Obama's 2nd term - bad news for Dems long term.

[feralkid]

Originally Posted by monovillage

How about when midterm elections get here in 2014 and Republicans bolster their grip on the House and add votes in the Senate.

It sure seems like it's going that way, based on recent polling.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by JEDIYoda

The Republicans need none of the above.
With any or all of the above they will never ever again have a sitting republican in the White House.

The Republicans need several things to happen.....

They need to correct their stand on immigration -- the hispanic vote is very important....
They need to correct their stand on the abortion issue.....single women are a formidable block of voters...
They need to change their stance on the Gay marriage issue and allow it to happen..again the Gay/Lesbian vote is also important....

They don`t even need to correct their stand on fiscal issues...just the above ands they could have won.

Finally the Republican party needs to distance itself from the influences of the "Christain right"....

The Republican Party is not opposed to immigration. It is opposed to illegal immigration. It is pretty sad that you are arguing that the Republican Party does to embrace law breaking to win votes.

They have no need to change their stance on abortion. They simply need to ban anyone from the party who utters the word rape. Voters for whom abortion rights is super important are not going to vote Republican just because the Republicans flip/flop on abortion.

I do not think that the gay/lesbian vote is big enough to be important.

[Lonbjerg]

Originally Posted by feralkid

It sure seems like it's going that way, based on recent polling.

Don't even joke about it.
Think about it.
If the repulicans gets a spaking next time...just imagine the whining from FOX "news"...it's will be LOUD...almost to loud

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by techs

I believe Rick Santorum will be the Republican nominee in 2016

I sure hope so!

[quest55720]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

The Republican Party is not opposed to immigration. It is opposed to illegal immigration. It is pretty sad that you are arguing that the Republican Party does to embrace law breaking to win votes.

They have no need to change their stance on abortion. They simply need to ban anyone from the party who utters the word rape. Voters for whom abortion rights is super important are not going to vote Republican just because the Republicans flip/flop on abortion.

I do not think that the gay/lesbian vote is big enough to be important.

They need to go back to the old stance on abortion with the exceptions. When you run candidates who are against all abortions rape will come up. Because that candidate will have to justify their no exception stance since it is not main steam. It is just an easy target the democrats can use.


It is time to drop the anti gay marriage the public has changed their opinions on this issue. The anti gay marriage people got their asses handed to them going 0-4 despite a huge spending advantage. You lose not only the gay/lesbian vote but those who think the government has no business dictating what people can do in their bedroom with a consenting adult. You know real small government conservatives.

On immigration I don't want the GOP to cave on it. Just caving on it won't get them any votes from the Latino community. I am for reform if the boarders are secure first so we never have to deal with it again. Take the returning soldiers from the wars and station some of them on the boarder and secure boarder.

[DrPizza]

I disagree with the OP. Re: we're coming out of the largest recession since the Great Depression. Look what happened to the President who was around when we got out of the Depression - hint: he's the only President elected to 3 terms. (Not that I'm not saying that there aren't huge differences between these two eras.)

Now, regardless of who was elected last week, unemployment is going to go down. We're still seeing signs of a slow recovery - there are two directions we can go - recovery, or back into a recession. It looks like recovery. 3 1/2 years from now, people will be saying, "wow, I didn't think they would work, but Obama's policies got us back on the right path" when in reality, we'll never know for certain whose policies would have done better for us.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by DrPizza

Now, regardless of who was elected last week, unemployment is going to go down. We're still seeing signs of a slow recovery - there are two directions we can go - recovery, or back into a recession. It looks like recovery. 3 1/2 years from now, people will be saying, "wow, I didn't think they would work, but Obama's policies got us back on the right path" when in reality, we'll never know for certain whose policies would have done better for us.

This is a fairly likely scenario.

Where the Republicans screwed up was continuing their "no compromise" plan after retaking the House in 2010.

If they had instead dropped their obsession with tax cuts for the rich they could gotten probably 90% of their economic agenda passed. And looked much more populist at the same time.

Since jobs have grown every month since Republicans retook the house, they could point to that as an accomplishment of the awesome "new" Republican Party. I believe that people would also have been much more willing to vote for a constructive party than an obstructionist party. Sure, maybe it would have still given Obama a 2nd term. But between that and shutting up about rape the Republicans would have probably retaken the Senate, gained in the house, and been able to bully Obama into almost a Republican puppet. As well as giving them a strong base for retaking the presidency in 2016.

As it is now, assuming the economy continues to improve, Democrats will be able to claim they are the ones responsible for it.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by JEDIYoda

doesn`t matter who is right,,,if the Republicans do not change the Democrats will again own the White House...that is a fact!!

Realize that the Dems have not had multiple administrations elected back to back since FDR (JFK/LBJ counted as one). That last for the Repub was Reagan/Bush.

Voters do mot seem to like administration inheritance. Is it because the administration strays from what was expected or the appointee is not of quality needed.

VPS nor anointed successors need not apply with respect to either party

[Agent11]

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Obama's second term will be bad for Dems and it's not even his fault - and here's why.

The GOP failed because it was too extreme to the right on social issues. People love the financial stuff and the business stuff but can't get past the creepy religious stuff and some perceived and some real racial issues.

So what is the GOP going to do now? Fix it, of course. They are going to back off on social issues and adopt a more Libertarian stance meanwhile focusing on business and financial conservatism - things people care deeply about.

Meanwhile, the Democrats will not drop ANY of their extremest views. What you're going to get in 2016 is a GOP candidate which will pull in all the base Republican voters - that's the 59 million people who voted for Romney, all the independent voters and all the centrist Democrats, around 20 million people. The Democrats however, will still be holding on to their extremist views. It will be the same thing which just happened to the GOP except for the Democrats.



<---- Registered Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson

I would be overjoyed if they did react this way, I am skeptical though...

[nehalem256]

I think it is really simple. For the Republican's to gain they need to be seen as offering something constructive to voters instead of just not-Obama.

[Nemesis 1]

Originally Posted by DrPizza

I disagree with the OP. Re: we're coming out of the largest recession since the Great Depression. Look what happened to the President who was around when we got out of the Depression - hint: he's the only President elected to 3 terms. (Not that I'm not saying that there aren't huge differences between these two eras.)

Now, regardless of who was elected last week, unemployment is going to go down. We're still seeing signs of a slow recovery - there are two directions we can go - recovery, or back into a recession. It looks like recovery. 3 1/2 years from now, people will be saying, "wow, I didn't think they would work, but Obama's policies got us back on the right path" when in reality, we'll never know for certain whose policies would have done better for us.

4x

[Nemesis 1]

Originally Posted by DrPizza

I disagree with the OP. Re: we're coming out of the largest recession since the Great Depression. Look what happened to the President who was around when we got out of the Depression - hint: he's the only President elected to 3 terms. (Not that I'm not saying that there aren't huge differences between these two eras.)

Now, regardless of who was elected last week, unemployment is going to go down. We're still seeing signs of a slow recovery - there are two directions we can go - recovery, or back into a recession. It looks like recovery. 3 1/2 years from now, people will be saying, "wow, I didn't think they would work, but Obama's policies got us back on the right path" when in reality, we'll never know for certain whose policies would have done better for us.

Dreamer , Its not going to happen. Befor 2013 is over you will be cring like a baby . in your misery for you brought it upon yourselves. Obama is pure evil . The man has never spoken a true word.

[Juddog]

Originally Posted by Lonbjerg

They also need to get their heads out of the bibles ass...religion has to much to say in politics in the US...thank "god" (pun intended) that the younger generation more and more rejects superstition

Magic underwear...FFS!!! LOL

^^ True - as religion dies off, the bible-thumpers become less and less relevant, so the GOP going for the religious vote will be shooting themselves in the foot.

The GOP needs to concentrate on it's true strength: fiscal responsibility. Abandon this religion bullcrap and focus on the real issues instead of worrying about "the gays getting married", abortion, etc.. The GOP has driven away it's moderate votes; an example would be some of my extended family that simply chose to not vote this election because they're sick of the GOP pandering to the religious constituents. They like the GOP's stance on financial matters and if it dealing purely with finance would have voted Republican.

[Agent11]

So what was the last fiscally responsible Republican administration?

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Obama's second term will be bad for Dems and it's not even his fault - and here's why.

The GOP failed because it was too extreme to the right on social issues. People love the financial stuff and the business stuff but can't get past the creepy religious stuff and some perceived and some real racial issues.

So what is the GOP going to do now? Fix it, of course. They are going to back off on social issues and adopt a more Libertarian stance meanwhile focusing on business and financial conservatism - things people care deeply about.

Meanwhile, the Democrats will not drop ANY of their extremest views. What you're going to get in 2016 is a GOP candidate which will pull in all the base Republican voters - that's the 59 million people who voted for Romney, all the independent voters and all the centrist Democrats, around 20 million people. The Democrats however, will still be holding on to their extremist views. It will be the same thing which just happened to the GOP except for the Democrats.



<---- Registered Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson

As an independent who voted for Obama, I really hope this is true, but given all the GOP party folk talking about how they lost because they were too moderate, I'm a little wary. If they actually backed off on social issues I would go back to voting republican.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by bradley

Anyhow, Eisenhower was likely the last true conservative President. And that was over fifty years ago.

And the current GOP would consider him way too moderate and he would not make it through the primaries.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Agent11

So what was the last fiscally responsible Republican administration?

Ike most likely.

[bradley]

Originally Posted by hal2kilo

An the current GOP would consider him way too moderate and he would not make it through the primaries.

Forget conservatives, the average American cannot agree on fundamental differences between illegal vs. legal immigration or unalienable vs. inalienable rights... just for starters. That's a real problem going into any election.

[Blackjack200]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

The Republican Party is not opposed to immigration. It is opposed to illegal immigration. It is pretty sad that you are arguing that the Republican Party does to embrace law breaking to win votes.

They have no need to change their stance on abortion. They simply need to ban anyone from the party who utters the word rape. Voters for whom abortion rights is super important are not going to vote Republican just because the Republicans flip/flop on abortion.

I do not think that the gay/lesbian vote is big enough to be important.

In your first paragraph you made a completely meaningless distinction. Any Democrat will tell you that they are opposed to illegal immigration, any Republican will tell you that they not opposed to legal immagration. The differences emerge when you ask what should be done about illegal immagrents that are here today and their children.

The positions that the Republican Party takes on those issues today are unpalatable to a huge number of hispanic voters.

The Republican Stand on abortion is there to satisfy the evangelical base. That base sees an exception for rape as a loophole that any woman could drive a truck through. In other words:

- Woman has consentual sex
- Woman gets pregnant
- Woman goes to get abortion
- Doctor asks woman "Were you raped?"
- Woman says 'urmm... yep' and gets abortion

So the republicans cannot allow for any exceptions, and when they are forced to answer direct questions about the position, they can be demonized. It's a pretty effective tactic for Pro-Choice advocates, and ultimately Republicans will have to decide if they're better off continuing to pander to evangelicals or leaving them behind to appeal to a broader band of voters.

Also, the gay/lesbian vote is not just gays and lesbians. It's very important to me that elected officials protect civil rights for all Americans, and I imagine there are a lot of people that think like me. Again Republicans will simply have to decide wether it makes more sense to carry near 100% of the evangelical vote, or be more appealing to the more moderate public. One thing they might want to consider is that social acceptance of homosexuality has moved at almost breathtaking speed, and a young politician that takes any kind of anti-gay position can destroy his/her career in the future if things continue as they are.

Originally Posted by nehalem256

This is a fairly likely scenario.

Where the Republicans screwed up was continuing their "no compromise" plan after retaking the House in 2010.

If they had instead dropped their obsession with tax cuts for the rich they could gotten probably 90% of their economic agenda passed. And looked much more populist at the same time.

Since jobs have grown every month since Republicans retook the house, they could point to that as an accomplishment of the awesome "new" Republican Party. I believe that people would also have been much more willing to vote for a constructive party than an obstructionist party. Sure, maybe it would have still given Obama a 2nd term. But between that and shutting up about rape the Republicans would have probably retaken the Senate, gained in the house, and been able to bully Obama into almost a Republican puppet. As well as giving them a strong base for retaking the presidency in 2016.

As it is now, assuming the economy continues to improve, Democrats will be able to claim they are the ones responsible for it.

I agree with almost all of this.

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

Obama's second term will be bad for Dems and it's not even his fault - and here's why.

The GOP failed because it was too extreme to the right on social issues. People love the financial stuff and the business stuff but can't get past the creepy religious stuff and some perceived and some real racial issues.

So what is the GOP going to do now? Fix it, of course. They are going to back off on social issues and adopt a more Libertarian stance meanwhile focusing on business and financial conservatism - things people care deeply about.

Meanwhile, the Democrats will not drop ANY of their extremest views. What you're going to get in 2016 is a GOP candidate which will pull in all the base Republican voters - that's the 59 million people who voted for Romney, all the independent voters and all the centrist Democrats, around 20 million people. The Democrats however, will still be holding on to their extremist views. It will be the same thing which just happened to the GOP except for the Democrats.



<---- Registered Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson

LMFAO Could you please elaborate what views you consider to be extremist?

/Lawnchair

/popcorn

/beer

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by Agent11

So what was the last fiscally responsible Republican administration?

What amazes me their sheepal REALLY think (I use that term loosely) that they ARE Fiscally responsible LMFAO!!

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by DrPizza

I disagree with the OP. Re: we're coming out of the largest recession since the Great Depression. Look what happened to the President who was around when we got out of the Depression - hint: he's the only President elected to 3 terms. (Not that I'm not saying that there aren't huge differences between these two eras.)

Now, regardless of who was elected last week, unemployment is going to go down. We're still seeing signs of a slow recovery - there are two directions we can go - recovery, or back into a recession. It looks like recovery. 3 1/2 years from now, people will be saying, "wow, I didn't think they would work, but Obama's policies got us back on the right path" when in reality, we'll never know for certain whose policies would have done better for us.

I suspect you are correct. I also suspect the Republicans will pick a more socially conservative candidate in 2016 and will lose again. The Pubbies are in a real pickle; their socially conservative voters won't show up unless the candidate is doctrinaire socially conservative, moderates won't vote for a candidate who is doctrinaire socially conservative, and the increasingly important Hispanic vote is never going to vote Republican until they fold and adopt Democrat policies.

Bottom line, the Democrats won. It's no longer a traditional American nation; it's now a center left nation.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by werepossum

I suspect you are correct. I also suspect the Republicans will pick a more socially conservative candidate in 2016 and will lose again. The Pubbies are in a real pickle; their socially conservative voters won't show up unless the candidate is doctrinaire socially conservative, moderates won't vote for a candidate who is doctrinaire socially conservative, and the increasingly important Hispanic vote is never going to vote Republican until they fold and adopt Democrat policies.

Bottom line, the Democrats won. It's no longer a traditional American nation; it's now a center left nation.

Moderates will not vote for a social conservative when the party he represents stands for nothing beyond not-Obama.

The trick with social issues is not to make them the centerpiece of your campaign, but still be able to bring them up to target certain demographics. And never mention the r-word

[feralkid]

Originally Posted by quest55720

they need to go back to the old stance on abortion with the exceptions. When you run candidates who are against all abortions rape will come up. Because that candidate will have to justify their no exception stance since it is not main steam. It is just an easy target the democrats can use.


It is time to drop the anti gay marriage the public has changed their opinions on this issue. The anti gay marriage people got their asses handed to them going 0-4 despite a huge spending advantage. You lose not only the gay/lesbian vote but those who think the government has no business dictating what people can do in their bedroom with a consenting adult. You know real small government conservatives.

On immigration i don't want the gop to cave on it. Just caving on it won't get them any votes from the latino community. I am for reform if the boarders are secure first so we never have to deal with it again. Take the returning soldiers from the wars and station some of them on the boarder and secure boarder.

b-o r-d-e-r

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Republican financial stuff is just as creepy as their religious stuff.