Can the GOP win back surbubia?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:38:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Can the GOP win back surbubia?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Can the GOP win back surbubia?  (Read 7663 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2011, 11:26:36 PM »

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

Exactly how will losing part of a coalition lead to 20-30 years of Democratic rule? I'm curious to know. Plus, my generation (Millenials) will consider the GOP once you stop the worship of Reagan and stop alienating people who don't fit the base.

I think you really just don't want anyone who doesn't think like you in the party from what I see.

Both parties used to have ideological diversity and were able to win in areas, but not anymore.

What is the problem that conservative Republicans have with moderate-liberal Republicans anyways? RINO is a stupid term. It just means "(Insert group slur here)-lover". The GOP wasn't a conservative party in it's origins.

It's self explanatory. If you have a 50-50 election and you suddenly communicate to a large group of say 20% of the total electorate that we don't want or need them anymore. They are crazy, ignorant racists and they just go screw themselves. You are essentially empowering the Democratic party. There is no 20% bloc that will shift to the GOP to replace these people over night. I disagree with you. The problem is the youngest generation, is not only liberal on social issues, but also on economics. Looking at the polling it is obvious. So abandoning one for the sake of the other is a losing proposition. You may get 5%, but not the 20% you need to just to compensate for the loss of the social conservatives.

You mentioned Ronald Reagan. Reagan is an example that should be looked at. He created a coalition of wealthy country clubbers, and blue collar factory workers and was able to dominate the political paradigm for the next 30+ years by doing so. He is one of the most successfull coalition builders right up their with FDR who managed to bring blacks into a party still dominated by white racists, who had segregated the federal gov't under Wilson just a decade and some change earlier. What Republicans need to do now is a reverse Reagan coalition. Bring back the upper middle class and the Libertarians as a segment of the base, while maintaining the social conservatives as a part of that, and also winning those people who hold the balance of power in politics, indies and working class voters.

I think you shouldn't guess people's motivations. I am not the one who wants to throw a group of people out. You are engaging in the typical moderate double speak about coalitions and diversity while in the same breath you are taking a group of people you don't like and throwing them off the bus. In my opinion you guys are just as bad as the far right christian guys but from a different direction and until you guys both grow up and find common cause with one another on the defining issues facing the country right now, their will be no broad coalition.

I don't have a problem with moderates. I supported Mark Kirk in Illinois, Mike Castle in Delaware, the Maine ladies and even Lincoln Chafee in 2006. At the same time, I supported efforts to replace elitists who had grown out of touch like Specter and Crist with Toomey and Rubio. I think nominating Angle, Buck and O'Donnell was a mistake.The first two had sufficiently conservative opponents and I would say Norton was the more Conservative choice in that CO primary but she got on the wrong side of the narrative of the year. I am a conservative, but I am fairly strategic guy and I am fully supportive a coalition based around a set of common objectives. The problem is, I think on some of those, like Education, Pensions, Immigration, and other issues, the Democrats are more interested in satisfying the demands of a political pressure group then doing what is best for the country. If these issues are not addressed, the country won't survive another decade or two as a going concern. So I would oppose any strategy that risks the GOP's tenuous hold on political parity because if it's a Dem trifecta again, the jig is up. Even Democrats admit off the record what needs to happen on education and they just won't do it because of the importance of the teacher unions politically. The late Steve Jobs even said this. There is simply not enough room for a conservative party to exist in the political sphere, without those social conservatives. And we already have a liberal party, so there is no purpose in being a replica of them. And we can't afford to go without a competative right of center force that is willing to combat the unions on pensions and education and isn't afraid to say that secure borders isn't racism, it's sane approach for any responsible gov't.

I find RINO to be a lovable term and I have launch an effort to revive it's reputation. I use it with nothing but affection, I assure you. I have got friends who have been ah shall we say persecuted by far righties who can verify this with you. Tongue

The Republican party was also not a liberal party either. It was a mongrel party of diverse ideologies. From communisty/anarchist ex-patriots from Germany and Austria to rich northern capitalists, to working class voters, and of course the abolitionists. They united around the opposition to slavery being expanded into the territories, as well as the latent economic agenda of Hamilton and Clay. The Republicans have had conservative elements in the party since it's founding and at various points they did in fact dominate the party like they did in the 1890's and the 1920's. The democrats likewise had balance of bourbons versus populist/progressives for several decades. This broke down in the 1960's because the Democrats embraced the left. Nixon essentially ran the same kind of campaign and appeal as Ike had in the 1950's (upper and middle class voters, with some working class support, and the peeling off of peripherial southern states). The polarization of the parties based on ideology wasn't started by Republicans. It is however a fact of life in modern politics. 
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2011, 12:50:49 AM »

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

Exactly how will losing part of a coalition lead to 20-30 years of Democratic rule? I'm curious to know. Plus, my generation (Millenials) will consider the GOP once you stop the worship of Reagan and stop alienating people who don't fit the base.

I think you really just don't want anyone who doesn't think like you in the party from what I see.

Both parties used to have ideological diversity and were able to win in areas, but not anymore.

What is the problem that conservative Republicans have with moderate-liberal Republicans anyways? RINO is a stupid term. It just means "(Insert group slur here)-lover". The GOP wasn't a conservative party in it's origins.

It's self explanatory. If you have a 50-50 election and you suddenly communicate to a large group of say 20% of the total electorate that we don't want or need them anymore. They are crazy, ignorant racists and they just go screw themselves. You are essentially empowering the Democratic party. There is no 20% bloc that will shift to the GOP to replace these people over night. I disagree with you. The problem is the youngest generation, is not only liberal on social issues, but also on economics. Looking at the polling it is obvious. So abandoning one for the sake of the other is a losing proposition. You may get 5%, but not the 20% you need to just to compensate for the loss of the social conservatives.

You mentioned Ronald Reagan. Reagan is an example that should be looked at. He created a coalition of wealthy country clubbers, and blue collar factory workers and was able to dominate the political paradigm for the next 30+ years by doing so. He is one of the most successfull coalition builders right up their with FDR who managed to bring blacks into a party still dominated by white racists, who had segregated the federal gov't under Wilson just a decade and some change earlier. What Republicans need to do now is a reverse Reagan coalition. Bring back the upper middle class and the Libertarians as a segment of the base, while maintaining the social conservatives as a part of that, and also winning those people who hold the balance of power in politics, indies and working class voters.

I think you shouldn't guess people's motivations. I am not the one who wants to throw a group of people out. You are engaging in the typical moderate double speak about coalitions and diversity while in the same breath you are taking a group of people you don't like and throwing them off the bus. In my opinion you guys are just as bad as the far right christian guys but from a different direction and until you guys both grow up and find common cause with one another on the defining issues facing the country right now, their will be no broad coalition.

I don't have a problem with moderates. I supported Mark Kirk in Illinois, Mike Castle in Delaware, the Maine ladies and even Lincoln Chafee in 2006. At the same time, I supported efforts to replace elitists who had grown out of touch like Specter and Crist with Toomey and Rubio. I think nominating Angle, Buck and O'Donnell was a mistake.The first two had sufficiently conservative opponents and I would say Norton was the more Conservative choice in that CO primary but she got on the wrong side of the narrative of the year. I am a conservative, but I am fairly strategic guy and I am fully supportive a coalition based around a set of common objectives. The problem is, I think on some of those, like Education, Pensions, Immigration, and other issues, the Democrats are more interested in satisfying the demands of a political pressure group then doing what is best for the country. If these issues are not addressed, the country won't survive another decade or two as a going concern. So I would oppose any strategy that risks the GOP's tenuous hold on political parity because if it's a Dem trifecta again, the jig is up. Even Democrats admit off the record what needs to happen on education and they just won't do it because of the importance of the teacher unions politically. The late Steve Jobs even said this. There is simply not enough room for a conservative party to exist in the political sphere, without those social conservatives. And we already have a liberal party, so there is no purpose in being a replica of them. And we can't afford to go without a competative right of center force that is willing to combat the unions on pensions and education and isn't afraid to say that secure borders isn't racism, it's sane approach for any responsible gov't.

I find RINO to be a lovable term and I have launch an effort to revive it's reputation. I use it with nothing but affection, I assure you. I have got friends who have been ah shall we say persecuted by far righties who can verify this with you. Tongue

The Republican party was also not a liberal party either. It was a mongrel party of diverse ideologies. From communisty/anarchist ex-patriots from Germany and Austria to rich northern capitalists, to working class voters, and of course the abolitionists. They united around the opposition to slavery being expanded into the territories, as well as the latent economic agenda of Hamilton and Clay. The Republicans have had conservative elements in the party since it's founding and at various points they did in fact dominate the party like they did in the 1890's and the 1920's. The democrats likewise had balance of bourbons versus populist/progressives for several decades. This broke down in the 1960's because the Democrats embraced the left. Nixon essentially ran the same kind of campaign and appeal as Ike had in the 1950's (upper and middle class voters, with some working class support, and the peeling off of peripherial southern states). The polarization of the parties based on ideology wasn't started by Republicans. It is however a fact of life in modern politics. 

let me explain to you what the democratic party really is. It may sound shocking but its the truth. The party isn't really a party as much as it is a coalition of people who are in one way or the other misfits. It is what I call the ALT party. The party is made up of people who are in one way or another offended by the "faith, family and football" ethos. Many of us don't want to start a family, or go to church. The minorities also join the table because although they may be somewhat socially conservative, they feel alienated by the FRC or FAFC who feel singled out when they only see white people at those rallies. They feel that they think that christianity is the religion of white people and many blacks remember people like Billy James Hargis who accused the NAACP of being a group run by socialist jews with the intent of mobilizing the blacks against the whites. What separates California from Texas politically is that despite having a large minority population, the non-racial minorities (whites) in Texas feel part of a majority while the ones in CA aren't. The ones in CA are far more likely in Texas to be gay/single, atheist etc and more likely to feel disillusioned with the white christian base of the GOP.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2011, 01:09:17 AM »

What the hell is with the patronizing tone, Freep, as if I don't know who composes the Democratic party. Nothing I said disagrees with what you said. So I have the ask why you felt the need to bring this up as if I did? Roll Eyes

All I said was, the Democrats made the decision to jettison any conservatives they had and embrace the new left in the 1960's. That is why conservatives rallied to the lesser of two evils, the Republicans, creating the ideologically divided situation you have now. None of that is inconsistent with what you said. You just focus more on justifying that choice, which was irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which concerned the GOP.
Logged
Username MechaRFK
RFK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,270
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2011, 03:31:48 PM »

What the hell is with the patronizing tone, Freep, as if I don't know who composes the Democratic party. Nothing I said disagrees with what you said. So I have the ask why you felt the need to bring this up as if I did? Roll Eyes

All I said was, the Democrats made the decision to jettison any conservatives they had and embrace the new left in the 1960's. That is why conservatives rallied to the lesser of two evils, the Republicans, creating the ideologically divided situation you have now. None of that is inconsistent with what you said. You just focus more on justifying that choice, which was irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which concerned the GOP.

The Democrats didn't embrace the new left considering that Hubert Humphrey won the party nomination in 1968 and only George McGovern has been the lone new left candidate that became the Barry Goldwater of the Democratic party/left. The Republicans hadn't been keen to the new right that help Goldwater elected. Both new wings of "left" and "right" were shunned by both parties. The difference is that Goldwater is embraced by the party today where Democrats run away when Georgy is brought up.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2011, 08:00:31 PM »

What the hell is with the patronizing tone, Freep, as if I don't know who composes the Democratic party. Nothing I said disagrees with what you said. So I have the ask why you felt the need to bring this up as if I did? Roll Eyes

All I said was, the Democrats made the decision to jettison any conservatives they had and embrace the new left in the 1960's. That is why conservatives rallied to the lesser of two evils, the Republicans, creating the ideologically divided situation you have now. None of that is inconsistent with what you said. You just focus more on justifying that choice, which was irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which concerned the GOP.

The Democrats didn't embrace the new left considering that Hubert Humphrey won the party nomination in 1968 and only George McGovern has been the lone new left candidate that became the Barry Goldwater of the Democratic party/left. The Republicans hadn't been keen to the new right that help Goldwater elected. Both new wings of "left" and "right" were shunned by both parties. The difference is that Goldwater is embraced by the party today where Democrats run away when Georgy is brought up.

The difference is that Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr all ran on conservative platforms, and won a combined total of 5 terms (20 years) as Presidents.

Carter was a one-term President, Mondale lost in a landslide, so the Democrats have been running to the right of  Carter and Mondale on economic issues with limited success (Clinton, Obama) and some failures (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2011, 11:08:14 PM »

What the hell is with the patronizing tone, Freep, as if I don't know who composes the Democratic party. Nothing I said disagrees with what you said. So I have the ask why you felt the need to bring this up as if I did? Roll Eyes

All I said was, the Democrats made the decision to jettison any conservatives they had and embrace the new left in the 1960's. That is why conservatives rallied to the lesser of two evils, the Republicans, creating the ideologically divided situation you have now. None of that is inconsistent with what you said. You just focus more on justifying that choice, which was irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which concerned the GOP.

The Democrats didn't embrace the new left considering that Hubert Humphrey won the party nomination in 1968 and only George McGovern has been the lone new left candidate that became the Barry Goldwater of the Democratic party/left. The Republicans hadn't been keen to the new right that help Goldwater elected. Both new wings of "left" and "right" were shunned by both parties. The difference is that Goldwater is embraced by the party today where Democrats run away when Georgy is brought up.


With modern delegate selection processes, the Democrat nominee might have been different in 1968.
 
You have to keep in mind that amongst some of these conservatives are rather unsavory characters who would have seen Humphrey as being just as bad as McCarthy and Nixon only slightly better than McGovern in 1972. I am speaking of course of the George Wallace vote. A vote which for the most part went back to the Democrats in 1976. It was Reagan's conservative campaign in 1980 and 1984, GWBush's campaign against Dukakis and finally the Clinton years to put these people firmly in the GOP has part of a conservative base.

Perception is as important as reality in politics.

The Democrats could still have avoided the polarization, considering many of the poor white Southerners went back to the Dems in 1976.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2011, 10:39:54 AM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2011, 03:36:32 PM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2011, 03:50:40 PM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.

Republicans can’t completely ignore the suburban vote. There just aren’t enough people left living in rural areas anymore to build a coalition like that. Suburbs are strange political entities because they vary a lot from city to city in their voting tendencies. They tend to include more voters who are willing to pull the level for a member of either party depending on who they think would be a more qualified leader. The GOP needs to realize that by holding positions that are becoming less and less popular, we have to hold our party to a higher academic standard when it comes to the things our leaders say. The era of swaths of rural land where people are disconnected from news and information is over. We need to find people who hold conservative positions who, if some landed from Mars having no knowledge of US politics, would appear smarter and more qualified than their opponents.

Almost every swing state in the nation is decided by suburbanites. Heck, with how often liberals complain that suburbs are terrible places it should in theory be rather easy!
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2011, 09:01:32 PM »
« Edited: November 20, 2011, 12:59:47 AM by Bacon King, VP »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.

Republicans can’t completely ignore the suburban vote. There just aren’t enough people left living in rural areas anymore to build a coalition like that. Suburbs are strange political entities because they vary a lot from city to city in their voting tendencies. They tend to include more voters who are willing to pull the level for a member of either party depending on who they think would be a more qualified leader. The GOP needs to realize that by holding positions that are becoming less and less popular, we have to hold our party to a higher academic standard when it comes to the things our leaders say. The era of swaths of rural land where people are disconnected from news and information is over. We need to find people who hold conservative positions who, if some landed from Mars having no knowledge of US politics, would appear smarter and more qualified than their opponents.

Almost every swing state in the nation is decided by suburbanites. Heck, with how often liberals complain that suburbs are terrible places it should in theory be rather easy!

We can win with around a minimum of a fifth of the suburban vote.
Do you have any kind of reasoning behind that "one fifth" or did you just pull it out of your donkey?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2011, 09:13:21 PM »

Apparently the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas most carry a lot of political clout.

We sure as heck know the Republicans aren't about to start winning in cities.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 09:19:24 PM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.

Republicans can’t completely ignore the suburban vote. There just aren’t enough people left living in rural areas anymore to build a coalition like that. Suburbs are strange political entities because they vary a lot from city to city in their voting tendencies. They tend to include more voters who are willing to pull the level for a member of either party depending on who they think would be a more qualified leader. The GOP needs to realize that by holding positions that are becoming less and less popular, we have to hold our party to a higher academic standard when it comes to the things our leaders say. The era of swaths of rural land where people are disconnected from news and information is over. We need to find people who hold conservative positions who, if some landed from Mars having no knowledge of US politics, would appear smarter and more qualified than their opponents.

Almost every swing state in the nation is decided by suburbanites. Heck, with how often liberals complain that suburbs are terrible places it should in theory be rather easy!

We can win with around a minimum of a fifth of the suburban vote.
Do you have any kind of reasoning behind that "one fifth" or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Yeah, seems kind of crazy really.

The GOP NEEDS suburbs.

And trying to reach into urban areas might not be a bad idea.  Hell, the most ancestrally Republican area in my state is Tulsa County.
Logged
Heimdal
HenryH
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2011, 01:48:12 PM »

We can probably manage without the suburbs around LA, NYC and Philly. However, if we start to lose the suburbs in places like Florida, Arizona and Georgia, then we're toast.

Since the GOP basically doesn't exist in many of bigg cities in the country we have to make up for it by performing well in the suburbs. The white rural base simply isn't large enough on its own.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,930
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2011, 02:40:34 PM »

The thing is, Republicans can still win in some suburbs, just not by the numbers they used to and that is what causes them problems on a statewide level. The suburbs they win are mainly newer ones, with a lot of exburbs added in.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2011, 04:55:17 PM »

Republicans can win new suburbs and exurban areas.  The only way they can win the rich inner suburbs is by dropping social issues (becoming more Libertarian) then they'll go back to Eisenhower days.

The main point is they should never take suburbs for granted and always try to go for the big cities regardless of location while holding onto rural America.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2011, 07:18:18 PM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.

Republicans can’t completely ignore the suburban vote. There just aren’t enough people left living in rural areas anymore to build a coalition like that. Suburbs are strange political entities because they vary a lot from city to city in their voting tendencies. They tend to include more voters who are willing to pull the level for a member of either party depending on who they think would be a more qualified leader. The GOP needs to realize that by holding positions that are becoming less and less popular, we have to hold our party to a higher academic standard when it comes to the things our leaders say. The era of swaths of rural land where people are disconnected from news and information is over. We need to find people who hold conservative positions who, if some landed from Mars having no knowledge of US politics, would appear smarter and more qualified than their opponents.

Almost every swing state in the nation is decided by suburbanites. Heck, with how often liberals complain that suburbs are terrible places it should in theory be rather easy!

We can win with around a minimum of a fifth of the suburban vote.
Do you have any kind of reasoning behind that "one fifth" or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Yeah, seems kind of crazy really.

The GOP NEEDS suburbs.

And trying to reach into urban areas might not be a bad idea.  Hell, the most ancestrally Republican area in my state is Tulsa County.

Well, you'd probably alienate a lot of rural voters if you reached out to the 'city-slickers."
Logged
Hanzo
Rookie
**
Posts: 15
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2011, 12:52:55 PM »

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

I think you shouldn't guess people's motivations. I am not the one who wants to throw a group of people out. You are engaging in the typical moderate double speak about coalitions and diversity while in the same breath you are taking a group of people you don't like and throwing them off the bus. In my opinion you guys are just as bad as the far right christian guys but from a different direction and until you guys both grow up and find common cause with one another on the defining issues facing the country right now, their will be no broad coalition.

I don't have a problem with moderates. I supported Mark Kirk in Illinois, Mike Castle in Delaware, the Maine ladies and even Lincoln Chafee in 2006. At the same time, I supported efforts to replace elitists who had grown out of touch like Specter and Crist with Toomey and Rubio. I think nominating Angle, Buck and O'Donnell was a mistake.The first two had sufficiently conservative opponents and I would say Norton was the more Conservative choice in that CO primary but she got on the wrong side of the narrative of the year. I am a conservative, but I am fairly strategic guy and I am fully supportive a coalition based around a set of common objectives. The problem is, I think on some of those, like Education, Pensions, Immigration, and other issues, the Democrats are more interested in satisfying the demands of a political pressure group then doing what is best for the country. If these issues are not addressed, the country won't survive another decade or two as a going concern. So I would oppose any strategy that risks the GOP's tenuous hold on political parity because if it's a Dem trifecta again, the jig is up. Even Democrats admit off the record what needs to happen on education and they just won't do it because of the importance of the teacher unions politically. The late Steve Jobs even said this. There is simply not enough room for a conservative party to exist in the political sphere, without those social conservatives. And we already have a liberal party, so there is no purpose in being a replica of them. And we can't afford to go without a competative right of center force that is willing to combat the unions on pensions and education and isn't afraid to say that secure borders isn't racism, it's sane approach for any responsible gov't.

I find RINO to be a lovable term and I have launch an effort to revive it's reputation. I use it with nothing but affection, I assure you. I have got friends who have been ah shall we say persecuted by far righties who can verify this with you. Tongue

The Republican party was also not a liberal party either. It was a mongrel party of diverse ideologies. From communisty/anarchist ex-patriots from Germany and Austria to rich northern capitalists, to working class voters, and of course the abolitionists. They united around the opposition to slavery being expanded into the territories, as well as the latent economic agenda of Hamilton and Clay. The Republicans have had conservative elements in the party since it's founding and at various points they did in fact dominate the party like they did in the 1890's and the 1920's. The democrats likewise had balance of bourbons versus populist/progressives for several decades. This broke down in the 1960's because the Democrats embraced the left. Nixon essentially ran the same kind of campaign and appeal as Ike had in the 1950's (upper and middle class voters, with some working class support, and the peeling off of peripherial southern states). The polarization of the parties based on ideology wasn't started by Republicans. It is however a fact of life in modern politics. 

Moderate Republicans never engaged in RINO hunts like what conservatives did like Jim Demint and others. Why do you hate moderates so much?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2011, 05:03:10 PM »

On a really good day, maybe Mitt Romney could do that. But, republicans can win without them.
Oh?
Yes, republicans can win without suburbs.

They really can't. Not without some suburbs, anyway.

Republicans can’t completely ignore the suburban vote. There just aren’t enough people left living in rural areas anymore to build a coalition like that. Suburbs are strange political entities because they vary a lot from city to city in their voting tendencies. They tend to include more voters who are willing to pull the level for a member of either party depending on who they think would be a more qualified leader. The GOP needs to realize that by holding positions that are becoming less and less popular, we have to hold our party to a higher academic standard when it comes to the things our leaders say. The era of swaths of rural land where people are disconnected from news and information is over. We need to find people who hold conservative positions who, if some landed from Mars having no knowledge of US politics, would appear smarter and more qualified than their opponents.

Almost every swing state in the nation is decided by suburbanites. Heck, with how often liberals complain that suburbs are terrible places it should in theory be rather easy!

We can win with around a minimum of a fifth of the suburban vote.
Do you have any kind of reasoning behind that "one fifth" or did you just pull it out of your ass?
If they win 100% of the rural and 100% of the urban vote, that's approximately what you need in the suburbs.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.257 seconds with 12 queries.