Will A Republican Ever Get Elected President Again?

[Schmide]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

Your data point only covers TANF, which is one form of government welfare. There are many others.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps


1, 5, and 10 are blue states. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are red states.

Meanwhile, out of the 16 states that receive $1 or less for every $1 they contribute, only 4 were red: Texas, Nebraska, Indiana and Arkansas. The other 12 were blue states (CA, CO, MN, IL, OH, NY, NJ, DE, MA, RI, CT, NH).

Red states are takers, blue states are makers.

This is kind of a misnomer. If you look at just the ins and outs, it's easy to draw this conclusion that certain states are leaches. It's just as easy to show that this data is skewed due to other factors. Maryland is by far the state with the highest income (i.e. richest), yet still ranks as a debtor state. Why? Well most of the government spending skewing the above graphs is on Military, Research, National Security, Medical, etc. Other states with large land mass and low per capita income are equally mis-represented, in the above graph.

[Perknose]

YES.

I'm old enough to remember widespread press ruminations of the death of the Republican Party in the early sixties after the LBJ landslide of 1964, when they were a true smallish minority party.

The one saving grace of our two party system is that each party serves as an enduring national receptacle, and each WILL change and move to the center of our political bell curve whenever they stray too far right or left, even if that change is slow and painful.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by Jadow

hopefully not.

I've gone from someone who cared and wanted whats best for the good Ol USA, to someone who "just wants to watch the world burn."

You should hold your breath.

[bignateyk]

Yeah there will be more republicans elected, but they are gonna have to get with the times. No longer are they going to be able to skate by on the white male vote. They are going to have to become more socially liberal to get more of the female and minority vote to stand a chance in the future.

[BD2003]

Hearing so much talk about demographics, as if they're victim to a force of nature outside of their control. The demographics are the symptom - the medieval social ideas and willful ignorance are the disease. They basically need to do a 180 to be relevant again.

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by BD2003

Hearing so much talk about demographics, as if they're victim to a force of nature outside of their control. The demographics are the symptom - the medieval social ideas and willful ignorance are the disease. They basically need to do a 180 to be relevant again.

I don't think they have to do a 180. As a moderate, I would go back to voting republican if they would get with the times and accept abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, and stopped pitching religion so hard.

I agree with them that welfare and social security need reformed.

[dullard]

Originally Posted by diesbudt

Add in the fact 2 huge swing states (OH and FL) and VA all were so close in the votes.

This was only a major win for obama if you look only at the EC vote number.

However looking at all the facts, it is clear it was not a big enough win for anyone to draw a conclusion the GOP lost by a large enough margin to mean they won't win again.

Add in the fact Baby boomers are retiring, meaning our retirment core population is growing, and they rarly have much money are more attracted to democrats fiscal policies, it may be a decade or 2 before a shift goes back towards the republicans by the few % that it shifts each election.

Republicans need to be careful with numbers. Address them head on otherwise this election will repeat itself. Romney had fewer votes than McCain who had fewer votes than Bush in 2004. While democrat votes have increased election after election for decades. Yes, democrat votes were lower this year, but they are still the 2nd highest ever and the drop was due to Sandy and a massive one time uptick in 2008. The trend is still more votes from core Democrats and fewer from core Republicans.

[RightIsWrong]

Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo

Yes, Christie - Rubio 2016

Christie has been blacklisted and wouldn't get out of the primaries and the Republican base is too proud/stupid to vote for someone who might be actually good for the country and for them personally.

[biostud]

Maybe Clinton - Bush (Jeb) 2016

[Nintendesert]

Originally Posted by Perknose

YES.

I'm old enough to remember widespread press ruminations of the death of the Republican Party in the early sixties after the LBJ landslide of 1964, when they were a true smallish minority party.

The one saving grace of our two party system is that each party serves as an enduring national receptacle, and each WILL change and move to the center of our political bell curve whenever they stray too far right or left, even if that change is slow and painful.

And people seem to forget the talk of the death of the democratic party after the previous elections. It's a cycle though people like doing this after every single election it seems.

As for the hispanic vote, Bush was pretty liked so it's not impossible to gain more votes than Romney did. Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic and Romney was a Mormon, it does play into it.

We as a voting bloc are not enslaved to any party (yet, hopefully never) like black people are. So hopefully this forces politicians to keep addressing our issues instead of taking us for granted.

[BD2003]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

I don't think they have to do a 180. As a moderate, I would go back to voting republican if they would get with the times and accept abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, and stopped pitching religion so hard.

I agree with them that welfare and social security need reformed.

Well yeah, I mean 180 on the social issues.

Welfare was reformed probably as well as it ever will be (with a dem president, no less) - and social security? Neither party seems serious about it. Democrats will resist any cuts, Republicans want to totally gut it for anyone that isnt in their base. In fact, the only way we will probably get real social security reform, or any real spending or entitlement cuts....is with the divided government we have now. The only difference is that the republicans need to actually be willing to compromise, instead of just using their defensive advantage to just block everything that's even slightly unpalatable to them. Its an effective tactic, but it isnt going to solve any problems.

[quest55720]

Not until they change their stances on social issues. The demographics are just not there any more to run strictly on extreme social conservatism.

Of all people Rudy Guiliani had it right yesterday on CNN. The party has a winning argument with most people when they are truly fiscally conservative. But the party must be more like libertarians socially. He even mentioned how Ron Paul got the young people so excited. That and being more libertarian is more true to the party platform of small government and states rights. So stay out of peoples pocket books and out of their lives. But he was off on the over spending on the military.

Even locally the extreme right cost the GOP big time. The local congressman was defeated after 1 term for being to socially conservative. The GOP lost the state legislature because of instead of focusing on fiscal issues they just worried about gay marriage and abortion. They deserved to lose they were swept into office to get control for the first time in my lifetime and blew it.

[randomrogue]

This has been said after nearly every election. What most people don't realize is that the difference between the two parties is almost nothing. The power pendulum swings back and forth.

The tea party and evangelical fundamentalism though could cause a rift. I hope they split off and become their own party. Maybe the "Federalist Fascists" or something else appropriate.

[DrPizza]

I think that with all the attention this election got, in terms of things like employment, etc., that 4 years from now, the Democrats will have a pretty good shot a replacing Obama with another Democratic candidate. Even with slow recovery, I don't think another recession is in sight - 4 years from now, unemployment should be down quite a bit. After a few years of Obamacare, most of those "talking points" will be refuted by reality.

Basically, *most* of the perceived issues won't be issues.


If the Republicans want to compete in the next election cycle, they're going to have to move even further toward the center with their candidate. If they continue entertaining the idea that "nutcases" like Bachman has a prayer in the general election, they're sadly mistaken. I use the term "nutcase" because while in her home state, she got the majority of the vote this election cycle, that's exactly how she's perceived in many other areas of the country.

[Paul98]

I hope they continue their batshit crazy ideas and people running. Then eventually become a none issue and give more rational people and ideas to take their place. Along with more political options for a while, while we look for another rational party.

Or if they do come back to reality I hope they leave many of their crazy ideas and people behind.

[jstern01]

I see three things that led to Romney's loss.

1. Changing voter demographics. In 2000 Bush won barely and the white percentage of the voters was around 80%. By 2004 Bush (and I really mean Karl Rove) realized that the same percentages of white votes that helped Bush the first time would lose him the election. So a concerted effort to court the Latino vote was made. Bush got 40% of that vote. Had Bush followed the traditional logic, and only got say 28% he loses. But 2008, it was no longer feasible to win the White House by courting the white vote alone. This is only going to be more prevalent in future elections. Republicans need to expand their appeal to non whites.

2. Romney had no clear policies. He changed to match whatever crowd he was addressing. Over and over he would make statements and then his campaign team had to walk them back. People want politicians that are pretty clear on their policies. Now some would claim (and maybe rightly so) that Obama was no clearer. But the issues that the Republicans took stances on allow Obama to less forthcoming.

3. Finally the wack jobs (Tea Party). Scared the crap out of moderates after the midterms (2010) and invigorated the left to vote. The sheer number of bat crazy laws regarding women's rights, abortion, personhood amendments and other stuff was truly motivating.

If the Republicans want to seriously make an effort to continue to be a national party, they need to purge these Tea Party turds. Let them join the Libertarians and run with them.

[Zebo]

First of all you assume there is a dimes worth of difference between the parties which is a mistake.

Here let the genius of Carlin clear that up for u in a couple min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkWf...eature=related

Second all it will take for the dosey doe it tax increases. Then they switch again. And republicans spend even more while cutting taxes and we continue into a debt death spiral.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by Zebo

First of all you assume there is a dimes worth of difference between the parties which is a mistake.

Here let the genius of Carlin clear that up for u in a couple min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkWf...eature=related

Second all it will take for the dosey doe it tax increases. Then they switch again. And republicans spend even more while cutting taxes and we continue into a debt death spiral.

I love Carlin and he is mostly right in that video except for one thing. People do have a fucking choice. They can look at their politician's voting records. 99% of people don't do that though and then complain about not having a choice. Ridiculous.