Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 02:06:59 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2008 Elections
| | |-+  Where now for the GOP?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Where now for the GOP?  (Read 5398 times)
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1298
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2008, 06:51:43 pm »
Ignore

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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 dont really have an answer. Im just suggesting the route Id 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 wont 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.

Yeah, because if any Conservatism is hurt this year, it is Fiscal rather than Social. And there are too many Social Conservatives for the GOP to stay Libertarian. We won't be accepted into the DEMS. And without Social Issues, I'd have more in common with the DEM party instead of the GOP.
Logged

Im for the poor man all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. - Governor and Senator Huey Long (D - LA)



Huey Long, one of America's greatest unsung heroes
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2008, 07:03:44 pm »
Ignore


Yeah, because if any Conservatism is hurt this year, it is Fiscal rather than Social.

agreed.  but the GOP left Fiscal conservatism behind over the last 5 years - beginning with Prescription drug bill in 2003.  it actually started to end in 2000 - that's when earmarks started to make a comeback.  The modern Fiscal conservative era was 95-99 when the GOP led congress really held the line on spending increases.

In reality, the 2000 election was about how to spend our prosperity and we are still spending as if the economy was in the late 90's tech boom.

but you can't be fiscally conservative when we're facing a meltdown of our banking system.  We had no choice but to pass bailout bill.  Over the next 18 months, social conservatives will be viewed as standing in the way of fighting the economic fire
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 07:09:48 pm by the jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
ChrisFromNJ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2748


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -8.61

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2008, 07:05:11 pm »
Ignore

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

Yesterday looked a lot like 1976.

Except Barack Obama won his election by a much larger margin than Carter did.

Are you going to continue repeating this garbage for the next 4 years?
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16948
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -8.52

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2008, 07:05:51 pm »
Ignore

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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?

The South was absent from this election in a way they haven't been since what... 1972?  Also, McCain hardly ran with a populist message... it was certainly more conservative on economics than Bush's policies and more liberal on social issues (mostly in that they were not front and center and McCain didnt try to push them very hard)...




Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."
-Paul Wellstone


Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52236


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2008, 07:11:26 pm »
Ignore

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.
Logged

The soon-to-be-re-elected Kings of Kansas.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18305
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2008, 07:18:21 pm »
Ignore

We lost because of the economic crisis.

true, but McCain probably only stood about 20-25% chance of winning even without the meltdown.  It is extremely hard for one party to maintain the whitehouse for 3 consecutive terms
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
cannonia
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 961
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.42, S: -1.30

P P
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2008, 07:18:56 pm »
Ignore

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6927


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2008, 08:04:11 pm »
Ignore

Listen to "Supersoulty Republicans" or continue to be marginalized.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 08:13:58 pm by nick »Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22510
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2008, 09:48:39 pm »
Ignore

Listen to "Supersoulty Republicans" or continue to be marginalized.

     Pretty much. Unfortunately, Supersoulty & his ilk are fighting a losing battle. I guess I'm not helping by jumping ship & joining the Libertarians. Embarrassed

     With that much said though, I still will generally support the Lincoln Republican. It's only the modern theocon that I refuse to lend my support to. Hopefully others will join me in supporting Libertarian candidates against them.

     Maybe if enough theocons go down in defeat due to large numbers of GOPers voting Libertarian, they'll get the message that we are not to be trifled with. If they don't get the message, I'll be a card-carrying Libertarian for a very long time to come. Smiley
Logged

Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1298
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2008, 09:53:22 pm »
Ignore

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.

Then, where would I go, as a  Gov't lover?
Logged

Im for the poor man all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. - Governor and Senator Huey Long (D - LA)



Huey Long, one of America's greatest unsung heroes
BeccaM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1111
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2008, 10:01:05 pm »
Ignore

Palin is already being thrown under the bus by McCain loyalists. It's pretty ugly actually.

I'd like to see the GOP return to its more pragmatic Roosevelt/Eisenhower/Nixon roots, but I doubt that will happen.  Actually McCain sort of fit that mold and the right panned him as a RINO and forced him to run a campaign of pandering and falseness.
Logged

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12952


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2008, 10:04:05 pm »
Ignore

The danger with "small government" as a unifying principle, although it is a powerful principle, is that it rapidly translates into "anti-government" and that has been at the root of the Bush Administration's problem and the trashing of the brand.

The social conservatism alienates some kids and adults and it makes the party look trivial during a time of crisis, but we know it is not fundamentally a deal-breaker for the party. I'd love to play concern troll and say "embrace gay marriage and your problems will melt away" but that is stupid.

Competence is the deal-breaker.

If the Republican Party can develop a coherent small government party that doesn't attract ideologues and rentseekers whose policies are only to smash the place up, cut without concern for a basic safety net (and I mean "don't leave Katrina refugees for a week" safety net, not Medicare prescription drugs), while still trying to spend big for their districts, that could be promising. If it looks like Terri Schiavo gets more attention than "health care" as a policy portfolio, people in the middle get angry.

Republicans need moral officeholders who aren't looking for a future lobbying career. You have some in Congress already, for certain. Somehow, you need to find a way to stop the districts from sending up single-issue ideologues who connect with their voters on that one issue but come across as economic illiterates and tone-deaf harridans on everything else. (You know who I'm talking about. Some of them were dispatched this week, but others are in safe districts.) The Democrats learned this lesson.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12952


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2008, 10:05:35 pm »
Ignore

Palin is already being thrown under the bus by McCain loyalists. It's pretty ugly actually.

Yeah, I heard they said she didn't know Africa was a continent, didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, "threw temper tantrums" (oh the irony) about bad press coverage, and refused their help to prepare for the Couric interview, which they thought was fair.

Will Kristol and Barnes carry water for her now against this, I wonder.
Logged
Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20039


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2008, 10:06:07 pm »
Ignore

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.

Oh I certainly agree that the main reason McCain lost was the Wall Street meltdown. Looking back, I actually believe it would've been best for him to oppose the bailout and rail against Obama and those who did want to bailout Wall Street. I was a big supporter of it at the time, but it probably wasn't the best move for McCain to agree to go along with it. This was always going to be a hard race. I agree that we shouldn't chastise the religious conservatives, but we don't need to make that the central issue of the party. We need to bring back the small government message. That is a message that resonates with a majority of Americans. It's why Obama tried to appear to be a small government moderate during the elections. We got away from that after 9/11, and now is the time we need to return to that in order to get back into relevance.

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.

Then, where would I go, as a  Gov't lover?

You should probably be a Democrat if you love big government. It depends which is more important to you: big government or your social values. The reason I am a Republican is because I believe in small government.
Logged
JSojourner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11629
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2008, 10:07:24 pm »
Ignore

The argument from social conservatives will be as follows...

"Everytime the GOP has run a moderate (even if they are mainstream conservatives perceived by the right to be moderates)...the GOP has lost.  Everytime they have run a staunch social conservative, they have won."

And there is merit to this.

Gerald Ford, moderate, loses to Carter.
Ronald Reagan, social conservative, defeats Carter and Mondale.
George H.W. Bush (who RAN as a social conservative) defeats Dukakis.
George H.W. Bush (who governed as a moderate) loses to Bill Clinton.
Bob Dole, fiscally conservative but not an arch social conservative, loses to Clinton.
George W. Bush, extremely socially conservative and religious, defeats Gore.
GWB, using hot button issues appealing to the RR, defeats Kerry.
John McCain, perceived by the right to be "moderate", loses to Obama.

No matter how much I would love to see the GOP become the party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Landon and Houghton once again...(because I really like having a choice)...I don't think it will.  Undoubtedly, the few moderates remaining will argue for this.  But are there enough of them left?  

One other possibility -- and this one could gain traction.  Extreme fiscal conservatives, basically Libertarians when it comes to money, could come to the fore...and simply try to dramatically downplay their social conservatism.  Mike Pence may be one of these.  He's every bit as far right as Jim DeMint or Jim Inhofe on social issues.  But he doesn't talk about them.  He just votes.  He TALKS about money, cutting spending, reducing taxes on the wealthy and on the corporate sector...but you don't hear Pence say much about wanting to criminalize abortion or restrict gay rights, unless he's at a prayer breakfast.  

This is the tack I think the party will take.  Because as much as I like moderate and liberal Republicans, the fact that I -- basically a liberal Democrat -- like them, is seen as an indictment of them in the minds of conservatives.  And probably rightly so.

Logged

Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1298
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2008, 10:08:51 pm »
Ignore

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.

Oh I certainly agree that the main reason McCain lost was the Wall Street meltdown. Looking back, I actually believe it would've been best for him to oppose the bailout and rail against Obama and those who did want to bailout Wall Street. I was a big supporter of it at the time, but it probably wasn't the best move for McCain to agree to go along with it. This was always going to be a hard race. I agree that we shouldn't chastise the religious conservatives, but we don't need to make that the central issue of the party. We need to bring back the small government message. That is a message that resonates with a majority of Americans. It's why Obama tried to appear to be a small government moderate during the elections. We got away from that after 9/11, and now is the time we need to return to that in order to get back into relevance.

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 well go a long way to reforming. Social issues are a bit harder, and I dont know how they should be addressed. I dont think the party can afford a wishy washy approach to them, they need to really pick a side. Ideally Id be in favor of downplaying social issues, but theres no way that would work. So, I dont know. Hopefully the Republican strategists are a good deal smarter then me, ha ha. But the focusing on responsible economics is a good start, Id 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?

Unlike the guy who said "GOP should be a big tent, kick the religious conservatives out," the solution really is to have a big tent party.  The unifying message needs to be small government.  A key plank in the platform, recognized by Reagan, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and others, is federalism.  Religious conservatives are best served when Washington butts out of their business.  Most importantly, judges need to faithfully interpret the Constitution.  That by itself is reason for the Republican coalition to stick together.

The biggest challenge for Republicans is the dearth of effective communicators who will stand up and defend our beliefs.  I think the Bush presidency is one cause for this, as Bush himself is neither eloquent nor ideologically consistent.  Also, members of the party have been been muted in their criticism, for understandable reasons.  But above all, we need advocates who can build the party rather than Rovian tacticians who can find 51% of the vote in a given election.

Then, where would I go, as a  Gov't lover?

You should probably be a Democrat if you love big government. It depends which is more important to you: big government or your social values. The reason I am a Republican is because I believe in small government.

I like the Democratic principle of big government, but I can't stand Social Liberalism. I am not sure where to venture, And I don't wanna be under Obama's banner either.
Logged

Im for the poor man all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. - Governor and Senator Huey Long (D - LA)



Huey Long, one of America's greatest unsung heroes
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2008, 10:12:55 pm »
Ignore

I think the GOP should hold onto most of its core philosophies, but change its image.  I could write up a longer analysis of this eventually, but I think some of the key things to do should include:

Aggressive minority recruitment, especially Hispanics and Asians.  The latter is oftentimes traditionalist, religious, and economically climbing - Asian-Americans would be a natural addition to a GOP coalition.  The reason why they haven't been thus far is probably because the GOP is perceived to be the xenophobic, White Southern party, most self-selecting Asian-American politicians are lawyers and thus consistently Democratic, and the GOP has not made the effort.

Hispanics  are a tougher nut to crack.  It's ironic that Bush and McCain butted heads with their own party over immigration but did nothing to change the GOP's image as the party of the giant wall.  This group is also economically climbing and traditionalist.  Perhaps one of my few platform suggestions for the GOP would be to give up on the wall.

In general the GOP should be a big tent.  Run secular mavericks in the West and Baptist ministers in the South.  Discourage the primary-ing of moderates.

Anyway, you can't win by being the all-white party.  AA's are probably lost to the GOP for a decade thanks to Obama's victory, but why not go for the two fastest growing minority populations?  The GOP will probably not be able to win a national election until they can stop Hispanics from breaking 2:1 against them, but maybe they can find a way.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 10:17:04 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
Workers' Friend
Bob Dole
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1298
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: 9.48

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 05, 2008, 10:15:20 pm »
Ignore

I think the GOP should hold onto most of its core philosophies, but change its image.  I could write up a longer analysis of this eventually, but I think some of the key things to do should include:

Aggressive minority recruitment, especially Hispanics and Asians.  The latter is oftentimes traditionalist, religious, and economically climbing - Asian-Americans would be a natural addition to a GOP coalition.  The reason why they haven't been thus far is probably because the GOP is perceived to be the xenophobic, White Southern party, most Asian-American politicians are lawyers and thus consistently Democratic, and the GOP has not made the effort.

Hispanics  are a tougher nut to crack.  It's ironic that Bush and McCain butted heads with their own party over immigration but did nothing to change the GOP's image as the party of the giant wall.  This group is also economically climbing and traditionalist.

In general the GOP should be a big tent.  Run secular mavericks in the West and Baptist ministers in the South.  Discourage the primary-ing of moderates.

Anyway, you can't win by being the all-white party.  AA's are probably lost to the GOP for a decade thanks to Obama's victory, but why not go for the two fastest growing minority populations?  The GOP will probably not be able to win a national election until they can stop Hispanics from breaking 2:1 against them, but maybe they can find a way.

I support this as well, I have a few Asians friends that usually sound and/or swing Conservative.
Logged

Im for the poor man all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. - Governor and Senator Huey Long (D - LA)



Huey Long, one of America's greatest unsung heroes
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3054
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2008, 11:18:33 pm »
Ignore

Right now, the GOP has been pretty effectively anathemized outside the dry states and the South (not even including Appalachia, since they vote GOP only in national elections). The party -- has made no attempt to address that, considering it's in practice defunct -- but among the living, we have two options, already offered here on this forum:

1. Keep the South within the coalition, and try to retain what is left of the marginalized rump existing outside it.
2. Junk the South, and hope beyond reason that the New Yorkers and Californians notice that and have an electoral change of heart.

Minority recruitment would be a failure -- I've had discussion with dazzleman about this, and have come to the conclusion that the fear of minorities being labelled sellouts within their ethnic community will block all attempt at GOP outreach. Not that the GOP should stop, but they should always expect disappointing results.
Logged
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2008, 11:39:11 pm »
Ignore

Most likely, this is just a matter of a bad environment in this election cycle. However, the real danger would be if a new force were to emerge in the Northeast to challenge them for the second spot: they are so weak nationally now, it could be feasible. It's not that this is a regional party - but it completely lost one of the regions Smiley
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2008, 11:42:55 pm »
Ignore

Right now, the GOP has been pretty effectively anathemized outside the dry states and the South (not even including Appalachia, since they vote GOP only in national elections). The party -- has made no attempt to address that, considering it's in practice defunct -- but among the living, we have two options, already offered here on this forum:

1. Keep the South within the coalition, and try to retain what is left of the marginalized rump existing outside it.
2. Junk the South, and hope beyond reason that the New Yorkers and Californians notice that and have an electoral change of heart.

Minority recruitment would be a failure -- I've had discussion with dazzleman about this, and have come to the conclusion that the fear of minorities being labelled sellouts within their ethnic community will block all attempt at GOP outreach. Not that the GOP should stop, but they should always expect disappointing results.

Were Hispanics demonized within their own community for supporting Bush?  Of course not.  And better marketing and outreach towards minorities (Asians and Hispanics) would de facto, in the process, reduce social ostracization?

Besides, what alternatives do they have?  Keep being whiter and whiter as the country gets less and less so?  How could NOT doing strong minority outreach to the two fastest-growing minorities in the country be a good long-term decision for the party?  If they fail to do this then Hispanics and Asians will go more and more for the Dems, and even whites will be turned off.

Logged

this is real
Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13768
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2008, 11:50:59 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Perhaps the Republican Party will realise that the Rove "a win is a win" strategy (drive your base out, supress theirs and swing just enough independents over) is dead.

Obama's general election strategy was inclusive - invited anyone in who wanted to be a part. You didn't always have to agree, but if the long-term goal is the same, we can work together.

The Republican Party of late has been overly dominated by a vocal minority who have done it far more long-term harm than good. They may have lost much of a generation, along with any possible progress within the African American and Latino communities.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3054
View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2008, 11:51:52 pm »
Ignore

Right now, the GOP has been pretty effectively anathemized outside the dry states and the South (not even including Appalachia, since they vote GOP only in national elections). The party -- has made no attempt to address that, considering it's in practice defunct -- but among the living, we have two options, already offered here on this forum:

1. Keep the South within the coalition, and try to retain what is left of the marginalized rump existing outside it.
2. Junk the South, and hope beyond reason that the New Yorkers and Californians notice that and have an electoral change of heart.

Minority recruitment would be a failure -- I've had discussion with dazzleman about this, and have come to the conclusion that the fear of minorities being labelled sellouts within their ethnic community will block all attempt at GOP outreach. Not that the GOP should stop, but they should always expect disappointing results.

Were Hispanics demonized within their own community for supporting Bush?  Of course not.  And better marketing and outreach towards minorities (Asians and Hispanics) would de facto, in the process, reduce social ostracization?

Besides, what alternatives do they have?  Keep being whiter and whiter as the country gets less and less so?  How could NOT doing strong minority outreach to the two fastest-growing minorities in the country be a good long-term decision for the party?  If they fail to do this then Hispanics and Asians will go more and more for the Dems, and even whites will be turned off.



You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that the GOP should not stop minority outreach, only, that it would be entirely ineffective.

And while no group ostracizes minority members of the GOP to the extent that blacks do, it is still apparent, even among Asians and, more so, among Latin Americans not from Cuba or Colombia.
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22563
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2008, 12:09:28 am »
Ignore

At this point....Funk 'em!  I hope they go down in flames.  Hopefully the libertarian phoenix rises to take their place.  (note that's a little l.  A libertarian party doesn't have to be the Libertarian Party.)
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15057


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2008, 12:22:36 am »
Ignore

At this point....Funk 'em!  I hope they go down in flames.  Hopefully the libertarian phoenix rises to take their place.  (note that's a little l.  A libertarian party doesn't have to be the Libertarian Party.)

A libertarian party would have to be a "softly" libertarian. People are pretty convinced of the necessity of Social Security and public schools.
Also, I think the obituaries for the GOP are a little premature. The election was much closer than the Electoral College would have you believe.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 12:25:49 am by memphis »Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I will get up and move around every now and then so I reduce the chances to get hit with another Grade 8 headache in the morning.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines