|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Well hes right i think.
Republicans wont be picking up moderate votes even with a moderate program.
When facing the choise between a moderate democrat and a moderate republican the moderate voter will largely
keep with the democrats,because they always have been the more moderate party.
Voters would simply not trust a moderate republican canditate the way they trust a democratic moderate candidate.
In the back of the voters mind will always be that republicans are the party in favour of free guns and against abortion and in favour of "the rich"
The republican party is a conservative party by nature and it would take a whole generation to change that stigma. i dont realy see a way to change this overnight.
There is not much evidence possible btw, you asking for something wich does not exist,we just have to go with logical thinking and guess a bit
|
My point is that speaking unequivocally on the identity and constituency of the Republican Party is not very sensible, for the reasons you've outlined above, Rassy, and the results of the past election are further evidence that exactly what constitutes a "Republican" is up for debate. Furthermore, the fact that Democrats have a better track record amongst those of "moderate" designation does not really affect the possibility that the conservative base is shrinking away from political salience, meaning there stands a good chance that Republicans must change their ideological base if they hope to remain cohesive and relevant. For example, many of the Republicans who have mentioned passing tax increases on the top bracket have done so under the pretense that such actions are motivated by an acknowledgement of their constituents desire to at least nod at bipartisanship. My point in the end is that "no to taxes" might not be the end all cornerstone of contemporary conservatism, and if it indeed is, that might end up being the very thing that kills the party that caters to conservatives.
|
I love how people think that the republican party is in any real trouble at all. Parties have always had to change their ideological base to keep up with the times. It wasn't really that long ago when democrats lost all but a state or 2 in the general election and they're doing just fine. There hasn't even been a landslide election in a long time for either party. So they're a little behind the curve and need to play catch up it doesn't mean that you should go doom and glooming on them. We've had a really good run on reagenomic dogmas but now that train is slowly dieing down.
If the democrats can come back from being the party of loveing slavery to becoming the party that elects the first black president it really shouldn't be that surprising what the republicans will be able to do to return to power.
|
On December 10 2012 06:35 Sermokala wrote:
I love how people think that the republican party is in any real trouble at all. Parties have always had to change their ideological base to keep up with the times. It wasn't really that long ago when democrats lost all but a state or 2 in the general election and they're doing just fine. There hasn't even been a landslide election in a long time for either party. So they're a little behind the curve and need to play catch up it doesn't mean that you should go doom and glooming on them.
The problem is since Reagan, the Republican has built up a very strong brand that is largely promoted not by the party, but by "infotainers" such as Limbaugh, etc. If the GOP decides that maybe raising income taxes on wealthy people is a good idea, their entire base will be disenchanted and the party will be split apart. (see sc2superfan's recent posts as an example).
Much moreso than the Democrat party, the Republican party is currently completely beholden to the very stringent ideology that has made their "infotainers" so very successful.
This isn't the 19th century, where the media was fragmented nationally and consisted of nothing but local print.
|
On December 10 2012 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 05:35 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Republicans are whiners. they're gonna crack and lose control of the party very soon, and I'm gonna laugh in all their moderate faces when they never win another election again.
so afraid to go over the fiscal curb that they'll continue protecting the middle class from it's own ridiculous voting/spending habits. yeah... this nation is screwed big time.
off-topic: "Let the author of Myra Breckinridge go back to his pornography and stop making allusions to Nazism."
(is about all I have to say about Gore Vidal) actually this is what is needed... a softening on some of the "hard" stances they take. conservatives won't have it, and so we've gotten to a point where the Republican leadership largely fights their own base more than they fight the opposition, all in some misguided quest to find more votes that don't exist. contrary to popular belief, there is not a mass of moderate voters who are salivating at the thought of Republicans softening their stances so they can start supporting them. if they start abandoning their core principles and drive away conservatives, they won't pick up more than a tiny fraction of moderate voters, and they will lose roughly 55% of their base. it's political insanity, even if you don't think it's flat-out boot-licking. even less Republicans voted for Romney than McCain, and the most common reason why is that Romney is no better than McCain. I've been GOP to the bone my whole life and even I am done with them. they're the most feckless bunch of limp noodles that ever walked onto a political landscape and I'm seriously going to piss my pants with laughter when the Democrats annihilate them in 2014 and they still keep blaming their principles and not their lack of conviction.
If the republicans move further right they wont win another general election. I don't understand how you seem to think being more conservative and sticking firmer to your guns is what they need. It makes no sense.
They are going to be left in the dust if they continue being late to the party on social issues.
|
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become.
|
On December 10 2012 06:07 Rassy wrote:
Well hes right i think.
Republicans wont be picking up moderate votes even with a moderate program.
When facing the choise between a moderate democrat and a moderate republican the moderate voter will largely
keep with the democrats,because they always have been the more moderate party.
Voters would simply not trust a moderate republican canditate the way they trust a democratic moderate candidate.
In the back of the voters mind will always be that republicans are the party in favour of free guns and against abortion and in favour of "the rich"
The republican party is a conservative party by nature and it would take a whole generation to change that stigma. i dont realy see a way to change this overnight.
There is not much evidence possible btw, you asking for something wich does not exist,we just have to go with logical thinking and guess a bit
Well, Republicans have lost the last two elections because the moderates are defecting at frightening rates. The problem won't get better unless they become more pragmatic. I've been arguing that for the past seven years.
As for moderates preferring Democrats, I think that's pretty much false. Americans are very skeptical of government, and preaching less government always, ALWAYS scores points unless it's something that's needed. Republicans may be conservative, but they're built on an anti-government conservative base, not a social conservative base. Social conservatives tried to hijack it, and failed miserably. Moderate Americans aren't concerned with anti-government conservatives like you seem to think. As someone who was talking with some higher officials on election night, I can assure you that the moderate members consider the defeat as a rallying call.
Also, the next generation of actual Republican politicians is much more pragmatic. Most of us favor gay marriage, aren't hysterically anti-abortion (if at all), and are willing to look at varying tax proposals. This isn't going to be your grandpa's party 10 years from now. Maybe in Texas it will be, but not in most of the northern areas.
|
On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become.
*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform.
|
On December 10 2012 06:07 Rassy wrote:
Well hes right i think.
Republicans wont be picking up moderate votes even with a moderate program.
When facing the choise between a moderate democrat and a moderate republican the moderate voter will largely
keep with the democrats,because they always have been the more moderate party.
Voters would simply not trust a moderate republican canditate the way they trust a democratic moderate candidate.
In the back of the voters mind will always be that republicans are the party in favour of free guns and against abortion and in favour of "the rich"
The republican party is a conservative party by nature and it would take a whole generation to change that stigma. i dont realy see a way to change this overnight.
There is not much evidence possible btw, you asking for something wich does not exist,we just have to go with logical thinking and guess a bit
That is true only because up to now Republicans has been terrible at actually attracting moderate votes. In other countries there are much smaller "core bases" and when a party does bad job of governing (according to the voters) the other party(parties) gets the vote. I do not see a reason why voting in US should not become based more on performance instead of being based on ideological nonsense. Also even without this change in voter decision-making, I think it Republicans have no chance to win unless economy goes completely under if they won't become more moderate. So basically if they stay as they are, the only hope they would have is economic meltdown.
|
On December 10 2012 07:07 mcc wrote:
I do not see a reason why voting in US should not become based more on performance instead of being based on ideological nonsense.
Because the polity is too big.
|
*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform.
I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen.
So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same.
|
On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become.
You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly.
|
On December 10 2012 07:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 07:07 mcc wrote:
I do not see a reason why voting in US should not become based more on performance instead of being based on ideological nonsense. Because the polity is too big.
Yeah I know it is more complex set of interactions between local governments, states and federal level due to the size of the country. But I think there is still place for that.
|
On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same.
No reasonable Democrats were claiming that they'd re-take the house in a single election cycle, at least none that knew anything about the last round of gerrrymandering. But to your post before the last, I do sincerely think that the advent of the Tea Party and the particularly ideologically divergent nature of the last Republican Primary are worth some specific attention as they pertain to the direction of the party, historical comparisons notwithstanding.
|
It's easier to vote locally for Republicans than it is nationally. Local and state governments have grown quite a bit in the past 50 years, much more than the federal government, so it makes sense there are more reasonably minded people thinking those can be scaled back while we maintain or expand the federal government.
|
On December 10 2012 06:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 06:07 Rassy wrote:
Well hes right i think.
Republicans wont be picking up moderate votes even with a moderate program.
When facing the choise between a moderate democrat and a moderate republican the moderate voter will largely
keep with the democrats,because they always have been the more moderate party.
Voters would simply not trust a moderate republican canditate the way they trust a democratic moderate candidate.
In the back of the voters mind will always be that republicans are the party in favour of free guns and against abortion and in favour of "the rich"
The republican party is a conservative party by nature and it would take a whole generation to change that stigma. i dont realy see a way to change this overnight.
There is not much evidence possible btw, you asking for something wich does not exist,we just have to go with logical thinking and guess a bit Well, Republicans have lost the last two elections because the moderates are defecting at frightening rates. The problem won't get better unless they become more pragmatic. I've been arguing that for the past seven years. As for moderates preferring Democrats, I think that's pretty much false. Americans are very skeptical of government, and preaching less government always, ALWAYS scores points unless it's something that's needed. Republicans may be conservative, but they're built on an anti-government conservative base, not a social conservative base. Social conservatives tried to hijack it, and failed miserably. Moderate Americans aren't concerned with anti-government conservatives like you seem to think. As someone who was talking with some higher officials on election night, I can assure you that the moderate members consider the defeat as a rallying call. Also, the next generation of actual Republican politicians is much more pragmatic. Most of us favor gay marriage, aren't hysterically anti-abortion (if at all), and are willing to look at varying tax proposals. This isn't going to be your grandpa's party 10 years from now. Maybe in Texas it will be, but not in most of the northern areas.
I think the small government notion will lock up a lot of rural areas just on that notion alone. The pro gun-rights and anti social society is a strong selling point since nobody living 40 kilometers or more from the nearest hospital can see any benifit in paying more taxes for it.
The rest of the policies are up for grabs. The republicans don't need a complete doover as some have suggested. I doubt that the democrats can win next presidential election unless an extreme right candidate is chosen. The parties are that close in support and no incumbent + being the party in power for 8 years will wear the democratic party down.
The republicans can try to gain support from mexican immigrants by putting up a softliner on border-issues or a person the hispanic people respect.
They can try to put up a truely moderate candidate and catch moderate democrats and young votes.
They can elect a moderate on social issues and negate some of the stigmatisation from the Mourdocks in the party.
What I do not see as a succesful strategy is moving to the extreme right wing. The alienation of moderates and the galvanisation it creates among the left wing of the democratic party is just not gonna be worth it.
I am unsure about the distribution of and conviction of the social conservatives voting Bush in for his second term. It seems rather scary, if so many people voted for him on grounds of an irrelevant notion of being pro-life. Akin and Mourdock seems to have lost senatorial elections on being too specific on the subject, so I am not convinced of the specifics behind that support.
|
On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same.
I think they vastly underestimated how good Republicans were at gerrymandering the districts. Most of the serious ones understood that its very hard to even gain seats the election after a redistricting in which you didnt do the redistricting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
political polarization in america is only reflecting social polarization anyway. the insular suburban bubble is capable of far greater political insensitivity, while the urban poor have pretty much always been on the edge of open rebellion for a variety of causes.
so basically, the space for rightward and leftward lurches always exist. the question is just are there strong actual political mobilization organizations around. these things on the right have been very active for the last couple decades, and we are dealing with the consequences.
|
On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same.
Okay, so let's say I concede your point (I don't). Please cite elements of the Republican platform that appeal to moderates.
|
can we please not bring up these weird stats that have come out of the election like democrats winning "the popular vote for congress" They didn't even win by as many as the general election which just shows that they happened to win on larger margins on some races. How about how well republicans fared in state elections winning control of states that went for democrats in the national election.
I still have no idea why republicans are stronger in the house then the senate when the senate should favor their control on more states and democrats should control the house with their control on higher population states.
Romney was a shitty candidate none is arguing that point and no one did from the start of the nomination process. Mcain never had a chance coming off of 8 years of bush. I fail to see where republicanism is the reason why they lost the election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
