The Republicans of the future

[spookyturtle 9,466]

We make the best jelly.

KY Jelly?

[GandD 5,966]

KY Jelly?

Well, we just call it Jelly here.

("A spokesperson for K-Y jelly's maker, McNeil-PPC, a division of Johnson & Johnson, says "surprisingly little" is known about the name's origin. The best she could come up with is that KY was a meaningless pair of initials used to designate the product during the research-and-development phase.")

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/politics/young-republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

The Republican Party is in a race with the future.

Though it holds power in the House of Representatives and a majority of statehouses, its demographics, for now, are going the wrong direction.

The country is becoming more urban and diverse, two details that favor Democrats. In 2012, blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly went for the president; Obama also got 55% of the women's vote, 60% of voters under 30 and almost 70% of the vote in cities with 500,000 people or more.

While long term I think you are on to something, lets not call then "finished" just yet because the big upset or surprise in the last election was what?

No not that hispanics increased their percentage...... Not that Blacks turned out in even greater numbers for "their guy"

The big upset was the millions of white voters who just didn't show up.

Unless you are assuming that will happen consistently the GOP is still in the game for a bit longer.

Musing that the GOP should loose the far-right element of the party, suggests a lack of knowledge of what percentage of that group is within the party.

Will you gain more moderates by loosing them?

Nope.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

While long term I think you are on to something, lets not call then "finished" just yet because the big upset or surprise in the last election was what?

No not that hispanics increased their percentage...... Not that Blacks turned out in even greater numbers for "their guy"

The big upset was the millions of white voters who just didn't show up.

Unless you are assuming that will happen consistently the GOP is still in the game for a bit longer.

Musing that the GOP should loose the far-right element of the party, suggests a lack of knowledge of what percentage of that group is within the party.

Will you gain more moderates by loosing them?

Nope.

If they got rid of them, their message wouldn't be bogged down in hate. You're talking about a party that has to spend 10 million dollars in order to reach minorities. This last election showed them how far out of touch they are with the rest of America.

You had a candidate that managed to insult 47% of the american people, his competition insulted a different demographic every debate. If you're not white, heterosexual, male, and Christian, they didn't want to deal with you. They lost because almost every single person who didn't fit the above criteria voted against him.

Not to mention, they still won't accept Muslims. I wonder how they will tackle that. Or are we so small in numbers they don't need to worry about it?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yep. That's exactly the problem.

I think the republican party could actually appeal to alot of working minorities if they'd get rid of the nuts. I'd guess they're the same as most Americans who wonder why they have to work they're a$$ off for a paycheck, while others can sit around and do nothing and get government assistance.

That is a WINNING message as long as it's not being delivered by people who use the message as a racial dog whistle.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That is a WINNING message as long as it's not being delivered by people who use the message as a racial dog whistle.

Truth.

[Danno 1,228]

That is a WINNING message as long as it's not being delivered by people who use the message as a racial dog whistle.

IT might be a winning message in 20 years but it just isn't now.... if it were you would see CHris Chrisies in every state instead of being a single unique situation.

If the idea does not work anywhere, what makes you think it would work everywhere?

Tell me what the platform would look like for these "new republicans"..... what they gunna run on?

[Karee 4,190]

IT might be a winning message in 20 years but it just isn't now.... if it were you would see CHris Chrisies in every state instead of being a single unique situation.

If the idea does not work anywhere, what makes you think it would work everywhere?

Tell me what the platform would look like for these "new republicans"..... what they gunna run on?

There's alot of Chris Christies out there. The McCain of 2000 comes to mind, although he was a Senator, he was still elected in a statewide election. Until you bible nuts start looking at electing someone based on their qualifications and how inclusive they will be, then you'll be sitting around b!tching about socialists like Obama for a long time to come.

The "new republicans" would run on smaller govt. for one. Getting rid of bureaucracy. Streamlining the govt. we have now. Fiscal responsibility. Keeping govt's nose out of everyone's business. etc. etc. Not falling all over each other to see which one is closer to god. Religion has no place in politics.

[Peikko 1,575]

There's alot of Chris Christies out there. The McCain of 2000 comes to mind, although he was a Senator, he was still elected in a statewide election. Until you bible nuts start looking at electing someone based on their qualifications and how inclusive they will be, then you'll be sitting around b!tching about socialists like Obama for a long time to come.

The "new republicans" would run on smaller govt. for one. Getting rid of bureaucracy. Streamlining the govt. we have now. Fiscal responsibility. Keeping govt's nose out of everyone's business. etc. etc. Not falling all over each other to see which one is closer to god. Religion has no place in politics.

Can't argue with that.

[GandD 5,966]

There's alot of Chris Christies out there. The McCain of 2000 comes to mind, although he was a Senator, he was still elected in a statewide election. Until you bible nuts start looking at electing someone based on their qualifications and how inclusive they will be, then you'll be sitting around b!tching about socialists like Obama for a long time to come.

The "new republicans" would run on smaller govt. for one. Getting rid of bureaucracy. Streamlining the govt. we have now. Fiscal responsibility. Keeping govt's nose out of everyone's business. etc. etc. Not falling all over each other to see which one is closer to god. Religion has no place in politics.

The religious stuff is by far the biggest turn off for me when it comes to republicans. Michelle Bachman? F***'n really?

[Danno 1,228]

There's alot of Chris Christies out there. The McCain of 2000 comes to mind, although he was a Senator, he was still elected in a statewide election. Until you bible nuts start looking at electing someone based on their qualifications and how inclusive they will be, then you'll be sitting around b!tching about socialists like Obama for a long time to come.

The "new republicans" would run on smaller govt. for one. Getting rid of bureaucracy. Streamlining the govt. we have now. Fiscal responsibility. Keeping govt's nose out of everyone's business. etc. etc. Not falling all over each other to see which one is closer to god. Religion has no place in politics.

Referring to me and others members as Bible nuts is an invitation for me to return the personal insult, is that productive?

Contrary to rumor, few people take politicians religious claims as meaningful, people pretty much look at how people stack up on the issues they care about.

I would support an Atheist if he supported my interests.

PS: If you think religion, sodomy, race, global warming etc, are not part of politics you have no grasp what politics actually is.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Danno

[Jacque67 7,328]

Referring to me and others members as Bible nuts is an invitation for me to return the personal insult, is that productive?

Contrary to rumor, few people take politicians religious claims as meaningful, people pretty much look at how people stack up on the issues they care about.

I would support an Atheist if he supported my interests.

PS: If you think religion, sodomy, race, global warming etc, are not part of politics you have no grasp what politics

actually is.

Religious nuts take notice of politicians religious claims.

How is sodomy political btw? Unless you are talking about soldiers butt- f¥cking their prisoners?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would be a republican if they got rid of the religious, gun, and billionaire agendas. Boy I sure could go for some good ole fiscal responsibility.

"I would be a Republican...if they weren't Republicans"

Edited July 31, 2013 by Gary and Alla