Where now for the GOP?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:46:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Where now for the GOP?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Where now for the GOP?  (Read 7814 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 05, 2008, 05:06:47 PM »

Perhaps our 1997 is your 2008.

This is the 4th time in 5 elections the GOP has lost the popular vote at a presidential election. Are the GOP now a 'regional' party? What can be done about New England? Has Nixon/Reagans grand coalition collapsed?

How can the GOP sell conservatism again and who will lead a drive towards modernisation?
Logged
MR maverick
MR politics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 585
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2008, 05:09:52 PM »

Become the party of the "big tint" and kick the right wing bible thumping nuts out.

Its time for the Real Republicans to take there party back once again.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2008, 05:13:51 PM »

Perhaps our 1997 is your 2008.

This is the 4th time in 5 elections the GOP has lost the popular vote at a presidential election. Are the GOP now a 'regional' party? What can be done about New England? Has Nixon/Reagans grand coalition collapsed?

Honestly, I'm speaking against interest here, but "New England" as such just doesn't carry that much weight electorally. The issue is the northeastern metropolitan regions in general, which covers parts of New England, along with the midwestern metropolises that are starting to vote like northeastern ones.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,956


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2008, 05:16:25 PM »

We need to get back to our roots. I am afraid of the populist, social conservative wing of the party. If we go down the road of big government, we are finished as a party. We need to go back to small government, low taxes, individual freedoms, and less emphasis on social issues. It's fine to remain pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but pushing for an amendment to ban such things will alienate moderate, which have all but left the party.  In fact, both parties are losing moderates.
Logged
perdedor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2008, 05:16:40 PM »

It's hard to say, but I would put money on the fact that the infighting and division among Republicans will not be pretty. Reaganomics have been rejected and the GOP's  issue of specialty (military policy) is no longer the number one issue in the country. I expect different factions to arise and barring a catastrophic first couple of years for Obama, the situation isn't going to get much better for Republicans electorally in 2010 as there are certainly more vulnerable Republicans slated for that election there are vulnerable Democrats. The Republicans aren't a regional party, but they are certainly in 1980s Democratic Party shape.
Logged
MR maverick
MR politics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 585
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2008, 05:20:11 PM »

We need to get back to our roots. I am afraid of the populist, social conservative wing of the party. If we go down the road of big government, we are finished as a party. We need to go back to small government, low taxes, individual freedoms, and less emphasis on social issues. It's fine to remain pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but pushing for an amendment to ban such things will alienate moderate, which have all but left the party.  In fact, both parties are losing moderates.

Agreed.

Smart Republicans.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2008, 05:27:22 PM »

A coherent *fresh* message, along with attacking Obama intelligently is the key to success.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2008, 05:31:05 PM »

The pendulum swings back and forth, but...the GOP faces two very big long-term problems:

1) demographics - the GOP has sadly failed to attract minorities- that's not gonna cut it with the demographic changes

2) the social conservatives simply will NOT bend on the issue of abortion and homosexuality.  We'd rather lose elections (and even our lives) than lose our souls.  We believe that the world is destined to embrace sin more and more as the end approaches, so we are expecting that the world will agree with us less and less.  Our allegiance is with the Truth, not the Republican party.  
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2008, 05:51:39 PM »

You will be seeing a re-alignment.  What that will look like is still too early.

Yesterday looked a lot like 1976.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2008, 05:53:43 PM »

next time, manage wars properly. It's bad enough that the prewar intel sucked (or was manipulated, but who cares at this point?), but seriously, the incompetence demonstrated in Iraq up until around 2007 was ridiculous. Even worse, instead of attempting to change strategy/relieve the incompetents of their duties, you guys essentially chose to live in denial for about four years. That's not going to work when everyday we  woke up to hear reports of U.S. and civilian deaths. Just FYI.

And the 51% strategy employed by Rove really showed its weakness once you guys started to piss of certain segments of that 51%. Feel free to run along divisive lines in an attempt to shore up that 51%, but don't piss them off after you've won. Same thing happened in 1992.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2008, 05:54:49 PM »
« Edited: November 05, 2008, 06:10:12 PM by phknrocket1k »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2008, 06:18:49 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2008, 06:20:24 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Well I agree, any negative reaction to his change wont be showing up till 2012-2014 anyway. Bush didn't illicit negative reactions till late 2005 which was thus expressed in 2006 midterms and 2008 election.
Logged
cannonia
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2008, 06:27:04 PM »

Become the party of the "big tint" and kick the right wing bible thumping nuts out.

LOL
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2008, 06:28:39 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Well I agree, any negative reaction to his change wont be showing up till 2012-2014 anyway. Bush didn't illicit negative reactions till late 2005 which was thus expressed in 2006 midterms and 2008 election.

yep, 9/11 changed the mentality of the nation so much that Bush was given a lot of slack.  Same with the current situation - Obama will be given a lot of slack, but perhaps not as much as Bush.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2008, 06:32:55 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Misreading the election, alas...
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2008, 06:33:40 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Misreading the election, alas...

Me or jmcfst?
Logged
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,294
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2008, 06:36:22 PM »

Since economic responsibility is pretty much the reason why the GOP lost ... The Small Gov't people are likely to be ejected. II am not sure where, but if the GOP wants to survive, we have to be more Moderate/Populist.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2008, 06:36:58 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Misreading the election, alas...

how so? very few like the state of our economy or the state of the war on terror, Obama can't do much worse.  And I for one will be extemely glad to have a president that can complete a sentence.  And it will be refreshing to see a black man in the oval office.
Logged
Reluctant Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2008, 06:41:02 PM »

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.
Logged
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,294
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2008, 06:42:58 PM »

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2008, 06:43:27 PM »

Wait until theres a negative reaction to an Obama policy/policies. Similar to how Democrats eventually took the mantle in 2006 or GOP in 1994 and 1980.

no, I think Obama should be given, and will be given, wide latitude in his economic and foreign policies in the 1st 2 years.  As long as he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, his approval ratings may be >65% over his first two years, barring some foreign policy disaster.

America needed a change, so America will give Obama time to see if he fits the change that is needed.

Misreading the election, alas...

how so? very few like the state of our economy or the state of the war on terror, Obama can't do much worse.  And I for one will be extemely glad to have a president that can complete a sentence.  And it will be refreshing to see a black man in the oval office.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment.  But those who voted for him (or a lot who don't) have very high expectations of him, most of them being quite unrealistic.
Logged
Reluctant Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2008, 06:48:42 PM »

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

If the GOP becomes Libertarian, where does The South/Religious/Populist/Other people go?

Good question, and I don’t really have an answer. I’m just suggesting the route I’d like it to go. Maybe populism and social conservatism is better for the party in the long run, considering changing demographics, but if it goes any further in that direction it honestly won’t be my party anymore, to sound rude. You guys can have it then, and I mean that with no offense intended. Ha, I might just spout a Dem avi in that case. And I really don't want to do that, since it's a rather ugly shade of red.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2008, 06:49:12 PM »

I think they should move in a more Libertarian direction. Moderate Libertarianism can work in this country.  Like Duke said, if we focus on curtailing spending and cutting taxes for the middle class we’ll go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I don’t know how they should be addressed. I don’t think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally I’d be in favor of downplaying social issues, but there’s no way that would work. So, I don’t know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, I‘d say, if they can actually practice what they preach for a change.

     Welcome to the club. Smiley

     Anyway, I agree that the GOP needs to become more libertarian. Social conservatism is by its very nature a declining sum. Societies become freer & more equal, not the other way around. Fundamentalism is no longer a winning proposition in the United States.

     There's enough of them for a party to remain fairly large but that isn't what we want. If the Republicans become our electoral version of the LibDems, who is going to be the major party that stands up to the Democrats?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2008, 06:50:36 PM »

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment.  But those who voted for him (or a lot who don't) have very high expectations of him, most of them being quite unrealistic.

yeah, but I think you underestimate the impact of having a president who can actually talk will have on the American people.  I don't think Bush's approval rating would have ever dropped below 40% if he had the ability to communicate.  

And the scary thing is, Bush's speaking abilities have only DECREASED since he has been in office, which tells me that he never really had an idea where he wanted to take the country.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 14 queries.