The future of the GOP

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

You are aware, the Democrat majority is based heavily on moderate fiscally conservative Democrats right?

8 years ago some of the people may have just been Republican...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

No they dont need people like Palin. Palin proved to be a whackjob and I hope she is never seen in politics again.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

You are aware, the Democrat majority is based heavily on extreme moderate/fiscally conservative Democrats right?

8 years ago some of the people may have just been Republican...

Yes there are quite a few blue dogs there now. But you still did not answer my question. THE RR will go somewhere if the republics eject them...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

No they dont need people like Palin. Palin proved to be a whackjob and I hope she is never seen in politics again.

She was not nearly the wackjob she was made to be.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

You are aware, the Democrat majority is based heavily on extreme moderate/fiscally conservative Democrats right?

8 years ago some of the people may have just been Republican...

Yes there are quite a few blue dogs there now. But you still did not answer my question. THE RR will go somewhere if the republics eject them...

See you have to backwards. Where will the fiscal conservatives go since the RR are to far entrenched into the party. Most RR's arent fiscally conservative.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

No they dont need people like Palin. Palin proved to be a whackjob and I hope she is never seen in politics again.

She was not nearly the wackjob she was made to be.

For anything beyond state politics, yes she was.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

You are aware, the Democrat majority is based heavily on extreme moderate/fiscally conservative Democrats right?

8 years ago some of the people may have just been Republican...

Yes there are quite a few blue dogs there now. But you still did not answer my question. THE RR will go somewhere if the republics eject them...

See you have to backwards. Where will the fiscal conservatives go since the RR are to far entrenched into the party. Most RR's arent fiscally conservative.

Have any data to support that claim? I doubt you do.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

No they dont need people like Palin. Palin proved to be a whackjob and I hope she is never seen in politics again.

She was not nearly the wackjob she was made to be.

For anything beyond state politics, yes she was.

I will have to disagree, but I doubt she will be back in 4 years either...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Extelleron: This wasn't a landslide? What election have YOU been watching? Previously DEEP red states went BLUE man! Wake up! You guys got TROUNCED. Hell, the Dems may even end up with a super majority in the Senate. They picked up a bunch of seats in the House. Obama won by a landslide. What am I missing?

 

[ProfJohn]

First thing we have to do is stop listening to Democrats tell us how to be better.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
First thing we have to do is stop listening to Democrats tell us how to be better.

LoL - You were never listening period which is why you lost.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Extelleron: This wasn't a landslide? What election have YOU been watching? Previously DEEP red states went BLUE man! Wake up! You guys got TROUNCED. Hell, the Dems may even end up with a super majority in the Senate. They picked up a bunch of seats in the House. Obama won by a landslide. What am I missing?

2004: Rep 51%, Dem 48%
2008: Dem 51%, Rep 47-48%

On a national level I am failing to see the landslide (in actual %, not electoral votes). On a state basis there were some very surprising and distressing results (for Republicans).... but there's not the fundemental "shift" in ideaology that people seem to think there is.

What you are seeing is a massive restructuring, going from in 2004 when the Rep won Pres + Congress and since then have been massively unpopular.

But what some people are suggesting is not true, Obama did not win by such a margin as to make it impossible for the GOP to win an election again. As I've mentioned before, Obama had the positive of being the "change" candidate for this election, just like the Reps will be in 2012. The recent financial crisis was the big factor in the campaign that weighed heavily on places like Ohio; I think you can make a decent argument that McCain might have won / election been much closer had the economy been in a better position right now.

The most disturbing trend of course is young voters going solidly for Obama. I don't know how this will carry into the future and whether or not that is specific to Obama or young voters are overwhelmingly democratic.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

^^ and here in lies the unknown. They have to somehow convince them to ignore that part and still go out to vote, possibly by staying as "neutral" as you can on those issues (if that's even possible).

 

[fskimospy]

Remember Republicans: you ran the most liberal candidate you could possibly run and you still got crushed. McCain ran on the premise that he hated Bush, he ran on the idea that he ran against Republicans, and you guys still got a swift kick in the ass.

This election was truly about whether people wanted Democrats, or if they wanted Republicans posing as Democrats. Even their best efforts weren't enough to overcome the toxic brand that conservatism has accumulated over the last decade or so.

From this, I imagine the Republicans will take the same old lesson: Conservatism never fails, it is only failed. The GOP will tack farther to the insane right, and they will lose again in 2010. It will only be after yet another loss (or a maintainance of the status quo) that they will regain their senses and realize that they have become a party of the insane, rabid, frothing right of the entire industrialized world, and that world has left them behind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
First thing we have to do is stop listening to Democrats tell us how to be better.

Yes, I suggest you listen to the independents, moderates, and libertarians you've disenfranchised from your party.

 

[Dari]

I am glad that my fellow Republicans did the right thing tonight. Now we can band together and return our party to what it used to be. In four years, G-d willing, we can present a far more powerful candidate that doesn't rely on hate and division to challenge Obama for Presidency.

 

[Bitek]

My thoughts from another thread:

The R's are fucked for a while. Barring a huge D disaster, the Dems will control the house for perhaps decades. The Senate will be firm for a while, and all the racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-intellectual paranoid Palinesque rantings has provoked a huge backlash in all the upcoming voter generations and minority blocks. That's just forgetting about the incompetence, corruption and irresponsibility.
Who is going to unfuck them from this corner? Palin in 2012? No, she's a sign of the problem. A cancer on the R's as David Brooks would say.

The R party will burn itself down in the crucible of extremism and ideological purity, and become less and less relevant. Eventually there will be a transformational figure to turn it around and create an new core identity, but the current trajectory does not bode well for many many years.

 

[KlokWyze]

Shoot themselves in the head & let another party come in?

 

[shurato]

The most disturbing trend of course is young voters going solidly for Obama. I don't know how this will carry into the future and whether or not that is specific to Obama or young voters are overwhelmingly democratic.

Don't know why that disturbs you. I think with the explosion of information on the Internet,
the young people seem to the better informed than the older generation to make that conscience
decision. Things will change over time...however it just seems the Dems seem to be the popular
choice right now with the youth. Hmm the Dems seem to be a popular choice with the majority of the country right now it seems. Perhaps your starting to get the picture. I know not your party affiliation but I think it's safe to say the Republican party needs to find a better clearer message than the current one that's primarily based on negativity and fear.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
First thing we have to do is stop listening to Democrats tell us how to be better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last thing the GOP should do is listen to people like Non Prof John and his ilk.

Your type stinking thinking has led to the GOP to two lost elections in a row. And if the GOP listens to your type thinking much longer, the GOP will go the way of the dinosaur and the Dodo after the election of 11/2010.

Get a clue PJ, the GOP failed because they failed to deliver positive results. And GWB
has led both the GOP and the larger nation to disaster.

Its now down to the Lee Iococia question of lead, follow, or get out of the way.
The people the GOP have screwed have spoken and spoken again, now the question is
not if the GOP can lead, that is done decided. Its now a question if the GOP can follow
or if they will refuse to get in the way.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Bitek
My thoughts from another thread:

The R's are fucked for a while. Barring a huge D disaster, the Dems will control the house for perhaps decades. The Senate will be firm for a while, and all the racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-intellectual paranoid Palinesque rantings has provoked a huge backlash in all the upcoming voter generations and minority blocks. That's just forgetting about the incompetence, corruption and irresponsibility.
Who is going to unfuck them from this corner? Palin in 2012? No, she's a sign of the problem. A cancer on the R's as David Brooks would say.

The R party will burn itself down in the crucible of extremism and ideological purity, and become less and less relevant. Eventually there will be a transformational figure to turn it around and create an new core identity, but the current trajectory does not bode well for many many years.

Umm Florida, which went for Obama, went solidly for the Ban on Gay Marriage Amendment.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: loki8481
without the RR, though, where's a republican going to win?

So I guess if you want the republicans to get rid of the RR< does that mean you want them?

republicans need to find a way to change the RR to fit what the republican party needs to change into.

they need people like (god help me for saying it) Palin, who have religion in a prominent place in their life without actually attempting to legislate their faith and voters who don't want to turn the US into a theocracy.

No they dont need people like Palin. Palin proved to be a whackjob and I hope she is never seen in politics again.

She was not nearly the wackjob she was made to be.

yes she was. she's off the deep end

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Neither of the parties is worth a shit. If we can't redo it from the ground up the next best would be to split parties along theory lines.

Republicans should split to Libertarians, Republicans, and Constitution. Libertarians are looking for individual rights above all, Republicans looking for state rights over all, and Constitution wants a theocracy.

Democrats should split to Green, Socialist, and Democrat. Greens are environmentalists, Socialists are, well, socialists, and Democrats are looking for strong, proactive central government without the socialist economic overtones.

Those splits would allow a MUCH closer fit with individual political stances and greatly strengthen each segment.

That's compelling to think about. I've heard that most other countries have several powerful parties instead of just two, and I can imagine that would decentralize power while centralizing policy.

Most importantly it's much more empowering to the citizens, being closer to a true democracy since you are more accurately represented. 5-8 parties is the 'sweet spot' for democracy.