Future of the Republican party?

[hopper]

More Libertarianism, Protectionalist on outsourcing, as you see with surge of Trump. But, recklessness and Tea party House, won't allow them to compete with Latino and Black vote, with obstruction on Earned citizenship & min wage.

Well the Latino Vote has more to do with income and how long they have been in the US. It also has to do with how they are still connected with their country of origin. Yes immigration reform is always a hot topic.

The Black Vote-the GOP has a long ways to go at least start to chip into the Dem's advantage there.

[hopper]

I voted 'moderation' but the key thing for the GOP is to shed its image as the party of white people. There is no future for that. Within a generation America will be a majority-minority country, just like CA is today.   

Winning 70-75% of the white votes guarantees the GOP as the majority party for here on out. And yes it can and will be done by the 2030s. As whites move towards minority status, they will begin to act and vote like minorities.

I don't see that happening. Whites under 35( yes I am 35) are likely to be socially liberal and line up with the Dem platform on social issues.

[hopper]

Moderation never wins?  I bet Ike and Clinton and Nixon wish they'd gotten the results of true believers like Goldwater and McGovern...

Boblow continues to be the worst poster here, with an ideology that can more or less be described as anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia and pretty much just being an idiot.

A straight-up embarrassment to the Party of Lincoln.

The problem is, the people who want to remake your party into toned-down Dixiecrats are winning, on almost every issue.  This may go down as the primary season when they officially became a majority of the party. 

Toned-Down Dixiecrats? The Dixiecrats were center-left on economic issues where as the GOP is not. On social issues-I take it the Dixiecrats were socially conservative and so is the GOP so there is a match there.

[hopper]

The party is clearly moving towards nativism, nationalism, and populism. It is no longer the party of Lincoln, or the party of Reagan, but it is the party of Trump. Over time, this will have to fade. Such a vigorously hateful ideology is not compatible with a modern electorate. Trump's surge is the last gasp of the old bats who form Bill O'Reilly's audience. A more liberal generation is on the horizon.

After they end their failed experiment in Trumpism sometime in the next decade, the GOP will come to its senses, and move towards moderation - on all issues, not just social issues. Ike wasn't a far right-winger on social issues in his time, but he also wasn't a far right-winger on economic issues. The GOP will eventually have to accept the healthcare bill - it is here to stay - just as Ike accepted the New Deal, and made no attempts to roll it back. The GOP will have to accept that income inequality is a real issue. They will have to accept the change in American culture: away from "give me liberty or give me death" and towards "peace, order, and good government."

The GOP is in for a wild ride over the next few decades, so sit tight. The party will have to moderate in the future, but right now it seems they want to endorse Trump's brand of populism. I vote populism.

"The Party of Trump" is a short-term thing if he gets to the General Election and loses.

Would you guys stop invoking Bill O'Reilly's name on the D side? He is not hard-right. He believes in global warming. He doesn't align with the hard-right against Immigration Reform. He even attacked the GOP for being against the poor once.

True about Ike being a Moderate.

I do agree with you that Republicans have to accept the "Affordable Care Act"(I don't like it) because "The Latino Community" likes it and they are the fastest growing demographic in the US.

What's wrong with Populism? I dislike Trumps Brand of "Angry Populism" with hateful language against women and illegal immigrants.  

[hopper]

Actually, I've said before that I think Perot probably did cost Republicans a 19th century style winning streak from 1980-2004/08 by invoking the deficit against the right in a non-partisan way.  So Clinton was something of a fluke, all things considered, just like Nixon probably wouldn't have won without Wallace in 1968, not just because of the South but because Wallace made Nixon look like the reasonable middle.  

Yeah but Nixon did have some Moderate Cred though as President.  He had a DW-Nominate score of +0.563 so basically he  was between Eisenhower(+0.302) and Reagan(+0.703.)

He was for a business mandate for healthcare, raising taxes(ok to maintain economy and sound dollar) and  increased enforcement of gun laws(even after "Brady Bill" was passed.) Once said "We Are All Keynesians" now.  Nixon also started the EPA while President.

[hopper]

The party is going into irrelevancy, with Donald Trump & Carly Florina who might be nominees. All they have to do is allow votes on Dem issues, especially immigration reform and they will have a chance at presidential level,  but they won't.

So the GOP to win needs to be more like the Dems??? LOL. This myth refuses to die. Especially since minorities are loyal to the Dems REGARDLESS of the positions of the parties. A Dem party that was to the RIGHT of the GOP, would still win 90% of the black vote.

For every moderate vote the GOP picks up be being liberal, they lose far far more than one vote from their conservative base.

No not entirely true the reason why the GOP "jumped the shark" in the short term(Pre-1980) with the Black Community was because Goldwater thought Civil Rights was a states rights issue not because of any economic issue.  Where you maybe right are is the GOP lost the Black Community in the long run was because of Reaganomics. Remember Gerald Ford in 1976 won 16% of the Black Vote and still lost the election.

As for the theory that the GOP will lose Conservative Voters because of a Moderate Vote being cast for them the Conservatives are gonna vote for Democrats?

[hopper]

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

Lincoln is viewed as something of a founder (though he technically wasn't) and founder's names are rarely removed a century and a half later. For the same reason my undergraduate institution still claims its founder who died about 100 years ago. Also, Lincoln is good PR.

If there's any name the GOP needs to stop mentioning it's Reagan; everyone under 35 rolls their eyes every time he comes up in the GOP primary debate when he has nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times his name is invoked he still won't come back to life.

Funny I'm 35 but its like the country has changed demographically since then(1980) and the GOP needs a new revolutionary president for the 21st century. Like David Drucker of "The Washington Examiner" said once Ronald Reagan is a guy kids read about in a history book.

[hopper]

I believe the whole party structure has to change. This idea that you have to support or oppose someone based on whether they have a D or an R next to their name is simply ludicrous. People running for office should state their positions, and the electorate should inform themselves and figure out who would best represent them. The idea that a fiscal conservative can't be a Democrat, or that a candidate who supports a woman's right to have an abortion can't be a Republican, is counter productive. Seems to me that the party structure is about one thing: money. If we could figure out a better way to finance these contests (and in the process get rid of political parties altogether), the country would be better off.

Well I do think there is need for political parties. Basically there was 2 moderate parties till like the 90's until the South went Conservative Republican. I do think people just wear their political parties label proudly like I am a Democrat or Republican and I am really proud of it.

Sure a Republican can be Pro-Choice and a Dem can be pro-life but where the 2 parties spilt off is really on fiscal issues.

Personally would I dislike currently is the Super Pacs. I wish the Presidential Election Process was pushed till like January of a new year instead of it starting up like in the spring a year and a half before the election. Like can we push the process up by 6-9 months and have presidential  primaries on a single day instead of different days scattered around a calendar as well?

[hopper]

An interesting point that the recent House leadership struggle has brought up is that there really isn't any way to steer this ship.

At least at the moment, the GOP can't control its message.

What "The "Outsiders" disagree with the establishment on is tactics and process through which bills are put through the committee process. I do agree with "The Outsiders" that the bills should go through committee mark-up. Where I disagree with "The Outsiders" on is that "Planned Parenthood" should be defunded and that "ObamaCare" is gonna be repealed when the President in office name is Barack Obama!! "Planned Parenthood" isn't gonna be defunded because Obama is pro-choice and the American People aren't in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood.