smokescreen to cover the putrescence that pervaded their platform, not a real issue at the time. So their dog turned on them, became a real issue, broke free and came back around to bite them in the fleshy parts. They played with a dangerous toy and it blew up their faces, they deserve what they got, deserve to be refudiated, deserve humiliation for trying to distract us from the smell of their mountain.

Now comes the question: what will they learn? Anything? Will they decide that they failed by not being conservative enough, that it is again time to double down on the crazy and hope it rolls their way this time? It would certainly not surprise me, as "conservative" tends to mean literally the opposite of learning and adapting.

I disagree. I think it is much easier than that. There is a misunderstanding of conservative in a governmental sense and conservative in a religious sense. They are not the same but are often confused. One is more focused on lesser government, and the other on enforcing moral norms derived from religion. In many ways, this makes a social quagmire given traditional conservative views oppose moral regulation on the grounds that it is another place that government intrudes and dictates to people how they should live, which is exactly what conservative governmental views rally against. So this makes a push-pull and as of right now, religious views have trumped traditional conservative government views.

The republican party gets power from the Christian Right and so they have adopted values that are not in line with conservative values but religious ones. As far as "fear" goes, traditional conservative values include a strong fear of government which is too powerful, which includes moral regulation that is commonly seen. As a moderate-conservative, I am very fearful that we have a government that is trying to tell us who we can and cannot marry, as I don't think government was intended to have nor do I think it should have that power. So in that sense, yes, they need to be more conservative, but conservative government and not religion.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I disagree. I think it is much easier than that. There is a misunderstanding of conservative in a governmental sense and conservative in a religious sense. They are not the same but are often confused. One is more focused on lesser government, and the other on enforcing moral norms derived from religion. In many ways, this makes a social quagmire given traditional conservative views oppose moral regulation on the grounds that it is another place that government intrudes and dictates to people how they should live, which is exactly what conservative governmental views rally against. So this makes a push-pull and as of right now, religious views have trumped traditional conservative government views.

The republican party gets power from the Christian Right and so they have adopted values that are not in line with conservative values but religious ones. As far as "fear" goes, traditional conservative values include a strong fear of government which is too powerful, which includes moral regulation that is commonly seen. As a moderate-conservative, I am very fearful that we have a government that is trying to tell us who we can and cannot marry, as I don't think government was intended to have nor do I think it should have that power. So in that sense, yes, they need to be more conservative, but conservative government and not religion.

While that's nice sentiment, and I agree with you on a certain level, but the GOP in reality started this panic about gay marriage after Lawrence v Texas. That really got their panties in a bunch and that's when they started screaming about the "threat" of gay people being able to marry. We were all sitting around saying WTF? We had to react to that and we did. That's when the movement really had to start pushing for equal marriage rights. This was clearly the turning point, because the religious right made it very clear they were coming after us.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...6-30-11.0.html

some evangelical leaders are critical of both the Texas law and the Supreme Court's decision.
"I do not oppose sexual freedom for homosexuals, but I worry about the slippery slope" created by the decision, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, told Christianity Today. "If this were simply a decision that said we are going to strike from the books all state laws that prohibit genital intimacy between persons of the same sex, then we wouldn't be deeply frightened or offended by that. But this seems to be not the last item on the agenda of a movement that wants to undermine traditional notions of family."
Mouw says antisodomy laws, which exist in 12 states other than Texas, are "an expression of legitimate concerns" that are unrealistic, unworkable, "and probably not just" in a pluralistic society. But the Supreme Court's reasoning, he said, sets a dangerous precedent. "Having abandoned the notion that the state has an interest in strong marriages, what that leaves us is anything goes, as long as it's consensual." He believes Christians should "focus not on overturning the decision, but on defending the traditional definition of marriage as a healthy foundation."
Ronald J. Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, agrees. "I'm certain the gay lobby will use this to push for homosexual marriage; we need to say no," he told CT. But neither should Christians rush to reimplement antisodomy laws, he says. "I do not think we should use the force of the law to punish people who engage in homosexual sex," he said. "This may be a good time to put more energy into the Federal Marriage Amendment—not because we think this decision is wrong, but because other people will use it in a way that is not wholly logical."
Actually, it's perfectly logical, says Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship. "If the Court is logical and consistent—and thank God they often aren't—then it's only a matter of time before the taboos and legal prohibitions against incest, polygamy, and bestiality fall," he says at his Breakpoint website. He also takes issue with the court's argument that the Texas law discriminates against homosexuals. "Of course the law discriminates," says. "It's supposed to. It's supposed to discriminate between good and bad; what is sound public policy and what is not, what is good for the common weal. That's what legislation does."
Sounding the alarm?


Several religious and profamily organizations issued statements calling the Supreme Court decision a national turning point toward depravity.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by leekohler

While that's nice sentiment, and I agree with you on a certain level, but the GOP in reality started this panic about gay marriage after Lawrence v Texas. That really got their panties in a bunch and that's when they started screaming about the "threat" of gay people being able to marry. We were all sitting around saying WTF? We had to react to that and we did. That's when the movement really had to start pushing for equal marriage rights. This was clearly the turning point, because the religious right made it very clear they were coming after us.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...6-30-11.0.html

But that is my point. It isn't conservatives. It's the Religious Right. There are conservative groups in the US (and in Europe) who have long accepted and embraced marriage equality. In reality, if gay people are allowed to marry nation-wide, it will have almost zero effect on non-gay people, it will have zero affect on government, and it will have zero affect on the everyday world other than the specific persons getting married. The Religious Right has made such a big stink that you could compare the 'gay scare' they have made to the Y2K panic given it is nothing but false fear.

But as the Religious Right dies off, tactics will have to change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1777031.html
In not too long, that is a niche market that will have bitten the dust.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by NickZac

But that is my point. It isn't conservatives. It's the Religious Right. There are conservative groups in the US (and in Europe) who have long accepted and embraced marriage equality. In reality, if gay people are allowed to marry nation-wide, it will have almost zero effect on non-gay people, it will have zero affect on government, and it will have zero affect on the everyday world other than the specific persons getting married. The Religious Right has made such a big stink that you could compare the 'gay scare' they have made to the Y2K panic given it is nothing but false fear.

But as the Religious Right dies off, tactics will have to change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1777031.html
In not too long, that is a niche market that will have bitten the dust.

Don't ignore history. We are at a very delicate place right now. All it would take is one more thing like an AIDS scare, and we will be back at square one, if not worse. I've seen things go backwards before in the Reagan 80's. It's happening in Russia right now. Do not, under any circumstances, underestimate the religious right. They're like a cornered animal right now, ready to strike.

I want to believe we're almost there, but I'm also very afraid it's too good to be true.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I disagree. I think it is much easier than that. There is a misunderstanding of conservative in a governmental sense and conservative in a religious sense....

The problem is, you and a hundred of your pals do not get to decide what "conservative" means. You can expound all you want on what (you think) it should mean, but if the Republicans decide to use the term to reach the broadest spread of their base, your conservative aesthetic get plowed under by their bulldozer. These expansive labels are only useful for creating a convenient line of division across the country – rouge v. blaue – that obscures the subtleties of all our approaches in favor of non-productive contentiousness. So, arguing about what "conservative" does and/or should mean is worse than pointless.