Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2014, 10:03:21 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  The direction of the Republican Party if Romney loses
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: The direction of the Republican Party if Romney loses  (Read 5195 times)
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2012, 11:30:15 am »
Ignore

They should just nominate Dan Cathy, Chick Fil A CEO, for president in 2016. Judging from all the cars at his restaurants yesterday, he has a lot of support already.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15344
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2012, 12:48:03 pm »
Ignore

They should just nominate Dan Cathy, Chick Fil A CEO, for president in 2016. Judging from all the cars at his restaurants yesterday, he has a lot of support already.

Lol.

But seriously though, as my esteemed colleague Snowstalker pointed out in a chat convo, "If the Democrats survived the Civil War and the Republicans survived the Great Depression..." c'mon. At a point where Republicans control the House of Representatives and their nominee is facing an incumbent, there's no call for saying that the GOP is going to die out.
Logged

Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14163
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2012, 04:57:03 pm »
Ignore

They should just nominate Dan Cathy, Chick Fil A CEO, for president in 2016. Judging from all the cars at his restaurants yesterday, he has a lot of support already.

Lol.

But seriously though, as my esteemed colleague Snowstalker pointed out in a chat convo, "If the Democrats survived the Civil War and the Republicans survived the Great Depression..." c'mon. At a point where Republicans control the House of Representatives and their nominee is facing an incumbent, there's no call for saying that the GOP is going to die out.

Yes there is, Reaganite.

The GOP is so dead in a few years because of their extremism.  I wouldn't be surprised if, due to GLobal Warming becoming true and Democrats making the economy truly great, that the GOP dies off by 2020 and Jon Huntsman wins the Democratic Primaries in 2020 and goes onto win a landslide election against Wyoming Lieutenant Governor Daniel Baumgardener.

[/exit the Sarchasm]

Meh, they are kind of in a hole right now.  Luckily for the GOP though there is a Democratic President.  And, as modern US history has shown, having an opposite party incumbent in the White House is a benefit for Congress save an extreme economic catastrophe or war.  Unless Barack Obama turns out to be Jesus Christ and heals the nation with his God Powered hands, the GOP will be just fine (congressionally at least).
In fact, given the correlation between Presidential and Congressional results, I would envy the situation the GOP finds themselves in.  It is in their best interest to lose Presidential Elections if they continue to be successful in turning Democratic Administrations into Paper Tigers.
Logged



17:20   bore   the point of atlasia is to achieve things which you can then use as pick up lines
Korwinist
ModernBourbon Democrat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2012, 06:59:37 pm »
Ignore

They should just nominate Dan Cathy, Chick Fil A CEO, for president in 2016. Judging from all the cars at his restaurants yesterday, he has a lot of support already.

Lol.

But seriously though, as my esteemed colleague Snowstalker pointed out in a chat convo, "If the Democrats survived the Civil War and the Republicans survived the Great Depression..." c'mon. At a point where Republicans control the House of Representatives and their nominee is facing an incumbent, there's no call for saying that the GOP is going to die out.

Yes there is, Reaganite.

The GOP is so dead in a few years because of their extremism.  I wouldn't be surprised if, due to GLobal Warming becoming true and Democrats making the economy truly great, that the GOP dies off by 2020 and Jon Huntsman wins the Democratic Primaries in 2020 and goes onto win a landslide election against Wyoming Lieutenant Governor Daniel Baumgardener.

[/exit the Sarchasm]

Meh, they are kind of in a hole right now.  Luckily for the GOP though there is a Democratic President.  And, as modern US history has shown, having an opposite party incumbent in the White House is a benefit for Congress save an extreme economic catastrophe or war.  Unless Barack Obama turns out to be Jesus Christ and heals the nation with his God Powered hands, the GOP will be just fine (congressionally at least).
In fact, given the correlation between Presidential and Congressional results, I would envy the situation the GOP finds themselves in.  It is in their best interest to lose Presidential Elections if they continue to be successful in turning Democratic Administrations into Paper Tigers.

Honestly, in the long term the GOP would be better off losing the current presidential election since it would saddle them with the blame for any rough economic/foreign straits ahead and leave the Democrats a gigantic opening.

It would also teach them the wrong lesson so far as tailoring a platform to appeal to people in the future goes.
Logged

Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1926
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2012, 06:46:02 pm »
Ignore

The argument will be made that Romney lost because he's a RINO, but I don't think it'll be a major factor on the Presidential primary. That's going to come down to the political abilities of the candidates more than anything else. I don't think it's going to come down to whether Marco Rubio is more of a conservative than Chris Christie or Rand Paul, but who's the most effective at debates and speeches.

Emboldened by tea party victories, you'll have a few major primaries. Lindsey Graham will be at the most risk, given the conservative lean of his state. And it would be better for him if Romney's in the White House, as that would result in less conservative outrage.
Logged
Orion0
Full Member
***
Posts: 221
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -5.74

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2012, 02:19:43 pm »
Ignore

But in Canada, ironically enough, things have been steadily swinging to the right on social issues since the 1980s or so. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if bringing back the death penalty and banning abortion became viable political moves in ten or twenty years.

I thank you for the reply, great points. However this statement had me confused. The death penalty remains at its historical % of about 2/3 support of the public (as it has been for decades), but when asked if the death penalty should be reinstated in Canada support falls well below half, with many preferring alternatives like life without parole. Abortion is also politically dead in Canada, with an outright majority self-identifying as pro-choice ( as of 2011). An all-out ban on abortion is only viable for 5 % of the public, while restrictions on abortion only net about 20-30% support. Throw in the large scale (and growing) public support for gay marriage and legalization of marijuana and any argument that Canada is moving right on social issues falls flat.

Honestly, I see the "successful" GOP of 2020 being somewhat socially conservative if less so than presently with a libertarian bent. Dropping the drug war would probably let them appeal to the urban poor and Hispanics a bit better, and I'd say their present pro-war/interventionism stance isn't going to last either.

An excellent point. At least change the focus of the drug war, American jails aren't exactly known to reform the first time offender, maybe shift from imprisonment to education? As for interventionism, I can't exactly see this changing significantly in the future. The world would be a radically different place without a militarized USA, and I just cannot see any change to that balance of power being taken by those in either party.

The argument will be made that Romney lost because he's a RINO, but I don't think it'll be a major factor on the Presidential primary. That's going to come down to the political abilities of the candidates more than anything else. I don't think it's going to come down to whether Marco Rubio is more of a conservative than Chris Christie or Rand Paul, but who's the most effective at debates and speeches.

I would argue that after 4 more years of O it would make a huge difference which candidate is more fiscally conservative. The coming years of the USA will be decided based on controlling spending and paying down debt. An uncompromising fiscal conservative that can actually speak well? You've got a future winner.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 02:30:42 pm by Orion0 »Logged
GeorgiaSenator
Full Member
***
Posts: 105
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2012, 07:24:10 pm »
Ignore

They should just nominate Dan Cathy, Chick Fil A CEO, for president in 2016. Judging from all the cars at his restaurants yesterday, he has a lot of support already.

I agree!!!!
Logged
Peter the Lefty
Peternerdman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3439
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2012, 05:52:59 pm »
Ignore

Bold prediction: They'll continue to lurch to the right after Romney looses in 2012 on the basis that he was "too librul!" Then they'll nominate some Tea party candidate like Rubio, Jindal, or Ted Cruz as a sign that they're moving further to the right while also trying to improve their appeal to minorities.  Only after they loose in 2016 will they realize that they need to move much closer to the center if they're going to win again. 
Logged



-7.61 Economic
-7.48 Social
mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1316
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2012, 09:58:05 pm »
Ignore

They should nominate Louie Gohmert or maybe someone even more batsh*t crazy. Only then can they turn out DUH BASE!!!!
Logged


"There are no men like me. There's only me."
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5543
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2012, 10:56:38 pm »
Ignore

They should nominate Louie Gohmert or maybe someone even more batsh*t crazy. Only then can they turn out DUH BASE!!!!

They need to nominate someone like that and lose in a historic landslide if they are ever to return to anything remotely resembling a serious party.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8951
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2012, 05:20:24 pm »
Ignore

The GOP will keep going further to the right until they realize how bad it is for the party.  (And I say that as a conservative and a Republican.)  They will say that Romney lost because he was a RINO, just like they did when Bush I lost his reelection bid and when Dole and McCain lost.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
renegadedemocrat
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2012, 10:37:27 am »
Ignore

GOP will head further right. They did after 2008, as all the Republican candidates were further right this year. I think many moderate Republicans will start siding with the Libertarians, and put them on the national landscape a lot more.
Logged

Economic Score: -5.87
Social Score: -6.52

Political Views: A Liberal Progressive that looks to infinitely move forward in all aspects.
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13810
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2012, 04:57:22 pm »
Ignore

The GOP has just about maxed out with whites, and this is the last election they can pull off relying mainly on the white vote to win presidential elections.  Given this is a close election, if Romney loses because of his weakness with Latinos and other minorities (and the party identifies that as the main reason for its loss this year), it will finally force it to seriously and sincerely focus on wooing those electorates as never before.  It might finally transform the GOP from being perceived as the White Man's Party.    
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13810
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 24, 2012, 12:29:42 pm »
Ignore

I may have been too hopeful....  Tongue
Logged

pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10387
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2012, 04:01:25 am »
Ignore

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

A lot of Democrats take the 'demographics will kill the GOP' line as an article of faith, but it's really not born out by the numbers. First off, Republicans only win slightly more than 60% of the white vote -- there's plenty of opportunity for expansion there. Second off, generally moderately well-off Hispanics are no less or more likely to vote Republican than their white counterparts (African-Americans vote more unanimously Democratic) -- the reason they seem to vote disproportionately Democratic is that many of them are urban poor, who obviously vote Democratic. Even now, Hispanics are underrated as a swing demographic; Bill Clinton in 1996 broke 70%, Obama was somewhere in the 60s with Hispanics, but Bush in 2004 lost  in the high single-digits -- and while it's still a loss, there's a big difference between more than 70% and high single-digits.

The difference between Hispanics in 2004 and Hispanics in 2008 was that Dubya seduced them politically with easy credit for buying real estate, if at ruinous terms for all involved and that in 2008 John McCain could not dare offer that because the "Ownership Society" of Dubya became a catastrophic failure. Mexican-Americans buy into housing at lower levels of income than almost any other ethnic group, and when they bought into the corrupt boom they got burned as no other ethnic group got burned.

Quote
Also, growth in the Hispanic community is slowing -- as of a few years ago, movement from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US cancels each other out. Asians are now the fastest-growing immigrant group, and they're even more politically diverse than Hispanics -- Bob Dole won Asians in 1996.

100,000 net immigrants in an identifiable group of 40 million people has a bigger significance than 100,000 net immigrants into a population of 4 million people. One group has more rapid growth in proportion to its numbers than the other despite the same number of people joining it. Birth rates are falling for Hispanics as they achieve middle-income occupations, a pattern consistent almost worldwide. Such also slows population growth.

Bob Dole won a majority of Asians in 1996 -- when political attitudes among Asian-Americans were different. Notably, anti-communism was commonplace among Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, and Korean-Americans who had cause for disdain among such ethnic groups. (Such was rare among Japanese-Americans who rarely saw a country to which they had attachments under threat from or under rule of Communists). Anti-communism was long an appeal of the Republican Party. The People's Republic of China and to a lesser extent Vietnam have simply become huge trading partners while abandoning all calls for Socialist Revolution anywhere. Although Korean-Americans still have cause to hold anti-Communist views such are directed at the insane and virulent regime of the Kim dynasty which is now a pariah to just about everyone, including liberals.         

Quote
There's no demographic miracle coming to save the Democrats. It seems like a persuasive argument on the face of it, but it's not golden, just gilded. (I remember posters saying as of 2008 the demographic miracle had come and the only way Republicans would become competitive again was by moving left over the course of, at minimum, a decade or so -- and instead, they moved sharp right and took back a House of Congress in 2 years).

It's not so much a demographic miracle for Democrats as a failure of Republicans to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party. Had they shown themselves for the advocates for superstition, plutocracy, and militarism that they are instead of people concerned only about budget deficits and spending gone too far they would have lost. In 2012 they had net losses in the Senate and lost a majority of the House vote (although holding onto the House of representatives through gerrymandering in state legislatures). They hid their sharp-right turn and their Machiavellian practices until they got into office, and then they obeyed the economic elites who bankrolled them into power.

Many also said that 2012 would give an intensification of Republican gains with plenty of Senate seats held by incumbent Democrats with few incumbent Republicans at risk -- and an unpopular President who had no chance of being re-elected.

Two contradictory realities will apply in 2014. First, as a midterm election, 2014 offers as a rule a smaller electorate than the typical electorate of a Presidential year. Older voters are more likely to vote, and the older voters are now much more likely to be 'conservatives' (Republicans) than liberals or moderates (Democrats). The other is that Americans will have four years experience with Republicans of the Tea Party era and may not like those pols so much. Many are going to win or lose on their records, and politicians who serve out-of-district interests at the expense of their constituents can still face opposition.

Gerrymandering in 2011 has left such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with a preponderance of R+4 districts (which ordinarily fits slightly-conservative pols)  with representatives who fit roughly an R+40 agenda (a Gilded-Age agenda or even clericofascism); moderate Democrats could knock some more of those pols off.

Quote
That said, the reaction to the Romney victory: in the short-term, yes, Republicans say they weren't conservative enough. Maybe Santorum even gets nominated in 2016 (he would probably lose, though it depends on the circumstances; Santorum is a bad candidate but in the USA he isn't totally unelectable), though I doubt it, especially if 2016 looks set to be a good year folks like Christie or Thune or Paul will run and they will overshadow Santorum. 'Tea Party' groups become more powerful. Over the long term, the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian; they will accept gay marriage, the party will lose some of its religious character, but fiscally, unless UHC suddenly becomes radically popular, which some Democrats are saying will happen in 2014 but which I find severely doubtful, things like opposition to UHC will remain. This is the wrong way to appeal to Hispanics, many of whom are fiscally left-wing but socially right-wing (ie, populist, not libertarian), but it will give them appeal to groups like Asians and Midwestern/Northeastern whites. Democrats don't seem to be moving anywhere at all, so the question remains on whether the Democrats will move to appeal more to Southern whites (who are, like Hispanics, very populist) in reaction to the Republicans, moving to absorb the socially conservative, or whether things like gay rights will stop being significant issues (ie, the Democrats stay the way they are). The latter is, I think, more likely.

Anti-intellectualism loses middle-class blacks, Asians, and Hispanics and nearly half of middle-class whites who attribute their economic successes largely to formal education. The difference between the non-white and non-Anglo groups with whites is that although poor blacks, Asians, and Hispanics respect the middle classes of their groups, poor whites do not. Poor whites find the anti-intellectualism of the GOP comforting, and they generally know that they have little to gain from liberalism and believe that they have little to lose from the super-rich squeezing the middle class into oblivion. Poor whites are much more likely to be religious fundamentalists who accept Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die as a huge reward for putting up with poverty and brutal management in This World. At least for now.  The Mountain and Deep South which have the "Lil' Abner" and Tobacco Road types have alternated between anti-capitalist, Big Government populism and racist conservatism. If they ever vote with poor blacks who share much the same hardships then the South would become a disaster for the Hard Right.

I cannot predict when that will happen, but in 1980 Jimmy Carter barely lost Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky and won Georgia and West Virginia.  He got crushed in some current swing states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia). Go figure.           
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1495


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2012, 06:42:17 pm »
Ignore

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

A lot of Democrats take the 'demographics will kill the GOP' line as an article of faith, but it's really not born out by the numbers. First off, Republicans only win slightly more than 60% of the white vote -- there's plenty of opportunity for expansion there. Second off, generally moderately well-off Hispanics are no less or more likely to vote Republican than their white counterparts (African-Americans vote more unanimously Democratic) -- the reason they seem to vote disproportionately Democratic is that many of them are urban poor, who obviously vote Democratic. Even now, Hispanics are underrated as a swing demographic; Bill Clinton in 1996 broke 70%, Obama was somewhere in the 60s with Hispanics, but Bush in 2004 lost  in the high single-digits -- and while it's still a loss, there's a big difference between more than 70% and high single-digits.

The difference between Hispanics in 2004 and Hispanics in 2008 was that Dubya seduced them politically with easy credit for buying real estate, if at ruinous terms for all involved and that in 2008 John McCain could not dare offer that because the "Ownership Society" of Dubya became a catastrophic failure. Mexican-Americans buy into housing at lower levels of income than almost any other ethnic group, and when they bought into the corrupt boom they got burned as no other ethnic group got burned.

Quote
Also, growth in the Hispanic community is slowing -- as of a few years ago, movement from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US cancels each other out. Asians are now the fastest-growing immigrant group, and they're even more politically diverse than Hispanics -- Bob Dole won Asians in 1996.

100,000 net immigrants in an identifiable group of 40 million people has a bigger significance than 100,000 net immigrants into a population of 4 million people. One group has more rapid growth in proportion to its numbers than the other despite the same number of people joining it. Birth rates are falling for Hispanics as they achieve middle-income occupations, a pattern consistent almost worldwide. Such also slows population growth.

Bob Dole won a majority of Asians in 1996 -- when political attitudes among Asian-Americans were different. Notably, anti-communism was commonplace among Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, and Korean-Americans who had cause for disdain among such ethnic groups. (Such was rare among Japanese-Americans who rarely saw a country to which they had attachments under threat from or under rule of Communists). Anti-communism was long an appeal of the Republican Party. The People's Republic of China and to a lesser extent Vietnam have simply become huge trading partners while abandoning all calls for Socialist Revolution anywhere. Although Korean-Americans still have cause to hold anti-Communist views such are directed at the insane and virulent regime of the Kim dynasty which is now a pariah to just about everyone, including liberals.          

Quote
There's no demographic miracle coming to save the Democrats. It seems like a persuasive argument on the face of it, but it's not golden, just gilded. (I remember posters saying as of 2008 the demographic miracle had come and the only way Republicans would become competitive again was by moving left over the course of, at minimum, a decade or so -- and instead, they moved sharp right and took back a House of Congress in 2 years).

It's not so much a demographic miracle for Democrats as a failure of Republicans to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party. Had they shown themselves for the advocates for superstition, plutocracy, and militarism that they are instead of people concerned only about budget deficits and spending gone too far they would have lost. In 2012 they had net losses in the Senate and lost a majority of the House vote (although holding onto the House of representatives through gerrymandering in state legislatures). They hid their sharp-right turn and their Machiavellian practices until they got into office, and then they obeyed the economic elites who bankrolled them into power.

Many also said that 2012 would give an intensification of Republican gains with plenty of Senate seats held by incumbent Democrats with few incumbent Republicans at risk -- and an unpopular President who had no chance of being re-elected.

Two contradictory realities will apply in 2014. First, as a midterm election, 2014 offers as a rule a smaller electorate than the typical electorate of a Presidential year. Older voters are more likely to vote, and the older voters are now much more likely to be 'conservatives' (Republicans) than liberals or moderates (Democrats). The other is that Americans will have four years experience with Republicans of the Tea Party era and may not like those pols so much. Many are going to win or lose on their records, and politicians who serve out-of-district interests at the expense of their constituents can still face opposition.

Gerrymandering in 2011 has left such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with a preponderance of R+4 districts (which ordinarily fits slightly-conservative pols)  with representatives who fit roughly an R+40 agenda (a Gilded-Age agenda or even clericofascism); moderate Democrats could knock some more of those pols off.

Quote
That said, the reaction to the Romney victory: in the short-term, yes, Republicans say they weren't conservative enough. Maybe Santorum even gets nominated in 2016 (he would probably lose, though it depends on the circumstances; Santorum is a bad candidate but in the USA he isn't totally unelectable), though I doubt it, especially if 2016 looks set to be a good year folks like Christie or Thune or Paul will run and they will overshadow Santorum. 'Tea Party' groups become more powerful. Over the long term, the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian; they will accept gay marriage, the party will lose some of its religious character, but fiscally, unless UHC suddenly becomes radically popular, which some Democrats are saying will happen in 2014 but which I find severely doubtful, things like opposition to UHC will remain. This is the wrong way to appeal to Hispanics, many of whom are fiscally left-wing but socially right-wing (ie, populist, not libertarian), but it will give them appeal to groups like Asians and Midwestern/Northeastern whites. Democrats don't seem to be moving anywhere at all, so the question remains on whether the Democrats will move to appeal more to Southern whites (who are, like Hispanics, very populist) in reaction to the Republicans, moving to absorb the socially conservative, or whether things like gay rights will stop being significant issues (ie, the Democrats stay the way they are). The latter is, I think, more likely.

Anti-intellectualism loses middle-class blacks, Asians, and Hispanics and nearly half of middle-class whites who attribute their economic successes largely to formal education. The difference between the non-white and non-Anglo groups with whites is that although poor blacks, Asians, and Hispanics respect the middle classes of their groups, poor whites do not. Poor whites find the anti-intellectualism of the GOP comforting, and they generally know that they have little to gain from liberalism and believe that they have little to lose from the super-rich squeezing the middle class into oblivion. Poor whites are much more likely to be religious fundamentalists who accept Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die as a huge reward for putting up with poverty and brutal management in This World. At least for now.  The Mountain and Deep South which have the "Lil' Abner" and Tobacco Road types have alternated between anti-capitalist, Big Government populism and racist conservatism. If they ever vote with poor blacks who share much the same hardships then the South would become a disaster for the Hard Right.

I cannot predict when that will happen, but in 1980 Jimmy Carter barely lost Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky and won Georgia and West Virginia.  He got crushed in some current swing states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia). Go figure.          
Bankrolled them(the Tea Party Politicians) into power? Don't Obama and the Dems obey the Unions, Environmentalists, Leaders in the Black Community, and the academics? I would not imply that the Dems hands are clean in terms of interests groups either. Far from it just look at Chrysler bondholders getting screwed, Solyndra, and Big Pharma having a big influence in the Health Care Bill which only 1 Republican voted for(Joseph Cao R-LA.)

Yes the GOP Tea Party Types hid their extremism on stuff like taxes, and abortion. I agree with you there.

George W. Bushall by himself eased credit for more Hispanics to get a house? Jimmy Carter and especially Bill Clinton had some to do with that. Remember the repeal of Glass Stegall in 1999? Maxine Waters and Barney Frank had their hands in the housing crisis too. Was W. to blame? I would say about 50% but I blame the Dems for the other 50%.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 06:48:04 pm by hopper »Logged
I Can't Believe It's Not Murder!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12889


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2013, 12:19:46 pm »
Ignore

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

A lot of Democrats take the 'demographics will kill the GOP' line as an article of faith, but it's really not born out by the numbers. First off, Republicans only win slightly more than 60% of the white vote -- there's plenty of opportunity for expansion there. Second off, generally moderately well-off Hispanics are no less or more likely to vote Republican than their white counterparts (African-Americans vote more unanimously Democratic) -- the reason they seem to vote disproportionately Democratic is that many of them are urban poor, who obviously vote Democratic. Even now, Hispanics are underrated as a swing demographic; Bill Clinton in 1996 broke 70%, Obama was somewhere in the 60s with Hispanics, but Bush in 2004 lost  in the high single-digits -- and while it's still a loss, there's a big difference between more than 70% and high single-digits.

The difference between Hispanics in 2004 and Hispanics in 2008 was that Dubya seduced them politically with easy credit for buying real estate, if at ruinous terms for all involved and that in 2008 John McCain could not dare offer that because the "Ownership Society" of Dubya became a catastrophic failure. Mexican-Americans buy into housing at lower levels of income than almost any other ethnic group, and when they bought into the corrupt boom they got burned as no other ethnic group got burned.

Quote
Also, growth in the Hispanic community is slowing -- as of a few years ago, movement from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US cancels each other out. Asians are now the fastest-growing immigrant group, and they're even more politically diverse than Hispanics -- Bob Dole won Asians in 1996.

100,000 net immigrants in an identifiable group of 40 million people has a bigger significance than 100,000 net immigrants into a population of 4 million people. One group has more rapid growth in proportion to its numbers than the other despite the same number of people joining it. Birth rates are falling for Hispanics as they achieve middle-income occupations, a pattern consistent almost worldwide. Such also slows population growth.

Bob Dole won a majority of Asians in 1996 -- when political attitudes among Asian-Americans were different. Notably, anti-communism was commonplace among Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, and Korean-Americans who had cause for disdain among such ethnic groups. (Such was rare among Japanese-Americans who rarely saw a country to which they had attachments under threat from or under rule of Communists). Anti-communism was long an appeal of the Republican Party. The People's Republic of China and to a lesser extent Vietnam have simply become huge trading partners while abandoning all calls for Socialist Revolution anywhere. Although Korean-Americans still have cause to hold anti-Communist views such are directed at the insane and virulent regime of the Kim dynasty which is now a pariah to just about everyone, including liberals.          

Quote
There's no demographic miracle coming to save the Democrats. It seems like a persuasive argument on the face of it, but it's not golden, just gilded. (I remember posters saying as of 2008 the demographic miracle had come and the only way Republicans would become competitive again was by moving left over the course of, at minimum, a decade or so -- and instead, they moved sharp right and took back a House of Congress in 2 years).

It's not so much a demographic miracle for Democrats as a failure of Republicans to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party. Had they shown themselves for the advocates for superstition, plutocracy, and militarism that they are instead of people concerned only about budget deficits and spending gone too far they would have lost. In 2012 they had net losses in the Senate and lost a majority of the House vote (although holding onto the House of representatives through gerrymandering in state legislatures). They hid their sharp-right turn and their Machiavellian practices until they got into office, and then they obeyed the economic elites who bankrolled them into power.

Many also said that 2012 would give an intensification of Republican gains with plenty of Senate seats held by incumbent Democrats with few incumbent Republicans at risk -- and an unpopular President who had no chance of being re-elected.

Two contradictory realities will apply in 2014. First, as a midterm election, 2014 offers as a rule a smaller electorate than the typical electorate of a Presidential year. Older voters are more likely to vote, and the older voters are now much more likely to be 'conservatives' (Republicans) than liberals or moderates (Democrats). The other is that Americans will have four years experience with Republicans of the Tea Party era and may not like those pols so much. Many are going to win or lose on their records, and politicians who serve out-of-district interests at the expense of their constituents can still face opposition.

Gerrymandering in 2011 has left such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with a preponderance of R+4 districts (which ordinarily fits slightly-conservative pols)  with representatives who fit roughly an R+40 agenda (a Gilded-Age agenda or even clericofascism); moderate Democrats could knock some more of those pols off.

Quote
That said, the reaction to the Romney victory: in the short-term, yes, Republicans say they weren't conservative enough. Maybe Santorum even gets nominated in 2016 (he would probably lose, though it depends on the circumstances; Santorum is a bad candidate but in the USA he isn't totally unelectable), though I doubt it, especially if 2016 looks set to be a good year folks like Christie or Thune or Paul will run and they will overshadow Santorum. 'Tea Party' groups become more powerful. Over the long term, the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian; they will accept gay marriage, the party will lose some of its religious character, but fiscally, unless UHC suddenly becomes radically popular, which some Democrats are saying will happen in 2014 but which I find severely doubtful, things like opposition to UHC will remain. This is the wrong way to appeal to Hispanics, many of whom are fiscally left-wing but socially right-wing (ie, populist, not libertarian), but it will give them appeal to groups like Asians and Midwestern/Northeastern whites. Democrats don't seem to be moving anywhere at all, so the question remains on whether the Democrats will move to appeal more to Southern whites (who are, like Hispanics, very populist) in reaction to the Republicans, moving to absorb the socially conservative, or whether things like gay rights will stop being significant issues (ie, the Democrats stay the way they are). The latter is, I think, more likely.

Anti-intellectualism loses middle-class blacks, Asians, and Hispanics and nearly half of middle-class whites who attribute their economic successes largely to formal education. The difference between the non-white and non-Anglo groups with whites is that although poor blacks, Asians, and Hispanics respect the middle classes of their groups, poor whites do not. Poor whites find the anti-intellectualism of the GOP comforting, and they generally know that they have little to gain from liberalism and believe that they have little to lose from the super-rich squeezing the middle class into oblivion. Poor whites are much more likely to be religious fundamentalists who accept Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die as a huge reward for putting up with poverty and brutal management in This World. At least for now.  The Mountain and Deep South which have the "Lil' Abner" and Tobacco Road types have alternated between anti-capitalist, Big Government populism and racist conservatism. If they ever vote with poor blacks who share much the same hardships then the South would become a disaster for the Hard Right.

I cannot predict when that will happen, but in 1980 Jimmy Carter barely lost Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Kentucky and won Georgia and West Virginia.  He got crushed in some current swing states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia). Go figure.          
Bankrolled them(the Tea Party Politicians) into power? Don't Obama and the Dems obey the Unions, Environmentalists, Leaders in the Black Community, and the academics? I would not imply that the Dems hands are clean in terms of interests groups either. Far from it just look at Chrysler bondholders getting screwed, Solyndra, and Big Pharma having a big influence in the Health Care Bill which only 1 Republican voted for(Joseph Cao R-LA.)

Yes the GOP Tea Party Types hid their extremism on stuff like taxes, and abortion. I agree with you there.

George W. Bushall by himself eased credit for more Hispanics to get a house? Jimmy Carter and especially Bill Clinton had some to do with that. Remember the repeal of Glass Stegall in 1999? Maxine Waters and Barney Frank had their hands in the housing crisis too. Was W. to blame? I would say about 50% but I blame the Dems for the other 50%.

On a side note though. I heard about what Carter and Clinton did about the Mortgage Industry but was it really their fault? Perhaps it wasn't their first choice in policy and that they were basically trying to give people with modest livings  a chance at owning their own home but in the only way the needed Republican and Dixiecrat votes  would agree to?
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines