If McCain loses the election...

[paul718]

Appeal to Blacks , Latinos and others instead of Joe the plumbers and Todd Palins of the world

This is the exact type of race-based politics that conservatives will NEVER partake in.  It's one of the things that makes me proud to be a conservative.  If McCain loses, it's precisely because he didn't get enough "Joe the Plumbers" to vote for him. 

Bush got 45% of the Latino vote and 12% of the black vote back in 2000.. they were on the right track then.  It somehow got lost in 2004 iam guessing with calling everybody anti American stuff which stems from the far right hopping on the 9/11 wagon. Since it won them victory in 2004 they figured it was the way to go.   

Dismiss my point of view on this if you please, but if the Mexican vote and black vote overwhelm McCain this election that will be the sign that I was right.

You can't win elections losing a vote 99%- 1%

What do you mean by "calling everybody anti-American stuff?"  Michelle Bachmann said that stuff 2 weeks ago and will likely lose her seat for it. 

George W. Bush appointed two black Secretaries of State and a Hispanic AG.  The RNC was recently headed by Mel Martinez, and Michael Steele is chairman of GOPAC.  What else should they do?

The Republicans are losing because people are identifying them with the current financial crisis (undeservedly so, IMO) and the deficit (deservedly so).  Get back to real supply-side fiscal policy and tell the social conservatives to step the hell back for a minute.  It's not rocket science. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

They did. Next. They're pretty fu cked, too. The only realy issue that is still strong for them is Gays and Taxes...and even they are pretty weak. The entire right-to-life thing was vaporized throughout the country last election. People want to shoot themselves when people talk about "free markets" or "spreading freedom". Then again, guns could be a big issue for the Republicans. It really is retarded for us Democrats to think we can continue to win with gun control...even though at this point it seems inconceivable that we could lose without casting the entire 2-party system into doubt.

Appeal to Blacks , Latinos and others instead of Joe the plumbers and Todd Palins of the world

This is the exact type of race-based politics that conservatives will NEVER partake in.  It's one of the things that makes me proud to be a conservative.  If McCain loses, it's precisely because he didn't get enough "Joe the Plumbers" to vote for him. 

Bush got 45% of the Latino vote and 12% of the black vote back in 2000.. they were on the right track then.  It somehow got lost in 2004 iam guessing with calling everybody anti American stuff which stems from the far right hopping on the 9/11 wagon. Since it won them victory in 2004 they figured it was the way to go.   

Dismiss my point of view on this if you please, but if the Mexican vote and black vote overwhelm McCain this election that will be the sign that I was right.

You can't win elections losing a vote 99%- 1%

What do you mean by "calling everybody anti-American stuff?"  Michelle Bachmann said that stuff 2 weeks ago and will likely lose her seat for it. 

George W. Bush appointed two black Secretaries of State and a Hispanic AG.  The RNC was recently headed by Mel Martinez, and Michael Steele is chairman of GOPAC.  What else should they do?

The Republicans are losing because people are identifying them with the current financial crisis (undeservedly so, IMO) and the deficit (deservedly so).  Get back to real supply-side fiscal policy and tell the social conservatives to step the hell back for a minute.  It's not rocket science. 

Good luck with that. supply-side economics can't really work because we don't have as many resources or communication lines or products to develop supplies. Getting away from the nationalists won't work because your party's base is 70% RR. 

[paul718]

Good luck with that. supply-side economics can't really work because we don't have as many resources or communication lines or products to develop supplies.

Can you elaborate on this?  Maybe I'm stupid.   

Getting away from the nationalists won't work because your party's base is 70% RR. 

Again, I'm not sure I understand this.  By "nationalists" do you mean immigration-hawks?  Nat'l security-hawks? 

And what is "RR"?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Good luck with that. supply-side economics can't really work because we don't have as many resources or communication lines or products to develop supplies.

Can you elaborate on this?  Maybe I'm stupid.   

Getting away from the nationalists won't work because your party's base is 70% RR. 

Again, I'm not sure I understand this.  By "nationalists" do you mean immigration-hawks?  Nat'l security-hawks? 

And what is "RR"?

You know Religious Right... Nationalists would be immigration-hawks/RR collectively.


We can't do supply side economics anymore because we don't have enough resources or transportation ability...let alone something that we have a competitive advantage supplying. We need to find new resources, rebuild and drastically expand our infrastructure and find new industries.

[paul718]

You know Religious Right... Nationalists would be immigration-hawks/RR collectively.

Okay, maybe I'm just having trouble with your terminology.  You said, "Getting away from the nationalists won't work because your party's base is 70% RR."  I never implied that the GOP should move away from immigration-hawks.  In fact, I believe just the opposite.  A majority of the country desires comprehensive immigration reform.  And I have to dispute your claim that 70% of the party is "religious right".  I could be wrong, but I don't believe that 70% of Republicans base their vote on social issues.  I mean, we did just nominate the anti-"Religious Right" candidate.       

We can't do supply side economics anymore because we don't have enough resources or transportation ability...let alone something that we have a competitive advantage supplying. We need to find new resources, rebuild and drastically expand our infrastructure and find new industries.

I'm talking about low taxes, low regulation, low spending, free-trade.  What does this have to do with "supply" in the literal sense of the word?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

You know Religious Right... Nationalists would be immigration-hawks/RR collectively.

Okay, maybe I'm just having trouble with your terminology.  You said, "Getting away from the nationalists won't work because your party's base is 70% RR."  I never implied that the GOP should move away from immigration-hawks.  In fact, I believe just the opposite.  A majority of the country desires comprehensive immigration reform.  And I have to dispute your claim that 70% of the party is "religious right".  I could be wrong, but I don't believe that 70% of Republicans base their vote on social issues.  I mean, we did just nominate the anti-"Religious Right" candidate.       

We can't do supply side economics anymore because we don't have enough resources or transportation ability...let alone something that we have a competitive advantage supplying. We need to find new resources, rebuild and drastically expand our infrastructure and find new industries.

I'm talking about low taxes, low regulation, low spending, free-trade.  What does this have to do with "supply" in the literal sense of the word?

How can you help somebody sell something if they have nothing to sell, let alone any consumers? That's why we have periods of economic consolidation, like the one that Obama is going to put us through right now.

If you look at the demographic numbers...things stack up quite well for my argument...

22 percent of Anabaptists voted for McCain.... 17 percent of the vote.... (this is in line with trends that state that 17% of Americans call themselves members of the Religious Right)

45 percent of the Catholics voted for McCain...since Catholics are kinda down-scale, most of them voted on social issues....and since 25 percent of voters are Catholic and I am guess 60 percent of McCain voters in this demographic voted against abortion than anything else, I am guessing this is about 7 percent of voters came from this.

That's 24 percent. You are also forgeting neo-arians (JWs, Mormons et al.). They voted for McCain at a rate of 80 percent. They are about 6 percent of the voting population. I am  guessing that 60 percent them voted against social constitutionalism. Therefore, I would say that this is about 3 percent of the vote.

That's 27 percent of the vote. The election was 53-46 Obama. Roughly 10 percent were undecided going into the end campaign. Let's say that McCain slightly won the undecideds....say 60-40. That would mean that Obama's base was 49% and McCain's was 40%.  27 out of 40 is about 68% of the Republican base. Not quite 70%...but it is still pretty monolithic.

27/40= 68% of the GOP base

This may or may not be right...and I am shooting from the hip a bit with these estimates...and relying on demographic stereotypes...which was actually a pretty good predictor of this election, if you use Nate Silver as an example. However, maybe we can all get some clarity on this issue if you can make a better, more nuanced model. I doubt you will, though.

[paul718]

If you look at the demographic numbers...things stack up quite well for my argument...

22 percent of Anabaptists voted for McCain.... 17 percent of the vote.... (this is in line with trends that state that 17% of Americans call themselves members of the Religious Right)

45 percent of the Catholics voted for McCain...since Catholics are kinda down-scale, most of them voted on social issues....and since 25 percent of voters are Catholic and I am guess 60 percent of McCain voters in this demographic voted against abortion than anything else, I am guessing this is about 7 percent of voters came from this.

That's 24 percent. You are also forgeting neo-arians (JWs, Mormons et al.). They voted for McCain at a rate of 80 percent. They are about 6 percent of the voting population. I am  guessing that 60 percent them voted against social constitutionalism. Therefore, I would say that this is about 3 percent of the vote.

That's 27 percent of the vote. The election was 53-46 Obama. Roughly 10 percent were undecided going into the end campaign. Let's say that McCain slightly won the undecideds....say 60-40. That would mean that Obama's base was 49% and McCain's was 40%.  27 out of 40 is about 68% of the Republican base. Not quite 70%...but it is still pretty monolithic.

27/40= 68% of the GOP base

This may or may not be right...and I am shooting from the hip a bit with these estimates...and relying on demographic stereotypes...which was actually a pretty good predictor of this election, if you use Nate Silver as an example. However, maybe we can all get some clarity on this issue if you can make a better, more nuanced model. I doubt you will, though.

From what I understand, there are 3 "wings" of the post-Reagan GOP: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks.  I think these 3 wings are prioritized according to the changing times.  For example, Reagan came in focusing on fiscal policy.  By the end of his term the party was focused on foreign policy.  Bush-41 continued that focus, but was ultimately done in by the economy.  By '94 the focus was again on economic issues and the GOP continued with a focus on fiscal conservatism throughout the Clinton years.  In 2000, I would say a lot of the so-cons took over.  I think a relatively large portion of the Clinton-to-Bush vote was a reaction to the Lewinsky/perjury affair.  By 2004, of course, it was foreign policy on steroids.  Now, it's back to fiscal policy.  What I mean here is that I don't see any ideology holding a permanent plurality over the GOP.  Therefore, my estimate woud be that each wing constitutes around 33%  (one-third) of "the base". 

I see your point and I respect your numbers.  I don't have numbers of my own, so I'm gonna trust yours and point out where I differ with you. 

(1) I need some clarification regarding Anabaptists.  Are you saying that Anabaptists account for 17% of the national electorate?  Or that Anabaptists accounted for 17% of the McCain vote?  And if 22% of Anabaptists voted for McCain, how many voted for Obama?

(2) Regarding Catholics, I think your 60% number is too high.  Most Catholics don't vote on social issues, IMO. 

For your number regarding Anabaptists where I'm unclear, I'll err on the side of your argument.  So let's say Anabaptists voted ONLY on social issues.  That's 17% of McCain's vote.  Plus JWs and Mormons, that's 20%.  So in order to hit my 33% estimate, 13% of Catholic Republicans would have to have based their vote on social issues.   I think 13% is too high.   

So basically, my biggest disagreement with you is with regard to the Catholic vote.  Again, I don't have numbers of my own and am basing it purely on experience.  So maybe we'll agree to disagree.   

How can you help somebody sell something if they have nothing to sell, let alone any consumers? That's why we have periods of economic consolidation, like the one that Obama is going to put us through right now.

What does "economic consolidation" mean?  I tried looking it up but couldn't get a solid definition.  Anyway, my question to you is how do higher taxes, higher trade barriers, increased national debt, and more gov't regulations help anyone sell anything?

[pbrower2a]

From what I understand, there are 3 "wings" of the post-Reagan GOP: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks.  I think these 3 wings are prioritized according to the changing times.  For example, Reagan came in focusing on fiscal policy.  By the end of his term the party was focused on foreign policy.  Bush-41 continued that focus, but was ultimately done in by the economy.  By '94 the focus was again on economic issues and the GOP continued with a focus on fiscal conservatism throughout the Clinton years.  In 2000, I would say a lot of the so-cons took over.  I think a relatively large portion of the Clinton-to-Bush vote was a reaction to the Lewinsky/perjury affair.  By 2004, of course, it was foreign policy on steroids.  Now, it's back to fiscal policy.  What I mean here is that I don't see any ideology holding a permanent plurality over the GOP.  Therefore, my estimate woud be that each wing constitutes around 33%  (one-third) of "the base". 

There's huge overlap, so many of the supply-side people are also foreign-policy hawks and social "conservatives". It's entirely a question of focus, so for about thirty years conservatives have been able to succeed by going from one focus to another without losing the Base. But as the Base shrinks or else fails to grow as the rest of America grows, then a GOP that depends upon the alliance between supply-side promoters, foreign-policy hawks, and social conservatives can only lose effectiveness at elections even while remaining as enthusiastic for its pet politicians as ever. To regain political effectiveness the GOP must find communities that the Democrats have assumed "theirs" yet under-served.  The only constituency seeming to grow for the GOP is poor white people... and it's hard to see how the Democrats can serve poor non-whites effectively without doing good for poor white people.

Maybe Obama wisely avoided the third rail of contemporary American politics -- long-tern, structural poverty.     

(1) I need some clarification regarding Anabaptists.  (Do) Anabaptists account for 17% of the national electorate?  Or that Anabaptists accounted for 17% of the McCain vote?  And if 22% of Anabaptists voted for McCain, how many voted for Obama?

Tens of millions of Americans are descended from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists|Anabaptists, but there are comparatively few Amish and Mennonites. I have no idea how Mennonites and Old Order Amish vote, or whether they participate extensively in voting. There are Peace Churches that have adopted some Anabaptist tendencies -- Mennonites without the rejection of technology -- and I can imagine them voting heavily Democratic out of contempt for the foreign-policy hawks within the GOP.

(2) Regarding Catholics... 60% number is too high.  Most Catholics don't vote on social issues, IMO.

 

Catholics are not single-issue voters as a group, and they have concerns other than abortion. The Catholic hierarchy is liberal on matters other than sexuality. I would suspect that the Catholic Church has largely abandoned efforts to outlaw abortion through legislation and relies more heavily upon moral suasion to reduce abortions.   

For your number regarding Anabaptists where I'm unclear, I'll err on the side of your argument.  So let's say Anabaptists voted ONLY on social issues.  That's 17% of McCain's vote.  Plus JWs and Mormons, that's 20%.  So in order to hit my 33% estimate, 13% of Catholic Republicans would have to have based their vote on social issues.   I think 13% is too high.   

How can you help somebody sell something if they have nothing to sell, let alone any consumers? That's why we have periods of economic consolidation, like the one that Obama is going to put us through right now.

What does "economic consolidation" mean?  I tried looking it up but couldn't get a solid definition.  Anyway, my question to you is how do higher taxes, higher trade barriers, increased national debt, and more gov't regulations help anyone sell anything?

(Over 120 days have passed).

For a conservative, Obama will be a mixture of good and bad. He won't be a tax-cutter for elites; such has been tried, and it has apparently played out. The vote for him suggests that Americans no longer believe the mantra that so long as the "right people" have all the power and wealth things will go well. Things evidently did not go well.  The financial bailouts will surely preclude any efforts to start a new bloat in the welfare state.

What is important? That we rediscover thrift, toil, innovation, and enterprise as the only reliable means of generating wealth, that we start making the things that we consume instead of relying upon imports as a means of keeping things "cheap" (but destructive to the working people of America). People will have to do good for others to get so much as the barest sustenance, but will need incentives to avoid goldbricking and malingering.

We went as far as we could with relying upon bureaucratic privilege and power, transforming manufacturers into importers, falling real wages, cartelization of industry, monetary legerdemain -- and we got a speculative boom that went bust.  Any prosperity that we get in 2010 to at least 2030 will not depend upon speculative bubbles. That's not all bad; most of the Great Depression was a recovery, and such prosperity as we had during the 1940s and 1950s depended upon something other than speculation.

[nclib]

...will the GOP blame their loss on nominating a (by GOP standards) moderate?

Bump.

The same question could now be asked in regards to Romney.

[politicus]

A new thread woud be better, than bumping this one.

[Californian Tony]

Yes, of course.

This is why they needed to go with an insane radical this time, so as to get an epic beating and finally regain some common sense.

[Simfan34]

Yes, of course.

This is why they needed to go with an insane radical this time, so as to get an epic beating and finally regain some common sense.

I don't know. I've heard reasonable arguments that whomever lost would be decried as "too moderate"- even Santorum.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, they'll blame it on the fact that they nominated a "moderate".  Then they'll turn around in four years, and nominate yet another "moderate", just like they pretty much always do.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Yes, of course.

This is why they needed to go with an insane radical this time, so as to get an epic beating and finally regain some common sense.

Pretty sure that was Huntsman's idea: they nominate Santorum/Gingrich, lose something like 407-131 in the EV, and get shocked into moderation and next cycle elect a moderate, someone like Jon Huntsman, Jr.