Will the GOP move leftwards on economics in the future?

[Bo]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The Republicans do not support lassiez-faire economics. They just say they do. The Republicans support the Federal Reserve, which is in itself a contradiction of laissez-faire principles. Also Bush supported Greenspan when Greenspan blew up the housing bubble, which is against laissez-faire principles since it is an example of massive govt. intervention in the economy where it is unnecessary. BTW, there is a difference between trickle-down economics and laissez-faire economics. Trickle-down economics means that the govt. should pursue policies that favor the wealthy (often by interfering in the economy). Laissez-faire economics means that the govt. and the Federal Reserve need to butt out of the economy as much as possible. I think that a lot of people stopped believing in trickle-down economics after the financial crisis occured (similar to how they started believing once hyperinflation was defeated under Reagan's watch). So I'm not sure if continuing to pursue trickle-down economics in the future will not ultimately become a liability for the GOP. Remember, many GOP members turned against trickle-down economics after they lost 5 presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948. I think that if the GOP loses at least three Presidential elections in a row, it might have a similar effect on the GOP.

[k-onmmunist]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The free market is here to stay now.

[Vepres]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

Dems have moved to the left. Compare Clinton to Obama.

[President Mitt]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

Dems have moved to the left. Compare Clinton to Obama.

Not much difference.

[Magic 8ball]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The Republicans do not support lassiez-faire economics. They just say they do. The Republicans support the Federal Reserve, which is in itself a contradiction of laissez-faire principles. Also Bush supported Greenspan when Greenspan blew up the housing bubble, which is against laissez-faire principles since it is an example of massive govt. intervention in the economy where it is unnecessary. BTW, there is a difference between trickle-down economics and laissez-faire economics. Trickle-down economics means that the govt. should pursue policies that favor the wealthy (often by interfering in the economy). Laissez-faire economics means that the govt. and the Federal Reserve need to butt out of the economy as much as possible. I think that a lot of people stopped believing in trickle-down economics after the financial crisis occured (similar to how they started believing once hyperinflation was defeated under Reagan's watch). So I'm not sure if continuing to pursue trickle-down economics in the future will not ultimately become a liability for the GOP. Remember, many GOP members turned against trickle-down economics after they lost 5 presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948. I think that if the GOP loses at least three Presidential elections in a row, it might have a similar effect on the GOP.

Like I said, Republicans are often more laissez-faire in rhetoric than in practice. Bush is considered a disaster by many because, outside of what it's believed he did to the country, he disguised his big-government tendencies under the guise of tax cuts and patriotism. If there's one things the republicans are good at, it's confusing people as to what exactly the free market is. But there are still a good amount of people who are aware that the free market is not properly represented in politics. I think the dividing factor of the two parties will, as it has been for most of our history, be economic in nature.

[Bo]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The Republicans do not support lassiez-faire economics. They just say they do. The Republicans support the Federal Reserve, which is in itself a contradiction of laissez-faire principles. Also Bush supported Greenspan when Greenspan blew up the housing bubble, which is against laissez-faire principles since it is an example of massive govt. intervention in the economy where it is unnecessary. BTW, there is a difference between trickle-down economics and laissez-faire economics. Trickle-down economics means that the govt. should pursue policies that favor the wealthy (often by interfering in the economy). Laissez-faire economics means that the govt. and the Federal Reserve need to butt out of the economy as much as possible. I think that a lot of people stopped believing in trickle-down economics after the financial crisis occured (similar to how they started believing once hyperinflation was defeated under Reagan's watch). So I'm not sure if continuing to pursue trickle-down economics in the future will not ultimately become a liability for the GOP. Remember, many GOP members turned against trickle-down economics after they lost 5 presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948. I think that if the GOP loses at least three Presidential elections in a row, it might have a similar effect on the GOP.

Like I said, Republicans are often more laissez-faire in rhetoric than in practice. Bush is considered a disaster by many because, outside of what it's believed he did to the country, he disguised his big-government tendencies under the guise of tax cuts and patriotism. If there's one things the republicans are good at, it's confusing people as to what exactly the free market is. But there are still a good amount of people who are aware that the free market is not properly represented in politics. I think the dividing factor of the two parties will, as it has been for most of our history, be economic in nature.

The Democrats are also free-market in rhetoric.

[Bo]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

Dems have moved to the left. Compare Clinton to Obama.

Not much difference.

Agreed. Democrats may have rhetorically moved leftward from 1995 to 2010, but not in actual policies.

[Magic 8ball]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The Republicans do not support lassiez-faire economics. They just say they do. The Republicans support the Federal Reserve, which is in itself a contradiction of laissez-faire principles. Also Bush supported Greenspan when Greenspan blew up the housing bubble, which is against laissez-faire principles since it is an example of massive govt. intervention in the economy where it is unnecessary. BTW, there is a difference between trickle-down economics and laissez-faire economics. Trickle-down economics means that the govt. should pursue policies that favor the wealthy (often by interfering in the economy). Laissez-faire economics means that the govt. and the Federal Reserve need to butt out of the economy as much as possible. I think that a lot of people stopped believing in trickle-down economics after the financial crisis occured (similar to how they started believing once hyperinflation was defeated under Reagan's watch). So I'm not sure if continuing to pursue trickle-down economics in the future will not ultimately become a liability for the GOP. Remember, many GOP members turned against trickle-down economics after they lost 5 presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948. I think that if the GOP loses at least three Presidential elections in a row, it might have a similar effect on the GOP.

Like I said, Republicans are often more laissez-faire in rhetoric than in practice. Bush is considered a disaster by many because, outside of what it's believed he did to the country, he disguised his big-government tendencies under the guise of tax cuts and patriotism. If there's one things the republicans are good at, it's confusing people as to what exactly the free market is. But there are still a good amount of people who are aware that the free market is not properly represented in politics. I think the dividing factor of the two parties will, as it has been for most of our history, be economic in nature.

The Democrats are also free-market in rhetoric.

In reality, Clinton and Carter were more laissez-faire than many Republicans. But people like FDR, LBJ, and (at least so far) Obama openly preach government intervention in the economy.

[Bo]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.

The Republicans do not support lassiez-faire economics. They just say they do. The Republicans support the Federal Reserve, which is in itself a contradiction of laissez-faire principles. Also Bush supported Greenspan when Greenspan blew up the housing bubble, which is against laissez-faire principles since it is an example of massive govt. intervention in the economy where it is unnecessary. BTW, there is a difference between trickle-down economics and laissez-faire economics. Trickle-down economics means that the govt. should pursue policies that favor the wealthy (often by interfering in the economy). Laissez-faire economics means that the govt. and the Federal Reserve need to butt out of the economy as much as possible. I think that a lot of people stopped believing in trickle-down economics after the financial crisis occured (similar to how they started believing once hyperinflation was defeated under Reagan's watch). So I'm not sure if continuing to pursue trickle-down economics in the future will not ultimately become a liability for the GOP. Remember, many GOP members turned against trickle-down economics after they lost 5 presidential elections in a row between 1932 and 1948. I think that if the GOP loses at least three Presidential elections in a row, it might have a similar effect on the GOP.

Like I said, Republicans are often more laissez-faire in rhetoric than in practice. Bush is considered a disaster by many because, outside of what it's believed he did to the country, he disguised his big-government tendencies under the guise of tax cuts and patriotism. If there's one things the republicans are good at, it's confusing people as to what exactly the free market is. But there are still a good amount of people who are aware that the free market is not properly represented in politics. I think the dividing factor of the two parties will, as it has been for most of our history, be economic in nature.

The Democrats are also free-market in rhetoric.

In reality, Clinton and Carter were more laissez-faire than many Republicans. But people like FDR, LBJ, and (at least so far) Obama openly preach government intervention in the economy.

I agree with you about this. However, Republican Presidents have also intervented in the economy a lot as of lately, with recent examples being Reagan and both Bushes.

[Derek]

No and simply because ppl always view the economy in opposite terms of the president. They elected Democrats when Reagan and Bush were in office. Republicans made a comeback when Clinton was in office. Democrats would've won back the House if it weren't for Sept.11. much earlier than they did which was 2006. Now we are going back to the right with Obama in office. People will always blame the president for the economy.

[CJK]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

[rebeltarian]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

[Joe Republic]

After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.

One word:  Cubans.

[CJK]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

[Bo]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

[President Mitt]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

[Bo]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

Why not? Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were all pretty left-wing on economics, and they were much more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

[President Mitt]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

Why not? Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were all pretty left-wing on economics, and they were much more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

Why would I want my party to be more like that?

[Bo]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

Why not? Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were all pretty left-wing on economics, and they were much more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

Why would I want my party to be more like that?

Aren't you a fiscal conservative?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

Why not? Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were all pretty left-wing on economics, and they were much more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

Why would I want my party to be more like that?

Aren't you a fiscal conservative?

Left-wing economics is not compatible with fiscal conservatism.

[Frodo]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America.

Actually they are assimilating, just not as quickly as you (or I) would like them to.

[CJK]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America.

Actually they are assimilating, just not as quickly as you (or I) would like them to.

From the report: "on a number of other measures, U.S.-born Latino youths do no better than the foreign born. And on some fronts, they do worse."

Also, a study of fourth generation Mexicans found that they have much lower educational achievement than fourth generation whites (for example 6% completed college compared to 35% of whites).

[Beet]

Left wing economics has been in practice more fiscally conservative than right wing economics. The right wing trickle down theory requires people to take more and more debt to create an illusion of prosperity and an illusion that their ideas are working. Left wing economics on the other hand has been non existent in the past 30 years or so.

... Also, no, the GOP does not need Hispanics as long as they have a Dem incumbent and a bad economy. Bush was right to court Hispanics, but that was because he needed them. Republicans today don't need Hispanics to win. Some Hispanics will naturally switch to the GOP due to the economy, many more simply won't show up at the polls. If and when the Hispanic vote again becomes decisive, then the GOP will either reach out to them or lose [by definition of my scenario]. But right now they don't need to.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social liberals.

[President Mitt]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."