Will the Republican Party eventually change its name to Obstruction Party?

[eric82oslo]

Discuss.

In my view, Republicans, both politicians, grassroots and so-called "intellectuals", seem to like to oppose things just for the joy/sake of opposing them, not because it will yield anything positive in return for anyone, themselves included.

Now, in Brazil you have of course right wing parties who've found it more comfortable to disguise their views behind faux names like Social Democratic Party and Progressive Party and so on, so there's not necessarily any logic in Republicans actually changing their party name in order to become more true to themselves and their views and common core.

Now Rand Paul is obviously one guy who doesn't want his party to be associated solely with obstructionism, but actually have ideas for how to change policy for the better (changes in drug policy/incarceration/voting rights, a reduced military budget, less foreign intervention, civil liberties), and there are others too, including Jeb Bush (supporting Common Core education programmes, having a fairly pragmatic stance on immigration reform and so on). So there certainly are exceptions out there (still), but they are after all...only exceptions. Aren't they?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Ugh.

[Supersonic]

No it won't.

[°Leprechaun]

They don't have to change their name, they already are The Obstruction Party.

example:
minimum wage

[°Leprechaun]

I'd like to see them lose House seats this year (I'd be satisfied if they broke even and gained zero).. but that probably won't happen...
If they did, though, maybe they would *finally* get the message that they are out of touch with the ways things oughta be.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'd like to see them lose House seats this year (I'd be satisfied if they broke even and gained zero).. but that probably won't happen...
If they did, though, maybe they would *finally* get the message that they are out of touch with the ways things oughta be.

The fact that they have won majorities in 2010 and 2012 shows that they are in touch with things. Why do they keep getting elected, after all?

I'm so sick of this whining about bipartisanship. Obama won. So did John Boehnor and the Republican Congress. So no side in particular is the side of "the people."

[°Leprechaun]

I'd like to see them lose House seats this year (I'd be satisfied if they broke even and gained zero).. but that probably won't happen...
If they did, though, maybe they would *finally* get the message that they are out of touch with the ways things oughta be.

The fact that they have won majorities in 2010 and 2012 shows that they are in touch with things. Why do they keep getting elected, after all?

I'm so sick of this whining about bipartisanship. Obama won. So did John Boehnor and the Republican Congress. So no side in particular is the side of "the people."

The problem with that argument is that there are many districts that are gerrymandered.
But, still it is a valid point that they do win elections, nevertheless, even asided from all the gerrymandering. They seem to get a lot more votes than one would think based on how extreme many or at least some of them are. I think it is an anti Democrat vote more than a pro Republican vote. In other words, Democrats are pretty bad, Republicans just happen to be worse.

[Badger]

I'd like to see them lose House seats this year (I'd be satisfied if they broke even and gained zero).. but that probably won't happen...
If they did, though, maybe they would *finally* get the message that they are out of touch with the ways things oughta be.

The fact that they have won majorities in 2010 and 2012 shows that they are in touch with things. Why do they keep getting elected, after all?

I'm so sick of this whining about bipartisanship. Obama won. So did John Boehnor and the Republican Congress. So no side in particular is the side of "the people."

Well, technically we lost the national popular vote for the House by either about a half-million or a million votes (can't recall which). And even that was despite there being almost twice as many uncontested Republican seats as Democratic ones (a dozen Dem seats vs. over 20 uncontested Republicans), and the average generic sacrificial lamb Democrat could probably average 20-30% of the vote just by being on the ballot, vs. probably less than 10% for similar Republicans running in the typical inner city uncontested Dem seat.

We frankly owe our congressional majorities to the geographic concentration of Democrats in urban areas, which we've augmented mightily by skillful gerrymandering 'redistricting' efforts, especially in key states like PA, OH, NC, TX, & FL. All well and good for the rest of this decade, but unless we appeal to a broader swath of the electorate, we'll be risking being cosigned to the minority in the 2020's.

[Badger]

Oh, and to the OP:

Ugh.

[°Leprechaun]

The Republican party has been declining in popularity since 1984.
Reagan put a pleasant face of conservative ideas, however they may be in
practice. Reagan had his faults but his speech was not negative.
Republicans have become increasingly abrasive and self righteous.
(eg Clinton's impeachment)
They haven't any really appealing candidate's for President since Reagan.
(at the very least they need someone like Kemp)
Not to say that I approve of Reagan, just that he was popular.
The question is will there be a shift toward the Democrats due to their popularity with
young voters? Is this reflected by the majority of posters at this site or is that an aberration from the norm? A significant per cent of Republicans here even think that their party needs to broaden its appeal.

edit: and a key indicator of whether the Republican party is in decline is whether they can carry Florida in Presidential elections, because (unless there are changes in the electoral college) without that state they are doomed.

[eric82oslo]

The Republican party has been declining in popularity since 1984.
Reagan put a pleasant face of conservative ideas, however they may be in
practice.
The question is will there be a shift toward the Democrats due to their popularity with
young voters? Is this reflected by the majority of posters at this site or is that an aberration from the norm? A significant per cent of Republicans here even think that their party needs to broaden its appeal.

Your question is easily answered by the three new graphs published by Gallup the other day.







Clearly, if things don't rapidly change, we can assume from the charts above that the Republican Party should reach an existential crisis already in the matter of the next 5 to 10 years. Clearly, the old Republican electorate is dying off, while the vast majority of new voters are either identifying as Democrats or (Democratic-leaning to a large extent) independents.

What the middle graph shows is that Democrats have an edge with every single age demographic younger than 43. The 43 to 67 year age group are the true swing voters, while almost all age groups older than 67 prefer the Republican Party and their old social values.


Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx

[°Leprechaun]

Do those graphs take into account that some people may grow a little more conservative
with age? I have heard that said, but I don't know how true it is.

[eric82oslo]

Do those graphs take into account that some people may grow a little more conservative
with age? I have heard that said, but I don't know how true it is.

It has actually been demolished as a theory. If anything, people actually get more liberal with age, just as the entire society does. Think of gay marriage for instance. Many seniors today support gay marriage (perhaps something like 40%), while just 20 years back hardly anyone of those used to support it (maybe about 20%-25% of them still supported it back them), despite them being much younger than today.

Now, what's much more interesting is to look at the changes over time. During the 1980s, young voters, that is voters younger than 30-35, were actually more conservative as in more pro-Reagan than the voters overall. In fact Democrats back then enjoyed more support among the older electorate. During the 1990s, the Clinton era, there where hardly any partisan differences among young and old voters at all. Those under 30 and those above 67 voted more or less exactly identical during the 1990s. By then the young pro-Reaganites had become more mature of course. Now most of them were in their (late) 30s, 40s and some in their early 50s. These were the age groups who were still fairly loyal to Republican candidates in the 1990s. Those pro-Reaganites today are all above 43 years of age. It is 25 years since Reagan stepped down as president and if you add the voting age of 18, you get to 43 in fact. In fact, most of those below 35 probably can't even remember Reagan ever being president. No wonder how it at times seems during Republican (presidential/primary) debates how the only thing the candidates care to talk about is how much they love/idolize Reagan, in what ways they would expand on Reagan's legacy and to what extent they epitomize the Next/New Born Reagan themselves.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Eric, I could also ask when the Kristdemokraterna will change its name, since it doesn't seem to be a particularly Christian party any longer.

[°Leprechaun]

For those of you who think that Democrats (or liberals if you will) are more 'enlightened' than Republicans, this would constitute an interesting phenomenon, where the young are more enlightened than the old.
This is also problematic insofar as elders are not respected, as perhaps they should be, for their wisdom. Could that be considered ironic, that society is becoming more 'mature' in the sense of being more enlightened, because the young are leaving the belief systems of their parents (at least in politics if not in religion)

[Deus Naturae]

Can you give a single example of an issue where this is the case? You're probably going to bring up health care, but the fact is that think tanks (I assume this is what you're referring to by "intellectuals") have already proposed solutions to that issue. Also, the idea that all Democrats have solutions while only a few Republican exceptions do is just ridiculous. It's not like all the Democrats in Congress got together and used their collective intellect to write the ACA. Like most major policies, it was crafted by a few and handed to the majority as "our policy."

LOL at the idea that supporting Common Core is some new, innovative idea that the GOP needs to get behind so it can lead the way to the future. Common Core, and Federal education standardization generally, IS the status quo. If anything, supporting Common Core is the exact opposite of "changing policy for the better."

[Cory]

The fact that they have won majorities in 2010 and 2012 shows that they are in touch with things. Why do they keep getting elected, after all?

I'm so sick of this whining about bipartisanship. Obama won. So did John Boehnor and the Republican Congress. So no side in particular is the side of "the people."

I hate this argument. It's like many Republicans live in an alternate universe where gerrymandering isn't real or something. More people voted for House Democrats then House Republicans. Fact.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The fact that they have won majorities in 2010 and 2012 shows that they are in touch with things. Why do they keep getting elected, after all?

I'm so sick of this whining about bipartisanship. Obama won. So did John Boehnor and the Republican Congress. So no side in particular is the side of "the people."

I hate this argument. It's like many Republicans live in an alternate universe where gerrymandering isn't real or something. More people voted for House Democrats then House Republicans. Fact.

Gerrymandering is real. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Fact.

Congress is doing their job. What are you going to do about it?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Don't be ridiculous, of course not.

[Cory]

Gerrymandering is real. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Fact.

Congress is doing their job. What are you going to do about it?

Don't try to get around the fact that you implied that the GOP keeping control of the House in 2012 was some kind of popular mandate.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Gerrymandering is real. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Fact.

Congress is doing their job. What are you going to do about it?

Don't try to get around the fact that you implied that the GOP keeping control of the House in 2012 was some kind of popular mandate.

The people elected them in their districts. I don't give a damn if they are gerrymandered or not-most congressional districts are, by both parties. Why don't you answer my question-should Congress bend over and spread their asses open wide for President Obama simply because he is the President?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Looks like the older you are the more like you are to be a Democrat. But I imagine a lot of younger voters are Democratic leaning, but are not impressed with their moderate heroism.