Republicans - a dying brand

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It might help if you knew the first thing about accounting. If you spend more than you make you end up going broke. Seeing how Obama doesn't have a plan on cutting the deficit yet he keeps offering free stuff while soaking this country with illegals common sense says it's a no win situation. You either get an austerity plan while getting tough on illegals and cutting out the freebies or you go broke. When you do learn something of accounting and the Fed deficit get back with me on that one.

Yup. A dying breed.

[Dan J 277]

Why does everyone keep on saying the GOP needs to change and adopt new social policies? If Republicans were to adopt all of the changes people are suggesting, they are just libertarians.

They wouldn't be quite libertarians, but I would argue that is not a bad thing. One of the demographics they have had a hard time capturing is young people. This is largely due to positions on social issues that are largely irrelevant with younger generations. Look at the supporters of Ron Paul, he attracted quite a few young people to his movement.

Now, the question becomes, can the Republican party afford to alienate somewhat the Christian Coalition that makes up a bulk of its voters? That might be a harder sell. While its unlikely they will switch to vote for Democrats, its also unlikely they will get excited about voting for a party who does not champion their issues.

I guess I see a few routes as to how the parties will develop over the next generation. While its unlikely that a third party will develop due to the optimization of the US political system, social issues are likely to become less relevant. Its generally not important to younger generations. What remains to be seen is how each of the parties will define themselves when social issues are no longer important part of the political discourse.

[Danno 1,228]

Remove the Christian Coalition from the Republican Party please - happy to start over without them.

This is where you folks are out of touch with reality.

It would be bigger than the Dems loosing the unions.

Who would fill the void left? Who?

The GOP would be a party the size of the Libertarian party.... minus the energy.

[Danno 1,228]

They wouldn't be quite libertarians, but I would argue that is not a bad thing. One of the demographics they have had a hard time capturing is young people. This is largely due to positions on social issues that are largely irrelevant with younger generations. Look at the supporters of Ron Paul, he attracted quite a few young people to his movement.

Now, the question becomes, can the Republican party afford to alienate somewhat the Christian Coalition that makes up a bulk of its voters? That might be a harder sell. While its unlikely they will switch to vote for Democrats, its also unlikely they will get excited about voting for a party who does not champion their issues.

I guess I see a few routes as to how the parties will develop over the next generation. While its unlikely that a third party will develop due to the optimization of the US political system, social issues are likely to become less relevant. Its generally not important to younger generations. What remains to be seen is how each of the parties will define themselves when social issues are no longer important part of the political discourse.

I hear what you are saying, if the GOP were to start a new path... one void of social issues, wouldn't it basically boil down to a party that is for tax-cuts? People do not, spend months working phone, walking neighborhoods, doing mailing so someone making over 250K does not get a tax-cut.

A party without a moral principle is no more than a faculty meeting.

Politics 101

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I hear what you are saying, if the GOP were to start a new path... one void of social issues, wouldn't it basically boil down to a party that is for tax-cuts? People do not, spend months working phone, walking neighborhoods, doing mailing so someone making over 250K does not get a tax-cut.

A party without a moral principle is no more than a faculty meeting.

Politics 101

The dems don't have any morals and it seems to work just fine for them.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Darnell 8,478]

This is where you folks are out of touch with reality.

It would be bigger than the Dems loosing the unions.

Who would fill the void left? Who?

The GOP would be a party the size of the Libertarian party.... minus the energy.

Right! Hence the phrase of 'start over'.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The dems don't have any morals and it seems to work just fine for them.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[SMR 368]

It could be wishful thinking, but I see this as pretty cyclical. It's not just about having heard the same thing in 2008 and then seeing Republicans come back strong in 2010. I heard the same thing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 from Republicans who said that Democrats were a dying breed. Yes, there always is the possibility that it will eventually happen. I think you will see Republicans take a different stance on immigration, which is already happening and I see as a good thing.

But to those who think the Republican party is dead, how do you explain that every single member of the House was up for re-election, but yet the Republicans maintained a strong majority, losing only a few seats (perhaps as many as 8 with 6 seats still too close to call, but not a huge shift in any case)? And remember that Republicans made huge (almost historically unprecedented) gains in the House two years ago, which means that there should have been a lot of vulnerable Republican freshman who didn't have the advantage of seniority to bring extra pork to their districts and thus gain an incumbency advantage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It could be wishful thinking, but I see this as pretty cyclical. It's not just about having heard the same thing in 2008 and then seeing Republicans come back strong in 2010. I heard the same thing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 from Republicans who said that Democrats were a dying breed. Yes, there always is the possibility that it will eventually happen. I think you will see Republicans take a different stance on immigration, which is already happening and I see as a good thing.

The bold part is an admission by the Republican party that this is not cyclical, isn't it? The idea that it's all cyclical was the foundation for the prediction that Romney would win in a landslide. Did he? Of course not. Because the assumption that 2008 turnout and vote shares were just a fluke triggered by the first African-American candidate running for President was patently false. The demographics are changing. The Republican base is getting smaller and older. That's not a cycle, that's a trend.

But to those who think the Republican party is dead, how do you explain that every single member of the House was up for re-election, but yet the Republicans maintained a strong majority, losing only a few seats (perhaps as many as 8 with 6 seats still too close to call, but not a huge shift in any case)? And remember that Republicans made huge (almost historically unprecedented) gains in the House two years ago, which means that there should have been a lot of vulnerable Republican freshman who didn't have the advantage of seniority to bring extra pork to their districts and thus gain an incumbency advantage.

It's called re-districting. Only takes you so far, though.

[SMR 368]

The bold part is an admission by the Republican party that this is not cyclical, isn't it? The idea that it's all cyclical was the foundation for the prediction that Romney would win in a landslide. Did he? Of course not. Because the assumption that 2008 turnout and vote shares were just a fluke triggered by the first African-American candidate running for President was patently false. The demographics are changing. The Republican base is getting smaller and older. That's not a cycle, that's a trend.

I'm not trying to say that platforms don't change. Platforms for both parties have evolved over time. In fact, that's why it is cyclical, in my opinion. When a party loses, it evaluates to see what needs to change. So if what you're trying to say is that the party platforms aren't going to stay as before, you are probably right. But that's normal.

It's called re-districting. Only takes you so far, though.

Good theory. So why so many GOP governors, then? Republicans gerrymandered the state borders, too? And you can't pretend that 2010 didn't happen. The Democrats have won one election and you consider that irreversible historic momentum? You don't remember someone ever winning an election before?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Good theory. So why so many GOP governors, then? Republicans gerrymandered the state borders, too? And you can't pretend that 2010 didn't happen. The Democrats have won one election and you consider that irreversible historic momentum? You don't remember someone ever winning an election before?

This year, there were 11 gubernatorial races. 8 of them were Democrats to defend and 3 iof them were Republicans to defend. The GOP gained one in NC. I don't see that as a particularly strong showing on the part of the GOP. Looking at state legislatures, Democrats gained far more than Republicans.

[Danno 1,228]

The bold part is an admission by the Republican party that this is not cyclical, isn't it? The idea that it's all cyclical was the foundation for the prediction that Romney would win in a landslide. Did he? Of course not. Because the assumption that 2008 turnout and vote shares were just a fluke triggered by the first African-American candidate running for President was patently false. The demographics are changing. The Republican base is getting smaller and older. That's not a cycle, that's a trend.

WOw Mr Big Dog meets pat Buchanan, I'm impressed.

There is a trend and it will only accelerate as the party does take the huge gamble of creating even more Hispanic voters... in the hopes that in ten years they will be fans of George will and Rush Limbaugh.

The reality is we have hit the tipping point where fewer and fewer people think past the Sugar they get from Gov't when they vote.

In another election cycle or two the Presidency will be consistently a Democrat just like in so many metro areas.

The Constitutional crowd, the Tea=party crowd the Religious Right, and every other faction on the right will fail to pull together as the Left has cobbled it's factions.

Consequently the Left will cement more Gov't dependency and National bankruptcy.

To see any other immediate future requires one to believe in miracles.

One or two more cycles and it's done.

[^_^ 5,021]

Yup. A dying breed.

I wouldn't go too far with that. Libs were saying the same thing after analyzing the 2008 exits and voila, the GOP invented the Tea Party and they came roaring back in 2010.

No party is a hostage to circumstances. The GOP isn't going to just fade into the dark.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

[quote name=' timestamp='1352822675' post='5819340]

The GOP isn't going to just fade into the dark.

Absolutely not. But their hardcore base is getting smaller every election year. They are catering to a majority that simply does not exist anymore. If they make no changes between now and 2016, the Democrats will win. Again.

[Danno 1,228]

Absolutely not. But their hardcore base is getting smaller every election year. They are catering to a majority that simply does not exist anymore. If they make no changes between now and 2016, the Democrats will win. Again.

What changes do you suggest that will add to turn-out for the GOP?