Too old-white-male, or, too right-wing?

[VulchR]

So far as I can tell the Republicans pander to selfish, short-sighted people who don't give a damn about anybody else and who are incapable of coping with inevitable change. The good news is that their dwindling numbers make their influence self-limiting, and as their demands for their lunatic policies become more shrill, more and more people will turn their backs on them.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by VulchR

So far as I can tell the Republicans pander to selfish, short-sighted people who don't give a damn about anybody else and who are incapable of coping with inevitable change. The good news is that their dwindling numbers make their influence self-limiting, and as their demands for their lunatic policies become more shrill, more and more people will turn their backs on them.

All depends on which side you stand on. For example, some Republicans would say the same things you have above. Four years from now the tables will change, and we will have four to eight years with a Republican president.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Coleman2010

It's not the candidate. It's Republican policies which are ass backwards. It doesn't matter what face you slap on the front. They're still lame worn over Bush policies.

Mostly it's the hijacking by kooks. Steve Jobs may have had a 'reality distortion field', but the GOP has created an entire reality distortion field planet. A fortified bubble where evangelicals, Fox News, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh control the alternate reality.

This is from Fox News' own exit poll: "On political matters, do you consider yourself..."

...liberal 25%
...moderate 41%
...conservative 35%

They need to win over half of the moderates, but no moderate in his/her right mind will agree with those asshats. Obama *is* a moderate, not far left, which is obvious to anyone outside the Fox News bubble. The party needs to dissociate itself from that crowd.

http://readersupportednews.org/off-s...in-fantasyland

[leenak]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

All depends on which side you stand on. For example, some Republicans would say the same things you have above. Four years from now the tables will change, and we will have four to eight years with a Republican president.

Not if the Republican party thinks their problem is how they 'frame' their message.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

All depends on which side you stand on. For example, some Republicans would say the same things you have above. Four years from now the tables will change, and we will have four to eight years with a Republican president.

Not necessarily. Depends on how the next four years go and who the candidates are in 2016. It also depends on how the Republican party changes (or doesn't change) in the next four years as well. But it should be noted that while memories can be short, they aren't THAT short. If you think a mass number of hispanics, gays, and women are going to start voting for Republicans simply because they start singing a different tune (maybe) in the next four years, well, that's just not going to happen. It will take a lot longer then that to repair the damage to the Republican brand. And as long as there are some crazy conservatives out there shouting they are not anti-whatever enough, then the process won't even begin.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Not necessarily. Depends on how the next four years go and who the candidates are in 2016. It also depends on how the Republican party changes (or doesn't change) in the next four years as well. But it should be noted that while memories can be short, they aren't THAT short. If you think a mass number of hispanics, gays, and women are going to start voting for Republicans simply because they start singing a different tune (maybe) in the next four years, well, that's just not going to happen. It will take a lot longer then that to repair the damage to the Republican brand. And as long as there are some crazy conservatives out there shouting they are not anti-whatever enough, then the process won't even begin.

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat... That's how our world turns.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat...

I believe it really depends on what the party does in the next 4 years to repair the damage they have done to themselves.

If they don't budge on abortion, immigration, women's rights, and gay issues - then no, there won't be a Republican president 4 years from now. Apparently they overlooked the fact that women, homosexuals, and latinos are allowed to vote.

With the condition the economy is in, this could have been an easy win for the GOP. Yet, they shot themselves in the foot over and over again. Not just for the big office, but the fact that Akin and Murdock lost is also telling.

They have to enter the 21st century and they have to do it in a hurry. And if everyone in the GOP just assumes, as you are, that they'll win in 4 years without making any changes they are going to be "shellshocked" once again.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I believe it really depends on what the party does in the next 4 years to repair the damage they have done to themselves.

If they don't budge on abortion, immigration, women's rights, and gay issues - then no, there won't be a Republican president 4 years from now. Apparently they overlooked the fact that women, homosexuals, and latinos are allowed to vote.

With the condition the economy is in, this could have been an easy win for the GOP. Yet, they shot themselves in the foot over and over again. Not just for the big office, but the fact that Akin and Murdock lost is also telling.

They have to enter the 21st century and they have to do it in a hurry. And if everyone in the GOP just assumes, as you are, that they'll win in 4 years without making any changes they are going to be "shellshocked" once again.

You are assuming that things will turn out that way. But the reality of it can be found in the past. We don't know what the future holds for the Democrats nor the Republicans; in fact we have no idea if our economy will tank or become strong in the near future. We don't even know if the unemployment figures will go up or come down from one month to the next.

If we could only see the future

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

You are assuming that things will turn out that way. But the reality of it can be found in the past. We don't know what the future holds for the Democrats nor the Republicans, in fact we have no idea if our economy will tank or become strong in the near future. We don't even know if the unemployment figures will go up or come down from one month to the next.

Of course we don't. That's the point. So, to say that the Republicans will win in 4 years just because is ridiculous.

And if you want to use the past as a guide, I suggest you start with Tuesday.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Of course we don't. That's the point. So, to say that the Republicans will win in 4 years just because is ridiculous.

And if you want to use the past as a guide, I suggest you start with Tuesday.

Look at the past (50 years at least), not just Tuesday. It's a cycle that repeats itself. We get a few years with a Democrat President who in turn blames the previous Republican president for screwing everything-up, and then a few more years with a Republican president who in turn blames the previous Democrat.

We can't even predict the weather.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

Look at the past, then. It's a cycle that repeats itself. We get a few years with a Democrat President who in turn blames the previous Republican president for screwing everything-up, and then a few more years with a Republican president who in turn blames the previous Democrat.

Well, that settles it. We may as well cancel the election right now.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

Look at the past, then. It's a cycle that repeats itself. We get a few years with a Democrat President which in turn blames the previous Republican president for screwing every thing up, and then a few more years with a Republican president who in turn blames the previous Democrat.

Not necessarily. Actually, I think this election has represented a sea-change in attitudes, unprecedented since 1980.

While there are economic and electoral cycles, there are also cultural ideological and intellectual cycles, which can become ferociously fought battlegrounds. These are the places where the war for hearts and minds is expressed - and fought for - through the dissemination of different and differing ideas.

In fact, to my mind, this election has seen a change in the intellectual landscape of how such battles are fought, the first such change since the 1980s.

Roughly speaking, from the time of the Great Depression, until the 'Chicago School' emerged to challenged and redefine economic debate in the 1970s, the ideas war, or conflict, was fought on terms more or less defined by Democrats. The Republicans of Eisenhower, or Nixon, didn't really contest the fundamentals of Keynesian economics, just the extent of their implementation in public policy. Granted, cultural differences and political differences were, of course, still somewhat more pronounced in those years between the respective political parties.

However, from the 1970s onward, (and yes, in response to 'stagflation', the twin oil crises of the 70s, and various other problems), and, above all, with the election to the US presidency of of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the right, the Republicans, managed to win the ideological war, and capture the intellectual battlefield to such an extent, that, for the next 30 years, the contours of much political, social, cultural and economic debate was conducted on terms defined by the right.

This election has changed all that. Given that the Republican campaign managed not just to ignore, but to actively alienate, and comprehensively and offensively insult the rainbow coalition which voted against it (women, gays, minorities), the terms and contours of cultural, social and political debate must - and will - change. And change it inevitably will, because these specific demographics are the ones which are increasing in numbers.

Whereas the older 'angry white men', so relied on by the Republicans, a demographic who delivered their votes so handsomely for decades, ever since the 1980s, in fact, when the South reverted to cultural type and abandoned the Democrats, a demographic that is rural, older, and splendidly, splenetically gloriously mono-ethnic, uncontaminated by ethnic impurities, and untouched by modern ideas, are, to a large extent,.....decreasing in number.

For the Republicans, it is adapt, or suffer further annihilation and humiliation. This is how bad it is for the Republicans. The trite truism of modern politics since at least 1960, (actually since the days of the Civil Rights Movement and the legislative and cultural changes it gave rise to), that no Democrat could win, or hope to win, the White House without either 1) pandering to the South, or 2) being from the South (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, L. B. Johnson), or 3) having a running mate from the South, if they were unfortunate enough to be a liberal from the Noth East has changed, changed utterly.

The fact of the matter is that the South, and the stranglehold it has had over US politics in recent decades is over. I cannot recall a single commentator remarking on how the lack of a strong 'Southern' flank would prove a drawback for Barack Obama. The South, as a factor, didn't feature.

This means that the debate has moved on; now, it is the Republicans who have to recognise that the world has changed; the coalition which facilitated their control still exists, but its numbers are decreasing, and its importance and influence are in decline.

The coalition that confirmed Barack Obama in office for another four years can afford to ignore the stranglehold that the Republican political coalition of the past had on US politics, that fusion of 'angry white men', allied (sometimes unwillingly) to a combination comprised of the ideological horrors of the evangelists, the Tea Party lunatics, and the antediluvian attitudes of the old, deep South.

And it is this coalition (women, gays, minorities, the educated, urban young) which will get to define the contours of political, social, and cultural debate, an outcome which I, for one, greet with great pleasure.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat... That's how our world turns.

No, as I specifically said:

Not necessarily. Depends on how the next four years go and who the candidates are in 2016.

What part of that is unclear to you?

You need to be looking to the future, not the past. Romney lost because he was looking to the past too much. 1950's ideas don't fly well in 2012. Expecting to win all of the white vote and not reaching out to changing demographics doesn't fly well either.

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

You are assuming that things will turn out that way. But the reality of it can be found in the past. We don't know what the future holds for the Democrats nor the Republicans; in fact we have no idea if our economy will tank or become strong in the near future. We don't even know if the unemployment figures will go up or come down from one month to the next.

If we could only see the future

So now you undo your own argument? First you pretty much say that the next President will be Republican, and now you say we don't know what the future holds. Please make up your mind.

[AlaskaMoose]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

No, as I specifically said:



What part of that is unclear to you?

You need to be looking to the future, not the past. Romney lost because he was looking to the past too much. 1950's ideas don't fly well in 2012. Expecting to win all of the white vote and not reaching out to changing demographics doesn't fly well either.



So now you undo your own argument? First you pretty much say that the next President will be Republican, and now you say we don't know what the future holds. Please make up your mind.

No idea why Romney lost other than what all the talk-heads are saying on TV, and every one of them is now an expert. What most of us are doing now is repeating what others think the reasons are, but the same repeating has happened right after each past election. The main difference now is that we have the Internet these days to spread the news right away.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat... That's how our world turns.

There is indeed a large number of voters who consider themselves conservative and would gladly vote for a conservative candidate, but in order to tap into that potential, the GOP will have to find out exactly what "conservative" means.

You can be fiscally conservative and you can be socially conservative. And if you ask me, the voters are probably talking about the former. The kind of voters who would've been OK with voting for Reagan or Nixon, who were just normal and intelligent people, but right-leaning, politically.

But in recent years the GOP has rewritten the definition of conservative to mean this: "You believe that everything except stone cold Randian every-man-for-himself economics is Marxism from the pits of hell. You believe that poor people are parasites who want to take your "stuff". You utterly reject science in any shape or form, whether it's Charles Darwin or Nate Silver. You believe that the Earth is 9000 years old, tops, and that men lived side-by-side with dinosaurs, which we prefer to think of as 'dragons'. You believe that global warming and environmental care is utter bullcrap -- all animal and plant life are gifts from a bearded man in the sky, and exist strictly for ruthless and predatory harvesting, because hey, the Rapture is coming in like 20 years anyway so screw our grandchildren and start drilling the hell out of those coral reefs. Coal and oil FTW! You believe that Janet Jackson's nipple is the greatest threat to society since 9/11. You believe that doctors should be killed to save fetuses conceived through rape. You believe that Sarah "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin was a responsible and well-contemplated choice of VP candidate."

In short, they've transformed politics to a choice between left and right to a choice between sane and insane. Their 20th century idea of conservatism was to emphasize stability, continuity and tradition. Their 21st century idea is to go back to the middle ages. This transformation happened under Dubya. There haven't been any republican presidents after him, we know that much...

As Marcus Bachmann said... "Barbarians need to be educated". I agree, although he was referring to gay people... but he should've directed it toward his own party, because they've turned into uneducated barbarians.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

All depends on which side you stand on. For example, some Republicans would say the same things you have above. Four years from now the tables will change, and we will have four to eight years with a Republican president.

My bet is that we'll start to see the Republicans losing control of Congress and the Presidency. The problem is that they are in a no-win situation: Either they pander to traditional supporters on the religious right, and risk alienating workers, minorities and women –or– they re-launch themselves and risk alienating the far right. Either way, I believe their influence is going to decline over the next decade until they rebuild their platform on a rational basis other than 'God wills it'. Religion never had any business in politics, it was a mistake of the Republicans to base their policies on religion, and now they are reaping what they sowed.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

No idea why Romney lost ....

Character.

Now dig into your pot, and pull out a Human Being next time.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Anuba

There is indeed a large number of voters who consider themselves conservative and would gladly vote for a conservative candidate, but in order to tap into that potential, the GOP will have to find out exactly what "conservative" means.

You can be fiscally conservative and you can be socially conservative. And if you ask me, the voters are probably talking about the former. The kind of voters who would've been OK with voting for Reagan or Nixon, who were just normal and intelligent people, but right-leaning, politically.

But in recent years the GOP has rewritten the definition of conservative to mean this: "You believe that everything except stone cold Randian every-man-for-himself economics is Marxism from the pits of hell. You believe that poor people are parasites who want to take your "stuff". You utterly reject science in any shape or form, whether it's Charles Darwin or Nate Silver. You believe that the Earth is 9000 years old, tops, and that men lived side-by-side with dinosaurs, which we prefer to think of as 'dragons'. You believe that global warming and environmental care is utter bullcrap -- all animal and plant life are gifts from a bearded man in the sky, and exist strictly for ruthless and predatory harvesting, because hey, the Rapture is coming in like 20 years anyway so screw our grandchildren and start drilling the hell out of those coral reefs. Coal and oil FTW! You believe that Janet Jackson's nipple is the greatest threat to society since 9/11. You believe that doctors should be killed to save fetuses conceived through rape. You believe that Sarah "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin was a responsible and well-contemplated choice of VP candidate."

In short, they've transformed politics to a choice between left and right to a choice between sane and insane. Their 20th century idea of conservatism was to emphasize stability, continuity and tradition. Their 21st century idea is to go back to the middle ages. This transformation happened under Dubya. There haven't been any republican presidents after him, we know that much...

As Marcus Bachmann said... "Barbarians need to be educated". I agree, although he was referring to gay people... but he should've directed it toward his own party, because they've turned into uneducated barbarians.

I agree that republicans have shifted far and away from conservative ideologies. They are more than willing to ignore conservative principles when it comes to certain things, usually things driven by religion/moral majority. And as a result, fiscal conservatism is something gone the way of the dodo, with few fiscal conservatives remaining, with an exception possibly being Ron Paul. But traditional conservatism rejects government intervention in private life...by that ideology, 'defending' marriage, the PATRIOT Act, the last three wars, DADT, giving TSA power to override Constitutional guarantees, and detaining suspects without any sort of rights is all complete hypocrisy.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

No idea why Romney lost other than what all the talk-heads are saying on TV, and every one of them is now an expert. What most of us are doing now is repeating what others think the reasons are, but the same repeating has happened right after each past election. The main difference now is that we have the Internet these days to spread the news right away.

And that comment addresses the issue of what our next President will be, how exactly?

Assuming the pendulum will keep going back and forth indefinitely is a fallacy unless the Republican party makes some changes. They not only lost the White House, they lost seats in the Senate and even lost seats in the House.

That's not to say that a Republican cannot win next time. Again, it depends on the candidates. But as this election showed, you can get much closer to being elected with the blue state total then you can the red state total because that is where the population centers are. So the Republicans have an uphill climb, a climb they make worse by pushing away groups that anyone needs to win.

They've pushed away over 70% of the single women, gay, asian and latin votes and even higher percent of the black vote. That is a LOT of people to just be pushing off the table. Their one saving grace has been the white vote. But that % of white people has been shrinking year after year. It's getting to the tipping point of being unsustainable. The Republican party HAS to change. It has no choice.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat... That's how our world turns.

Most of America is moderate so this makes sense. While the talking points of the dems and GOP are different (you have to at least admit that), their actions fall towards the big moderate base that decides these elections.

Thus with both parties we end up with an overly strict adherence to homeland security, marriage to Wall Street, continuance with the illegality of marijuana, and continued involvements in the middle East and Afghanistan. The core beliefs of the two parties will not likely be the same anytime soon but their actions have to fall in the middle if they are to survive and win elections. Had the GOP ran a more conservative politician (in action, not talking points), they would have lost by an even more crushing landslide.

No matter which parties dominate in the next decades or even hundred years, a normal distribution which tends to favor a large moderate field will result in the dominating parties doing almost everything in their power to appease them. If one party ends up dominating, then the forces within that party pulling for moderate points of view will dominate. It won't surprise me if the GOP takes 2016 and 2020 and does it with a president who proudly leaves a legacy of playing in the middle, regardless of what they say.

Lastly, it is terribly unlikely of a Green Party-like wing of the democrats running America for long, or a Pat Robertson-like GOP holding power for long. You may not like the see-saw of moderate acting democrats and republicans playing musical chairs, but as long as we are an educated society with a strong middle class, the moderates in both parties will call most of the shots. Again, don't look at what they say, but how they act (ie- Reagan, Obama).

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Anuba

You can be fiscally conservative and you can be socially conservative. And if you ask me, the voters are probably talking about the former. The kind of voters who would've been OK with voting for Reagan or Nixon, who were just normal and intelligent people, but right-leaning, politically.

I have to point out that Ronald Reagan was the biggest deficit spender in peacetime history.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...ent-of-gdp.jpg

He definitely falls in the "social conservative" category, although it is confusing to younger people, because the socially liberal-conservative scale has shifted so much to the right in the last decade.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

They've pushed away over 70% of the single women, gay, asian and latin votes and even higher percent of the black vote. That is a LOT of people to just be pushing off the table. Their one saving grace has been the white vote. But that % of white people has been shrinking year after year. It's getting to the tipping point of being unsustainable. The Republican party HAS to change. It has no choice.

I'm not sure what the best estimate will eventually show, but, even among angry white males, somewhere around 35-40% voted for Obama. 60-65% is not a great showing among your assumed core constituency.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I have to point out that Ronald Reagan was the biggest deficit spender in peacetime history.

He definitely falls in the "social conservative" category, although it is confusing to younger people, because the socially liberal-conservative scale has shifted so much to the right in the last decade.

Reagan "talked" being both socially and fiscally conservative, but outside of defense spending, he was closer to the latter in his actions though in practice, more of a moderate. While I am no fan of Reagan, he felt compelled to put up a big show in the final years of Soviet communism and that was costly.

There are many more examples of a socially conservative republican and Reagan did not actually work to abolish abortion or seriously ally himself to the Christian right. Nixon also had a strong socially conservative rhetoric but his actions were quite different when he took office. If you want an ally of the Christian right, that would be more W's territory and had a Robertson or Huckabee been president, then we would see a more likely example of a social conservative. When in the White House, it's a different thing to get things done as said on the campaign trail when there are many opposing senators and congresspeople thinking differently than you.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I have to point out that Ronald Reagan was the biggest deficit spender in peacetime history.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...ent-of-gdp.jpg

He definitely falls in the "social conservative" category, although it is confusing to younger people, because the socially liberal-conservative scale has shifted so much to the right in the last decade.



I'm not sure what the best estimate will eventually show, but, even among angry white males, somewhere around 35-40% voted for Obama. 60-65% is not a great showing among your assumed core constituency.

Ron Paul withdrew support for Reagan for this reason. Conservatives are often slow to realize that ole' Ronny was a big as spender as anyone. He talked fiscally conservative but government expanded radically and deficit spending went big pimpin'. As a general rule, republicans cannot claim to be the 'fiscally responsible' party any more or any less than democrats. While spending priority differs between the two parties, both spend money we don't have, and both have had no issues borrowing against the SSTF.

I agree and think the scale has shifted to fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I, as a younger person, am very liberal in social terms (or traditionally conservative if you call having government not tell people how they can and can't life their life), and fiscally moderate-conservative. I think those views among younger persons is becoming more common due to the debt we've inherited but also a better understanding in the terms of being 'progressive' towards human and civil rights and our embracement of diversity.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

He definitely falls in the "social conservative" category, although it is confusing to younger people, because the socially liberal-conservative scale has shifted so much to the right in the last decade.

I'm not sure what the best estimate will eventually show, but, even among angry white males, somewhere around 35-40% voted for Obama. 60-65% is not a great showing among your assumed core constituency.

I think one of my favorite moments in the campaign was when Billy Graham talked to God and decided Mormonism was no longer a cult. He just forgot to tell his web master and evidently God wasn't talking to the WM either... It became crystal clear that politics trumped religious belief.

Now that Mitt lost, is Mormonism a cult again?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...list-of-cults/

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I see... We won't have a Republican president four years from now? Look at the past, we get a few years with a Republican president, then the next few years with a Democrat... That's how our world turns.

Maybe not. There's really no guarantee that the GOP will be able to win the next presidency. Keep in mind that there have been 12 year runs such as Reagan for two terms and Bush for one.

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

...If we could only see the future

Yep, would bet large on the next lotto.

Originally Posted by NickZac

...I agree and think the scale has shifted to fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I, as a younger person, am very liberal in social terms (or traditionally conservative if you call having government not tell people how they can and can't life their life), and fiscally moderate-conservative. I think those views among younger persons is becoming more common due to the debt we've inherited but also a better understanding in the terms of being 'progressive' towards human and civil rights and our embracement of diversity.

Yeah, most young people are socially progressive, but remain mixed about fiscal responsibilities. Most of them see government as a valuable tool to help people and make things happen, but they're also suspicious of its intrusion in their lives and its cost.

I have a feeling they'll become more sensitive to both as trends continue, the deficits and debt will become increasingly intractable and then the youngest generation will be less than enthused when they get screwed over ala the Greeks.

Instead, it will be important for us to stabilize spending, start some necessary infrastructure projects now, deal with climate change (which includes a real energy policy rather than the slapdash nonsense we've had since 2000), and then pay down the debt.