Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

Well, I forsee a republican civil war coming. I can already see the sides bein drawn.
 
In one corner, "we were not conservative enough, it's mitt Romney's fault we lost" disputing every single piece of knowledge known about the elections
 
In this Corner: "The republican party alienated centerists. Our turnout wasn't the problem, that was great. Our problem was extremists beliefs alienating Hispanics, Women, the young, and the atheist."
 
Who will win?

The third party that rises from the ashes.

[GreatJustice]

Well, I forsee a republican civil war coming. I can already see the sides bein drawn.
 
In one corner, "we were not conservative enough, it's mitt Romney's fault we lost" disputing every single piece of knowledge known about the elections
 
In this Corner: "The republican party alienated centerists. Our turnout wasn't the problem, that was great. Our problem was extremists beliefs alienating Hispanics, Women, the young, and the atheist."
 
Who will win?

The third party that rises from the ashes.

I wish.

My guess is that probably by 2016 and definitely by 2020, the Republican party will be more extreme on some issues (Fiscal policy, economic views, etc) but have switched views on others (foreign policy, the drug war, immigration, etc). Demographically speaking, they can't exist the way they do presently and have any realistic chance of winning elections.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Honestly, I think the GOP might be dying because of their current attitude, and the party leadership is too extreme to let it go or realize it. They seriously thought that Romney lost by not being conservative enough. Barry Goldwater seems to have had a prophetic view on this:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Goldwater was also the kind of Republican who could have given Obama a run for his money, but these days he'd be derided as a radical socialist or whatever for not hating homosexuals or trying to bring Jesus into politics. That lack of party flexibility, more than perhaps anything else, is why the GOP is dying. Hell, we've gotten to the point where they're so conservative that they look back at Bush and call him a liberal agitator pretending to be a Republican. It is a total rejection of reality.


I foresee the Libertarians making major gains once everyone who is not delusional and insane in the GOP realizes that the party line isn't going to change. I can't speak to how economic issues will go, but what we are witnessing now is the effective end of social conservatism. Too many people find it too repulsive, and dare I say even...un-American! *gasp*

If anything is going to make the GOP realize that they are driving full speed ahead into an incinerator, it will be Texas. The way the politics are going, Texas could become a battleground state before the next presidential election. A blue Texas might be the only thing shocking enough to knock the GOP leadership out of their fantasy. It also pretty much ensures that they won't win anything, what with Texas being the electoral backbone of the GOP much like California is to the Democrats.

[kaijyuu]

GOP party split/fracture/destruction in the near future? Would be neat.

I'd hope the right gets taken up by the libertarians. Not that I like libertarianism, but at least they're logically consistent.

[FearfulJesuit]

I don't think we're gonna see a bunch of Texan seats picked up by the Democrats in 2014, because the state's gerrymandered to heck. Though maybe not- the current delegation is 12 Democrats, 24 Republicans.

2016, though...See, the thing is, the Republicans have been very, very lucky. The combination of a recession, looking like you have all the answers even when you are talking out of your ass, and a not insignificant amount of bloody-minded racism, fundamentalism and vitriol in the base has bought them some time. Had there been no recession, and had the Democrats nominated a white guy in '08, they would be further into the hole they've currently dug themselves into. As it is, they're currently profiting from a combination of factors that are making the Democrats look terrible- it's just that the Republicans look terrible by comparison. If Texas becomes a swing state in 2016- and that won't happen without a number of other states becoming swing states, too- Arizona, probably, and maybe Georgia or Tennessee (though I wouldn't put my hopes on Georgia too highly. Despite Atlanta, it was one of just seven or eight states where had the election been decided just by 18-29 year-olds in '08, McCain would have won, which I found surprising. (For the record, those states didn't include Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas)). It may take a while for the other current Republican strongholds to go, but when that happens it'll start to happen all at once. If the Republicans don't clean up their act now, they'll be facing landslide after landslide for the Democrats in the White House, at least. I could see them winning 2016 if they picked Huntsman or maybe Christie and unemployment was still high. But I think the unemployment picture is going to improve- slowly, to be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were around 5% in 2016- and winning the House has afforded them the opportunity not to pay attention to the demographics. Gerrymandering can buy you a lot of time, and even if they lose the House in 2014 without getting the Senate, two years is just not enough time for the party bigwigs to decide "You know, let's take a few baby steps to remaining relevant and cut down on the rhetoric on, say, birth control and immigration this election..." What the Republicans got this year and last year, plus their majority in the nation's state legislatures (allowing them to gerrymander as they please), has masked what's really going on. And that's too bad- by the time they wake up and smell the Kool-Aid, it may be too late.

I'd really like to see the Republicans go back to being the party of the Rotary Club sorts of people who built it-in other words, actually promoting small business over corporations, not being overly interventionist in international affairs, and just generally being rational conservatives who simply want to make sure that any change that happens is change that's truly needed and that the country can handle- and who don't think that extends to people's private lives. Do you know how thrilled I'd be in 2016 to be able to vote for a resurrected version of Eisenhower or Rockefeller? Hell, even Gerald Ford would have a shot at my vote. But it's not gonna happen. 2020 may not be quite enough time, either.

In 2022 and 2024, however, I suspect that discontentment with the Republicans will grow enough that a majority of the nation's state legislatures are filled with Democrats, and when the census calls for redistricting, that will make its presence felt. In other words, the Republicans are screwed. But it'll take at least eight years for that to be obvious.

[Nadaka]

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

[Reelya]

Gallup polls on ideology show that the Republicans are far more of a monoculture (71% identify as conservatives to 24% moderates) than the Democrats (about 40% liberal, 40% moderates).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

I'm assuming this plays along with their "conservative-only" rhetoric, since they don't have to encompass as broad a set of views as the Democrats. It kind of explains why they're comfortable in their own bubble speaking to each other, but can't see how this doesn't always communicate to  the broader society.

This, at least, shows an asymmetry. Republicans have become a conservative monoculture, whereas Democrats are a liberal/moderate alliance.

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

The Australian Sex Party has policies I can get behind.

[FearfulJesuit]

Interestingly, there is actually one policy where the Republicans have a policy that I'd be able to get behind if it were done well- charter schools in opposition to public schools. As liberal as I am, I recognize what a mess the teachers' union system has become, and if the government can't get its act together in regular public schools because of the unions, why not let someone else have a go?

Problem is, you then have to fund these babies and regulate them so they're not spouting young-earth creationism. And that's something I don't trust the Republicans to do.

[misko27]

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

Please, some one explain to me, what is so appealing about chaos and anarchy?

[Darvi]

I think you just answered your own question.

Actually no, I don't trust humanity with absolute anarchy, even less so than I trust people to rule them.

[Frumple]

The ASP actually has a pretty decent policy platform, imo.

As for charter schools, I'unno. They seem to be fucking up pretty hard down here in Florida, in a lot of cases. Mind you, so's the public system, but at least they're a bit more accessible and (somewhat) less profit minded.

[Lord Shonus]

The teacher's union isn't the cause of the problems in public schools. The biggest problems are parental indulgence (many schools make such an effort to include the parents that the school is run as much by the parents as it is by the school officials), zero tolerance policies that take too many decisions away from teachers and school staff, and the obsession with standardized testing.

[FearfulJesuit]

The ASP actually has a pretty decent policy platform, imo.

As for charter schools, I'unno. They seem to be fucking up pretty hard down here in Florida, in a lot of cases. Mind you, so's the public system, but at least they're a bit more accessible and (somewhat) less profit minded.

What are the problems with them, exactly?

[Leafsnail]

The "unskewed polls" phenomenon was interesting because it arose from Republicans refusing to believe that their party was shrinking in size.  The actual electorate did contain only 32% Republicans.  This is partly because the Old White Guys demographic is shrinking, and the demographics the Republicans have alienated are growing.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-qstarnews-poll-turns-out-to-have-been-skewed

This is a response from the guy who did it.  Not a complete confession of error but at least he seems to have realised that Nate Silver was right and he wasn't.

At least the libertarians have policies that I could get behind.

This stopped clock displays times I can get behind

That said what I think the Republicans need is a relatively young candidate who's prepared to genuinely apologize to alienated constituencies (eg Hispanics, women, black people) and move them in a less bigoted direction.  The Tea Party and the like seems set on moving them in the exact opposite direction though.

[Reelya]

"if the government can't get its act together in regular public schools because of the unions"

Sounds like complete buck-passing. The government dictates what is taught, how it is taught and how much funding you get. Unions don't write curriculum or set classroom rules. I might be missing something but blaming teacher's unions for the state of education is almost always right-wing propaganda. Teachers are 100% unionized in Australia and New Zealand and we kick your asses in literacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

If kids in public schools are crackheads, getting rid of teachers unions ain't gonna fix a thing. It's a societal problem and teachers can only do so much about that, but get 100% blame for the kid's behavior, and they're banned from handing out discipline. The rules against disciplining children were handed down by government, not unions.