The GOP isn't about to die out

[All Along The Watchtower]

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Republican Party already reconciled itself to the welfare state several times before. Doing so again will hardly be novel.

[Skill and Chance]

Of course not.  In Congress and the states, Republicans are at a 90 year high point right now!  If they win the White House and don't get wiped out in 2018, Democrats will be back in their 1896-1928 weak position.

[AggregateDemand]

Incompetence is the life-blood of politics so it's impossible to predict the future. Republicans are too incompetent to beat the party of genocide, slavery, and subpar counter-productive entitlements, which beget suppressed Democratic output. Democrats are too incompetent to beat a party that teaches people to loath the government, which begets bouts of unenthusiastic Republican turnout.

Conservatives within the Republican Party fancy themselves social political activists. In reality, the Republican Party is geared towards economics, and conservatives are generally quite inept when it comes to matters of social politics. If Republicans stick to economics and socioeconomics they'll be fine. If they keep struggling against SSM, marijuana, etc. they'll only help the Democrats.

[RINO Tom]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

[YaBoyNY]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

[Potus]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

[YaBoyNY]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

[Potus]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

You have a very frustrating view of faith in politics. "When religious people do good things, they're being liberal. When they do bad things, they're being conservative."

The great, social conservative evil that is the pro-life movement is condemned by liberals for "legislating their morality." Republicans have always done this, from our founding. The fight against slavery was the beginning of our fight to "legislate our morality" onto others. The ideological heritage is clear.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The terms often used to describe Republicans were that they were too pious and righteous. Ironically, for a Southern based party at the time to level such a charge like the Democrats did, this was a common refrain going back to the days of Jefferson and Adams where Jefferson was accused of being an atheist. There are also numerous references to the heritage of Salem Witch trials, which the GOP's opponents claimed the party inherited. From its birth, the Republicans have been defined by its opponents for Puritanical and Calvinistic excesses. The exception, not the rule, was the period between 1930 and 1970.

Reagan didn't build the three legged stool, he repaired and restored it.

[YaBoyNY]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

You have a very frustrating view of faith in politics. "When religious people do good things, they're being liberal. When they do bad things, they're being conservative."

The great, social conservative evil that is the pro-life movement is condemned by liberals for "legislating their morality." Republicans have always done this, from our founding. The fight against slavery was the beginning of our fight to "legislate our morality" onto others. The ideological heritage is clear.

That's not really how I think at all. The prohibition movement, for example, was a Progressive position to hold

[RINO Tom]

The terms often used to describe Republicans were that they were too pious and righteous. Ironically, for a Southern based party at the time to level such a charge like the Democrats did, this was a common refrain going back to the days of Jefferson and Adams where Jefferson was accused of being an atheist. There are also numerous references to the heritage of Salem Witch trials, which the GOP's opponents claimed the party inherited. From its birth, the Republicans have been defined by its opponents for Puritanical and Calvinistic excesses. The exception, not the rule, was the period between 1930 and 1970.

Reagan didn't build the three legged stool, he repaired and restored it.

This.  The only real "story" there is to take away from how different the parties look is the GOP winning over White Southerners and the sharp decline in religious conservatives in New England and the upper Midwest relative to the South and interior Midwest.  For almost all of its history, the GOP has been an awkward marriage between religious conservatives and the business community.

[All Along The Watchtower]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

You have a very frustrating view of faith in politics. "When religious people do good things, they're being liberal. When they do bad things, they're being conservative."

The great, social conservative evil that is the pro-life movement is condemned by liberals for "legislating their morality." Republicans have always done this, from our founding. The fight against slavery was the beginning of our fight to "legislate our morality" onto others. The ideological heritage is clear.

That's not really how I think at all. The prohibition movement, for example, was a Progressive position to hold

Progressivism is different from progressivism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Duh.

[Associate Justice PiT]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

You have a very frustrating view of faith in politics. "When religious people do good things, they're being liberal. When they do bad things, they're being conservative."

The great, social conservative evil that is the pro-life movement is condemned by liberals for "legislating their morality." Republicans have always done this, from our founding. The fight against slavery was the beginning of our fight to "legislate our morality" onto others. The ideological heritage is clear.

That's not really how I think at all. The prohibition movement, for example, was a Progressive position to hold

Progressivism is different from progressivism.

     It is also different from social conservatism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When was the last time the GOP didn't have a STAUNCHLY socially conservative wing?  This isn't new, and it won't ever go away...

They were never as dominant as they are now.

Except for that whole "Founded to fight the moral evil of slavery" thing..

A lot of the socially liberal attitudes out of the 19th century came from a religious view on things.

Religion was kind of a factor in both social liberalism and conservatism then.

You have a very frustrating view of faith in politics. "When religious people do good things, they're being liberal. When they do bad things, they're being conservative."

The great, social conservative evil that is the pro-life movement is condemned by liberals for "legislating their morality." Republicans have always done this, from our founding. The fight against slavery was the beginning of our fight to "legislate our morality" onto others. The ideological heritage is clear.

That's not really how I think at all. The prohibition movement, for example, was a Progressive position to hold

The vast bulk of support for Prohibitionism in the Democratic Party came from people who also supported the KKK. They also really liked Woodrow Wilson. Of course the dark history of Progressivism in the Democratic Party is heavily connected and tainted by such seedy connections in the early 20th Century.

Eugenics was also considered progressive. Unreastrained industrial expansion was considered progressivism by those who promoted it. Progressivism is not an ideology it is the achievement of a step in the road to a desired end goal. What are you heading towards is what matters. Is is it a white supremacist soceity where protestant Sudden men reclaim their leadership of the country from ills of catholic micks and Italians? Is it the purfication of society from the sins of devil rum and the restoration of Protestant Christian virtue from the pollution of Catholic vice and societal deteriation?

[RFayette]

So Yankee, you're basically saying that Baptists are to the GOP now what Calvinists and Congregationalists were a century ago?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So Yankee, you're basically saying that Baptists are to the GOP now what Calvinists and Congregationalists were a century ago?

You must consider that the Civil War also split the churches as well. Presbyterians and Baptists were Democratic in the South, but I would hazard a guess they weren't quite so monolithic in the North. I really prefer to avoid getting into the weeds of religious groups and their differences, but aside from wealth and geography religion was more factor the broke down along party lines where there party lines to be drawn (since the South did not have parties it had factions within the Democratic Party at that time).

[RFayette]

So Yankee, you're basically saying that Baptists are to the GOP now what Calvinists and Congregationalists were a century ago?

You must consider that the Civil War also split the churches as well. Presbyterians and Baptists were Democratic in the South, but I would hazard a guess they weren't quite so monolithic in the North. I really prefer to avoid getting into the weeds of religious groups and their differences, but aside from wealth and geography religion was more factor the broke down along party lines where there party lines to be drawn (since the South did not have parties it had factions within the Democratic Party at that time).

Wouldn't presbyterians be solid GOP in the North a century ago?  They are one of the wealthiest denominations in terms of per capita income.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They're a Congressional and state level party. What they really stand for: state rights. Which they cant win a national campaign. They are exactly where the conservative party was at during Blair's tenure as prime minister.

[JohnRM]

Reports of the Republican Party's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

History would suggest that a resurgence of conservatism is on the horizon. This happens frequently when either side overreaches. The last swing in favor of the left took place after the right overstepped during the 1990s. The left is beginning to do so now with the latest talks about stripping churches of tax exemption, fining citizens for acting conscientiously, and other slights against what the public generally considers to be fair play. Favor has always swung against those perceived to be the aggressor, in this country. The left is busy stepping into that role as we speak. It is the natural way of things in America.

As for the demographics of the party, I think it would be premature to say that as the older generation begins to pass, there will be some collapse of the party. Certainly, older folks are a powerful element of the party, but they are not the only element, and they will not all suddenly slip mortal coil at once. The future of the Republican Party is largely with the Hispanic vote, which currently favors the Democratic Party, but truly only because of economic reasons. As the household income of Hispanic families moves up, they will become more moderate on the economy and begin voting more heavily in favor of Republicans. Immigration is not as important of issue as many claim, but it could be impactful, either way.

On a purely religious front, the demise of Christianity in America has been greatly exaggerated, as well. The people that have left the church are generally those who were cultural Christians or those who rarely attended church anyway. Both groups simply claimed to be Christians because it used to be part of the American identity. That is clearly not the case anymore. Research suggests that there are as many regular church attendees as there ever was, at least since the 1960s. The numbers gap between now and then is simply a matter of people not feeling the need to check the 'Christian' box and claim to attend church frequently. That solid core of around 20-25 percent of Americans who do attend regularly is not in decline.

Interesting, of all the studies I have read, none of them seem to take these one-off independent churches into account. I don't think they vote heavily Republican, but I have seen them popping up everywhere in eastern Pennsylvania.

[The Mikado]

Have I already said in this thread that people have greatly overlooked the huge structural problems facing the Democratic Party, namely that the young politicians who will be the standard bearers of the party in future elections, both state legislators and Congressmen, are basically nonexistent after the 2010 and 2014 waves? We have no bold governors, no hotshot young Congressmen, nothing like that. There's nobody in the wings. Demographics can't help the Democrats if they have no one to run.

If Hillary Clinton had a stroke tomorrow, the Democratic Party would have absolutely nothing to offer in the 2016 election.

[Torie]

Have I already said in this thread that people have greatly overlooked the huge structural problems facing the Democratic Party, namely that the young politicians who will be the standard bearers of the party in future elections, both state legislators and Congressmen, are basically nonexistent after the 2010 and 2014 waves? We have no bold governors, no hotshot young Congressmen, nothing like that. There's nobody in the wings. Demographics can't help the Democrats if they have no one to run.

If Hillary Clinton had a stroke tomorrow, the Democratic Party would have absolutely nothing to offer in the 2016 election.

Oh they are out there, it is just that so many tend to be quite left wing, due to representing Dem base constituencies. But there are quite a number of Dem Senators that would make good candidates. Heck I think Gillibrand is an emerging star, just obscured by the Hillary halo gas cloud.

This whole thread is silly, because what happens when a party ceases to be competitive, is that it evolves until it is again, and/or the party in the majority moves farther out on the ideological spectrum because it can afford to lose some votes for the cause, and on and on it goes. It is almost like a law of Newtonian physics.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The left is beginning to do so now with the latest talks about stripping churches of tax exemption, fining citizens for acting conscientiously, and other slights against what the public generally considers to be fair play.

What?

[JohnRM]

The left is beginning to do so now with the latest talks about stripping churches of tax exemption, fining citizens for acting conscientiously, and other slights against what the public generally considers to be fair play.

What?

What part specifically did you not understand? Or have you just not heard/read the various stories/articles, many written by leftists, addressing these specific topics?