Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2019, 04:16:52 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  the future of the republican party?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: the future of the republican party?  (Read 8506 times)
WalterMitty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,598


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 01, 2004, 09:09:06 pm »

despite claims of being a 'mjaority' party, the republicans havent won the national popular vote since 1988--16 years!!

what happens if bush loses the popular vote and the election tomorrow?  will the republican party descend into chaos with leadership struggles?

Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2004, 09:18:32 pm »

no.

Guiliani will be immediately designated the party's face, and then he would humiliate Kerry in '08.

Hell, the GOP could benefit from a Bush loss.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,800
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2004, 09:19:12 pm »

I think the republican party is getting more and more Christian right. Chafee, Snowe, Collins, McCain and the like don't like where the party is going.

I don't think the party will descend into chaos, but I think there may be a few party switches coming up if the party continues towards this extreme social conservatism.
Logged
I'm with Mayor Pete
Beef
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,836
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2004, 09:21:18 pm »

Hell, the GOP could benefit from a Bush loss.

Not could, would.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,694
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2004, 09:21:52 pm »

I would hope that it would move to the center...
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,516


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2004, 09:23:01 pm »

Hell, the GOP could benefit from a Bush loss.

Not could, would.

Winner winner chicken dinner
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,811
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2004, 09:27:25 pm »

First,  the Democratic party has not won a majority since 1976.

Second, there is the a greater problem with the lefties in the Democratic party.  There was the Al Gore of 1988, who was substantially to the right of the Al Gore of 2000.  There were moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman (2004) that didn't do nearly as well as John McCain (200).  The GOP has done a better job of keeping the extreme right, Bauer, Buchannan, and Gram, from getting the nomination that the Democrats have of getting the extreme left from playing a major role, e.g. John Kerry.
Logged
WalterMitty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,598


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2004, 09:28:57 pm »

i fear that the republican party, with its radical elements, is becoming more like the democratic party of old....in other words, unable to win a national election, but is able to stay alive due to its strength in certain parts of the country, which results in congressional majorities.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2004, 09:31:06 pm »

How can the GOP be more radical than a party that has Chaka Fattah and Jerry Nadler & co. in the House?
Logged
zachman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,099


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2004, 09:31:41 pm »

John Kerry: Democrats :: George W. Bush: Republicans. They both are partisans who like to build a moderate image but will take the party line on most issues. Bauer, Buchanan and Gramm are most comparable to Kucinich, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson (who I admire). Kerry was the establishment favorite going into the nomination as was Bush in 2000. They aren't wildly different on this.
Logged
millwx
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2004, 09:33:50 pm »

I think the republican party is getting more and more Christian right. Chafee, Snowe, Collins, McCain and the like don't like where the party is going.
I only hope that folks like those four gain and drive the party back to its origin and its roots (which is not the religious right).  My signature is indicative of my support for that line of thinking.  Until three years ago I was a lifelong Republican.  I've given up.  I am a "big tent Republican"; that is all talk in the party now, there is no genuine "big tent".  "Big tent" doesn't mean lots of entitlement programs (which I'm against), but it does mean tolerance... not just begrudgingly tolerant, but openly and abundantly tolerant.  Moreover, the party is no longer fiscally conservative.  So, they've lost one of their great advantages over the Dems.  Sorry to go on ad nauseam, but this is a sore spot for me.  I'm a lifelong Republican repulsed by the direction of my party for 20-30 years now, and it came to a head in 2000.  I seriously pray for the "moderates" (the true, old fashioned Republicans) to take back the party.  The polarization of both parties is responsible for the divisive nature of our society.  It is pitiful and sad.  United we stand, divided we fall.
Logged
WalterMitty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,598


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2004, 09:35:47 pm »

How can the GOP be more radical than a party that has Chaka Fattah and Jerry Nadler & co. in the House?

just to play devil's advocate....id say that chaka fatah and that crowd have less of an influence on the democratic party than gary bauer and his fundies have on the republican party.

Logged
Pollwatch99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 549


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2004, 09:36:27 pm »

First,  the Democratic party has not won a majority since 1976.

Second, there is the a greater problem with the lefties in the Democratic party.  There was the Al Gore of 1988, who was substantially to the right of the Al Gore of 2000.  There were moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman (2004) that didn't do nearly as well as John McCain (200).  The GOP has done a better job of keeping the extreme right, Bauer, Buchannan, and Gram, from getting the nomination that the Democrats have of getting the extreme left from playing a major role, e.g. John Kerry.

Amen, Clinton could never had been elected in 1992 without Perot

Well said
Logged
WalterMitty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,598


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2004, 09:37:28 pm »

First,  the Democratic party has not won a majority since 1976.

Second, there is the a greater problem with the lefties in the Democratic party.  There was the Al Gore of 1988, who was substantially to the right of the Al Gore of 2000.  There were moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman (2004) that didn't do nearly as well as John McCain (200).  The GOP has done a better job of keeping the extreme right, Bauer, Buchannan, and Gram, from getting the nomination that the Democrats have of getting the extreme left from playing a major role, e.g. John Kerry.

Amen, Clinton could never had been elected in 1992 without Perot

Well said

incorrect.
Logged
DFLofMN
Full Member
***
Posts: 123


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2004, 09:37:47 pm »

If Republicans were playing to win comfortably in 2000, they might have stuck behind McCain.  What happened in the SC 2000 primary was the ugly side of the right wing coming out.  The same one that may very well prevent a Guliani run in 2008.  Going into 2000, did anyone really think GWB was going to beat McCain? GWB was the underdog.
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,904


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2004, 09:40:49 pm »

In a way I hope we run McCain on 2008. Because I want to see what Democrats say and do when they find out he's actually a conservative.

It's not what is said as much as how it's said, I guess, like the old saying goes.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,811
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2004, 09:42:13 pm »

If Republicans were playing to win comfortably in 2000, they might have stuck behind McCain.  What happened in the SC 2000 primary was the ugly side of the right wing coming out.  The same one that may very well prevent a Guliani run in 2008.  Going into 2000, did anyone really think GWB was going to beat McCain? GWB was the underdog.

I did.
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,904


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2004, 09:48:20 pm »

Does anyone remember what kind of campaign McCain ran in 2000? It was horrible, literally off the scale bad. He's got a basically conservative record, goes up to New England and talks like a liberal, scares the hell out of everybody, but wins NH and DE or something, and then he's dead in the water. He promises not to negative campaign and then does. Bush pounces on him like a cat crouched in the weeds. McCain doesn't have the intuition or temperment to run a national campaign, but if he runs I hope he learned some lessons from 2000.

Fortunately for McCain, he's remembered as being a lot, a ton better than he came off in 2000, so he probably could mount a run, but he would have to be very careful.
Logged
JNB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2004, 09:48:32 pm »


   The old GOP was not the Rockefeller wing of the GOP. While this wing did gain the upper hand in terms of influence in the 30s and even held sway in many states up till the 80s, this is not represenative of the GOPs roots.

   While many will be repulsed by this, I think the future of the GOP will be Sen Taft(who was senator from Ohio from the 30s untill his death in the eraly 50s) Conservatism, and that means fiscally conservative, and having a more nationalistic rather than Capitalist bent, and even being a tad isolationist. A more recent version of this style of politics was George Wallace and even to an extent, Perot.

   On Social issues, I expect the GOP to remain conservative, but at the time, while more Christian Conservatives(especially church going Catholics) will continue to identify with the GOP, the element known as the Christian right, dominated by evangelicals, will be on the fade.
Logged
raggage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2004, 09:51:58 pm »

In a way I hope we run McCain on 2008. Because I want to see what Democrats say and do when they find out he's actually a conservative.

It's not what is said as much as how it's said, I guess, like the old saying goes.

We know hes a conservative. Its the fact that he's a moderate conservative, not a Santorum type, that the appeal is.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,811
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2004, 09:54:15 pm »

Amen, Clinton could never had been elected in 1992 without Perot

Well said

I do not agree.  If Perot had never run, perhaps.  Once he ran, and withdrew, that opened up the door for Clinton.  It changed the dynamics.

Had there never been a Perot candidacy, there might not have been a Clinton.

Since the 1952 election, however, only twice have Democrats every had a majority, more than half of the popular vote, at that was 16 years appart (1964, 1976); only once did the Democratic candidate for president win by 5% or more (1964).

Not getting a majority is not a problem.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2004, 09:58:07 pm »

I only hope that folks like those four gain and drive the party back to its origin and its roots (which is not the religious right). 

Gee, I must have been dreaming when I read the 1860 Republican Platform which explicitly named slavery as "immoral".   And I must have been dreaming when I read the writings of the Confederates when they left the Union because a party calling the South "immoral" had won the election.

What a weird dream.  Thanks for setting me straight on that!
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,904


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2004, 10:04:36 pm »

In a way I hope we run McCain on 2008. Because I want to see what Democrats say and do when they find out he's actually a conservative.

It's not what is said as much as how it's said, I guess, like the old saying goes.

We know hes a conservative. Its the fact that he's a moderate conservative, not a Santorum type, that the appeal is.

I will agree that he's not a Santorum style conservative. But the fact is that I think regardless, McCain is perceived as being a lot better now than he came off in 2000 and he can easily work that to his advantage. I think that's actually kind of rare that someone can put those kinds of mistakes behind them, but he does face an uphill battle (especially if Bush is re-elected) because he's not a partyline conservative. Would be interesting if the Dems put up a non-partyline candidate and the GOP put up a non-partyline candidate.

For the record, I will support him unless he proves utterly incapable of running a national campaign.
Logged
No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,091


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2004, 10:21:46 pm »

As much as I disagree (but respect) my adopted home state's senior senator, he may be the perfect GOP candidate in 2008.  Because he's pro-life but percieved as a moderate by the general population.  Shoot, my parents even like him and we don't see eye to eye too much on politics.
Logged
millwx
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2004, 10:22:42 pm »

I only hope that folks like those four gain and drive the party back to its origin and its roots (which is not the religious right). 

Gee, I must have been dreaming when I read the 1860 Republican Platform which explicitly named slavery as "immoral".   And I must have been dreaming when I read the writings of the Confederates when they left the Union because a party calling the South "immoral" had won the election.

What a weird dream.  Thanks for setting me straight on that!
Glad I could help (I say with a snicker, because that's not at all what I'm talking about).  For one thing, there's a difference between being "moral" and the religious right.  Nice way to parse my post as well.  I emphasized tolerance, which was the main reason for opposing the immorality of slavery.  Take a look at some of the speeches and quotes of the Republican founding father.  They were strongly opposed to injecting religion into politics.  In fact, Lincoln made some rather derrogatory remarks about religion in his time.  He would be excommunicated from the Republican Party these days.  The platform on slavery simply proves my point that the Republican Party was the party of tolerance and social moderates.  Consider that segregationist Strom Thurmond was a Democrat for much of his early time.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC