Republican party is DOOOOOoooooommmed....

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Sydde

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.

The republican party cannot define or dictate what "conservative" means any more than they can dictate what "marriage" means...unless you are implying that if the republican party attempts to dictate a norm or define a concept that we should accept it, which I would wholeheartedly disagree with.

Most republicans really don't know that much about conservatism. If you don't believe me, as them and see what they say. Conservatism in the United States originates from Thomas Jefferson and has some commonalities with the (recently departed) English government. It does not originate from the totalitarian moral views you see in the republican party. The concept of "organic moral order" originates from the 1940-50s. It's meaning today has largely been misinterpreted to mean enforcement of social norms, which it does not and the concept of conservative has been bastardized into a hybrid of religious (mainly Christianity) moral enforcement.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Y2K panic

To be fair if software hadn't been updated in time, this would have actually happened.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

To be fair if software hadn't been updated in time, this would have actually happened.

Fair enough but you get my point.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Fair enough but you get my point.

I still +1'd your point .

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by eric/

If they dropped anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and ran on pro-state rights, they'd win the next presidential election. Many people actually are for smaller government, but simply can't vote republican based on social issues.

As it stands, they republican party (not the people who vote that way or anything) is incompetent and refuses to acknowledge or admit to being wrong on social issues and instead resorts to blaming Obama for "gifting minorities" instead of actually acknowledging what their platform used to be all about (See goldwater, paul, etc...).

I don't think anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage is something they can just drop.

When the democratic party became more liberal on the issue of abortion and later homosexuality 30-40 years ago they effectively alienated a good portion of their religious support (especially amongst evangelicals). I believe that leaders in the Republican party saw an opportunity to scoop up a very loyal voting block. I don't think the Republican leadership back then really cared about abortion but evangelicals were a tempting demographic so they made it their issue.

But fast forward 30 years, the evangelicals have become the the parties base. Not only that the old guard is disappearing and those stepping in aren't playing Christian for the evangelical vote, they are true believers.

Rick Santorum did better than anyone expected during the primaries, despite his lack of funding, despite the fact that the conservative media machine (IE Fox News) did their best to ignore the guy. Sure this was partly because of Romney's flip floppy conservative history, but I think the biggest issue here was the support of the religious base.

Evangelicals make up a little over 20% of the US population, and they vote overwhelmingly for the Republican party 70-80%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16519/us-...walk-walk.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...publican_Party

Rick Santorum mostly did well because he appealed to WASP's (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). And these people make up almost 50% of the Republican party, and more than that they're probably the most active members of the party. Nothing gets out the voters like the wrath of god.

The Republican party can't just set aside the issue of abortion and gay marriage. Don't you recall that during this election this base was literally chasing out Romney's staffers because they were/are gay? This issue really matters to these people.

If the Republican party attempts to ignore these issues they will lose these voters to religious third party candidates, in other words they'll lose their base, their unshakable core. They might recover some of the socially liberal fiscally conservative members who've gone over to Libertarians but Gary Johnson only took 1% of the vote this election, so they'll be trading their 20% evangelical base for 1% of fiscal conservatives and hoping to pull in some democrats?

I think the Republican's parties only real hope is to somehow make themselves much more appealing to the ever growing Latino population. But that's much easier said than done. Once again they've spent years manipulating their bases sense of victim hood at the hands of immigrants to bring out voters. They've also put themselves behind laws which are hugely discriminatory. And on top of all that American Latinos rank health care as the most important issue to them (and they support Obama care 6 to 4).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...spanic-voters/

So it's likely to be an up hill battle, the one thing going for them is that the Latino population is actually often highly religious, and fairly conservative.

The youth are voting more than ever, thanks (I believe) to the internet it's become easier and easier for the youth to vote, and the youth vote pretty overwhelmingly liberal.

This year I voted by absentee ballot, and I was able to get everything I needed just by downloading a few forms and mailing a letter. It might not seem like a huge deal but being able to get everything you need off the internet makes a big difference. Also our exponentially increased access to communication tools makes ride sharing and other small but integral components to getting out to vote much easier.

Finally if you wan't to pull people into the Republican party by claiming fiscal conservatism you're going to have a hard time getting anyone whose actually paying attention. The Republican party has consistently since Reagan been responsible for the worst debt increases in our history (by percentage). He was personally responsible for more than doubling the debt.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

Now you can talk about how Obama has added more than any other president if you wan't but I don't and I won't buy it. I care about the percentages, and every single recent Republican has been worse than every single Democrat.

Republicans might call themselves fiscally conservative, but the data calls them liars.

TL;DR:

The Republican party is in big trouble all their support is fragmented and their potential moves stand in opposition to each other.

Become more socially liberal (abortion/homosexuality etc.) --> Alienate the base.

Cater to growing immigrant and minority population --> Alienate base, and likely be forced to deviate from fiscally conservative policies (particularly heath care).

On top of that they're facing an increasingly active youth vote. And their claims of fiscal conservatism don't stand up to scrutiny.

They're caught in a real catch 22

[63dot]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

TL;DR:

The Republican party is in big trouble all their support is fragmented and their potential moves stand in opposition to each other.

Become more socially liberal (abortion/homosexuality etc.) --> Alienate the base.

Cater to growing immigrant and minority population --> Alienate base, and likely be forced to deviate from fiscally conservative policies (particularly heath care).

On top of that they're facing an increasingly active youth vote. And their claims of fiscal conservatism don't stand up to scrutiny.

They're caught in a real catch 22

America is becoming more liberal and the GOP has to move that way, too. I don't think there is a danger of alienating the ultra conservative base because just like they voted for a man in the cult of Mormonism (as many believe), they will go with a liberal republican any day over any sort of democrat.

By moving to the left, the GOP can get at least some of the youth vote.

Also cater to minorities because conservative white people will still vote GOP over the dems.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by 63dot

America is becoming more liberal and the GOP has to move that way, too. I don't think there is a danger of alienating the ultra conservative base because just like they voted for a man in the cult of Mormonism (as many believe), they will go with a liberal republican any day over any sort of democrat.

By moving to the left, the GOP can get at least some of the youth vote.

Also cater to minorities because conservative white people will still vote GOP over the dems.

Easier said than done. The problem is that a cadidate has to first win in the primaries, which many states only allow party members to vote in. Thus Republican candidates must first appeal to the existing Republican base before they ever have a chance to compete in a general election.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

Easier said than done. The problem is that a cadidate has to first win in the primaries, which many states only allow party members to vote in. Thus Republican candidates must first appeal to the existing Republican base before they ever have a chance to compete in a general election.

The GOP overwhelmingly took Romney because they knew that the best bet was a moderate. Santorum, a very distant second place, was so much the spokesperson for the right wing of the GOP but the party knew there was no way he could beat a sitting democratic president with already at least half the country solidly behind him. The only way for the GOP to get even a small percentage of the large independent block of voters is to go moderate (and for both parties).

It's already a precedent with both McCain and Romney, representing two presidential GOP runs, to go with a moderate. Had an ultra-conservative run in either election, they wouldn't crack 150 electoral votes. The GOP would have possibly lost Indiana, North Carolina (2012), Arizona, both Dakotas, and some other states had they went with a social conservative. Perhaps (some) of the south would take a Huckabee, Keyes, or Santorum, but America in general would easily take a moderate Obama. The GOP did lose both elections but played for the most possible votes in those moderate and center-right swing states. Had I been a GOP strategist, I would have also pushed for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

For the GOP to get traction in 2016, a smart bet would be a more moderate packaged Santorum or a Chris Chistie. They would shoot themselves in the foot and be guaranteed a stunning loss if they go with Huckabee (if he decides to run again) or a Sarah Palin. That being said, those two far right wingers would do better than one who doesn't show as well on camera. Both Huckabee and Palin, though their ideas are now way out of touch with America, do have good camera presences. Both can say stuff on FOX and get commentators to agree with them and nobody on that network dare try to take them down since the lightning rod statements the right uses to lodge a campaign often comes from those two. Whatever Huckabee decides in his mind to stand on, the religious right won't question him since he is a minister first and politician second. Palin could embarrass the GOP all day long, but she's still a poster child for the far right and FOX generally sees that she can do no wrong, no matter how much Bill O'Reilly can't stand her!

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by 63dot

America is becoming more liberal and the GOP has to move that way, too. I don't think there is a danger of alienating the ultra conservative base because just like they voted for a man in the cult of Mormonism (as many believe), they will go with a liberal republican any day over any sort of democrat.

By moving to the left, the GOP can get at least some of the youth vote.

Also cater to minorities because conservative white people will still vote GOP over the dems.

What is it that they'll do to move liberal?

Support gay marriage, support roe v. wade? Or are they just going to talk about it less?

The GOP doesn't have a platform other than their socially conservative platform. The entire GOP message can be boiled down too (Taxes are always bad, abortion is bad, gays don't deserve the same rights, and evolution is just a theory).

If the Republicans stop talking about "family values" they won't have anything to talk about.

And the first candidate to come out in support of Roe v. Wade is going to get trounced in a primary.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by 63dot

The GOP overwhelmingly took Romney because they knew that the best bet was a moderate.

Yeah, but on the other hand Romney only won the primaries because he tacked far right in those and then he had to flip flop back to the centre ground.

Huntsman would have made a great president and yet he came dead last.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

What is it that they'll do to move liberal?

Support gay marriage, support roe v. wade? Or are they just going to talk about it less?

The GOP doesn't have a platform other than their socially conservative platform. The entire GOP message can be boiled down too (Taxes are always bad, abortion is bad, gays don't deserve the same rights, and evolution is just a theory).

If the Republicans stop talking about "family values" they won't have anything to talk about.

And the first candidate to come out in support of Roe v. Wade is going to get trounced in a primary.

That's their own fault. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it.

[Sydde]

The party still has legs as long as they can hold onto their media arm

[63dot]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

What is it that they'll do to move liberal?

Support gay marriage, support roe v. wade? Or are they just going to talk about it less?

The GOP doesn't have a platform other than their socially conservative platform. The entire GOP message can be boiled down too (Taxes are always bad, abortion is bad, gays don't deserve the same rights, and evolution is just a theory).

If the Republicans stop talking about "family values" they won't have anything to talk about.

And the first candidate to come out in support of Roe v. Wade is going to get trounced in a primary.

Stay away from gay marriage or Roe v. Wade. They are losing issues for the GOP.

What they have to do is remake their image but from the positive points that have attracted independents. Talk about lower taxes, favoring small business, and reducing outsourcing. The GOP doesn't actually have to do those things, they just have to hit those points home and only sound like they will do more than the democrats.

In reality the actions of the republicans are not all that different from the actions of the democrats. There will always be bipartisan support for small business but it's the one who makes the loudest speeches about them who wins in that arena. There is no party, or even a combination of parties, that will make a dent in outsourcing. What Americans want to hear is that somebody, anybody, is committed to reducing the mass outsourcing that has taken away jobs. In reality if we were to reduce outsourcing too much, then our companies who rely on that would suffer and so would all levels of stockholders. That's the catch 22. We want US based business to succeed and if outsourcing is keeping them alive, then stockholders will probably agree with just about anything to keep that company alive, even if it means it's all made in China.

Let's say we took an American company that already is a leader in their field and see them move the manufacturing jobs back to America. Would that consumer spend twice as much, or even three times as much, for those American Nike sneakers when Reebok and others would be half the price but made in China, India, or Indonesia? It's not as if the increased quality, if at all, of a purely American made good is going to make consumers flock to the stores and pay 2X or 3X as much. We have a populace who demands the lowest possible prices over having the jobs be in America. Would we here on Macrumors be willing to pay more for already expensive Apple goods if the company brought manufacturing back to the states? I don't think so.

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by leekohler

That's their own fault. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it.

I know it's their fault and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. If the Republican party crashes and burns without a single survive I won't shed a single tear. They've done literally nothing useful for the last 2 and a half decades.

And the decade before that they didn't do much that was useful. There hasn't really been a decent Republican president since Ford.

Don't get me wrong the Democrats aren't much better (IMO) the insanity in the Republican party has allowed a stunning level of mediocrity to persist in the Democratic party.

If one of the big parties dies it'll hopefully shake up the system enough that we'll actually get something decent for a change. I've got more hope in a major shake up changing things than anything in the current status que bringing a real shift.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Don't get me wrong the Democrats aren't much better (IMO) the insanity in the Republican party has allowed a stunning level of mediocrity to persist in the Democratic party.

I don't think the Germans or the British or the French or anyone else has politicians who are any better. Obama always comes across as one of the better ones.

The only guys who seem any better are the guys who run places like Singapore, but there the money is better and there is less criticism.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by skunk

If they were white males they'd have been making properly informed choices.

Ahh skunk, I do love the way you cut to the chase... Well stated. Those white males would never fall prey to the uninformed choices made by some of those other voters, who really shouldn't have been allowed to vote anyway if our great nation simply could have pushed through those voter suppression acts.

BTW-Did you read Charlie Crist's comments?

why-florida-really-changed-its-voting-rules/