How can the Republicans win it all back?

[Siddhartha]

There is an interesting article on 538 about How the Republicans can win it all back..

"Nate summarized our discussion about the Republicans and the Latino vote by pointing out which states the Republicans need to win to be competitive in the electoral college. I'd just like to go one step further and say that most of the story is the national swing. If the Republicans can get a 4% national swing, that will probably do it for them. (McCain got 46% of the vote, so adding 4% would bring the Republicans to 50/50.) The electoral math matters a little bit as, for example, we've discussed regarding the Latino vote in Florida. But, pretty much, what you need is that national swing. It's not really that much different in practice from trying to win the national popular vote. Our calculations from previous elections showed that if either party won 51% of the popular vote, they'd have about a 90% chance of winning the electoral college. (This calculation is based on research that I published a few years ago with Jonathan Katz and Gary King.) Granted, the vote might be close, and if it's a 50.5%-49.5% margin, the electoral math will matter. And, during the campaign, the parties have to decide where to spend their resources. But overall I think the state-by-state electoral college counting is a bit of a distraction."

I have been writing that the only way the GOP can win the White House in 2012 is if Obama and the Democrats crash and burn. But I am beginning to think that the Republican only have to win over one or two groups like the Hispanic\Latino vote.

What do you think the GOP has to do to win the White House in 2012?

 

[cubby1223]

I really don't get it.

The liberal view of elections say the Republicans need to capture the Latino vote. Platforms based on demographics instead of principles...

If the Republicans are going to win, it has to be on a believable platform of low taxes and low spending. Are low taxes something Latinos oppose?



The fate of the GOP is in Obama's hands. If his grand tax & spend plans work, we all have to become liberals. If his plans don't work, we try the Republicans again.

 

[KB]

Yep the way for the GOP to win it back is for the democrats to screw it up. Don't worry they will, just like the Repubs did earlier.

 

[Genx87]

It really depends on the publics perception of Obama's spending. If they see results Republicans have little chance. If we see stagflation for the trillions spent he is in trouble.

 

[Craig234]

The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I really don't get it.

The liberal view of elections say the Republicans need to capture the Latino vote. Platforms based on demographics instead of principles...

If the Republicans are going to win, it has to be on a believable platform of low taxes and low spending. Are low taxes something Latinos oppose?



The fate of the GOP is in Obama's hands. If his grand tax & spend plans work, we all have to become liberals. If his plans don't work, we try the Republicans again.

Above is true. Also if the economy is still bad in 2012 and the GOP gets off the social stuff they can come back.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

this thread is about what the gop needs to do, not what the dems did... but since it's an effective strategy maybe the gop should try it...

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm gonna go for Obama et al doing a crash and burn before then. Sure, capturing a demographic helps, but as it has been said here, you have to have principles that appeal to that demographic. Cut spending/Lower taxes sounds nice, but there are many other issues out there. As it stands, the GOP is pushing the more moderate members out of the party, so the 'big tent' approach of including more of other demographics does not seem likely.

 

[irwincur]

I think both sides are predisposed to implode after about three to four years with absolute power. It gets to their heads and they start acting like corrupt morons. People grow tired very quickly and when things go south, they change fast.

The current Dems better hope that the economy can turn around by the end of the year, or they will be facing Republicans that can actually make a big deal about excessive spending and most likely taxes (since they are almost guaranteed to go up). This has always been the strongest, most far reaching Republican platform, and if they can use it, they will have a very good chance of regaining some power.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

It's simple. The Republicans need to go back to being the conservative party (both socially and fiscally), instead of trying to be the "Democrat Lite" party. They had a "moderate" candidate in 2008 in McCain, and Bush was anything but fiscally conservative. They need to get back to the Republican party of Reagan.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I think both sides are predisposed to implode after about three to four years with absolute power. It gets to their heads and they start acting like corrupt morons. People grow tired very quickly and when things go south, they change fast.

The current Dems better hope that the economy can turn around by the end of the year, or they will be facing Republicans that can actually make a big deal about excessive spending and most likely taxes (since they are almost guaranteed to go up). This has always been the strongest, most far reaching Republican platform, and if they can use it, they will have a very good chance of regaining some power.

No, they're not. The Republicans come into the game corrupted from the moment they gt power, and the Democrats can hold power for long periods with far less corruption.

The Democrats aren't immune by any means, there is a large wing of the party that is compromised, the majority somewhat compromised byt better than most (not all) Republicans.

But FDR/Truman governed for 16 years without corruption following the sellout policies of Republicans before and JFK/LBJ were in power 8 years with very little corruption under JFK and a little more under LBJ, Carter wasn't 'corrupt' - you have to go to Clinton to find a Democrat who did have too many sellout policies but again, he was better than the alternative.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

Good plan, it certainly worked for Obama.

 

[Red Irish]

Preying on people's fears, advocating a few wars, blaming the Democrats for the economic situation and, in general, by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

Good plan, it certainly worked for Obama.

Although Craig's lying propaganda machine isn't very effective

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

Good plan, it certainly worked for Obama.

No, it didn't. Obama built an effective *communication* operation, which was mostly accurate, not propaganda, though to a small degree it was less than accurate, e.g., on civil rights.

Obama *did not* sell out policies to the highest bidder - the limited corruption of the Democrats pales in comparison to the wholesale corruption of the Bush administration literally appointing hundreds of donor industry representatives to the government oversight positions, setting policy by holding meetings with donor industries and asking them for wish lists which were made into bills (sometimes, the industries actually writng the bill itself), etc. Obama has his own issues, but he and the Democratic Congress have reduced the corruption.

If you're going to cross the line to scumbag lying, we're not going to continue the discussion.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Preying on people's fears, advocating a few wars, blaming the Democrats for the economic situation and, in general, by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

i.e. FUD

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

Good plan, it certainly worked for Bush. Twice.

Fixed.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Preying on people's fears, advocating a few wars, blaming the Democrats for the economic situation and, in general, by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

You liberals always cry out for actual serious discussion, for this forum to cut out the partisan crap, then when you guys actually have the chance you still shit all over it

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It's simple. The Republicans need to go back to being the conservative party (both socially and fiscally), instead of trying to be the "Democrat Lite" party. They had a "moderate" candidate in 2008 in McCain, and Bush was anything but fiscally conservative. They need to get back to the Republican party of Reagan.

Hahaha, McCain was 'moderate'... good one. Yeah, he used to be, but he swung hard right for the election.

Remember when he denounced Falwell and Robertson for extremism and then did a 180 and embraced Falwell at his university right before running for election? That and he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate? Puhleeze. He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was a) a phony and b) made bad choices (selecting palin)

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
But I am beginning to think that the Republican only have to win over one or two groups like the Hispanic\Latino vote.

Why do you think Obama nominated Sotomayor?

Game over man, game over.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It's simple. The Republicans need to go back to being the conservative party (both socially and fiscally), instead of trying to be the "Democrat Lite" party. They had a "moderate" candidate in 2008 in McCain, and Bush was anything but fiscally conservative. They need to get back to the Republican party of Reagan.

I have thought about this strategy of the GOP kicking moderates out of their party. The only way I can see this being successful is if the US voter is really "center right". I have not seen any polls or evidence that support this evaluation.

Looking back at past presidential elections for the political drivers:

1964: Goldwater was too conservative.

1968: Viet Nam war, Civil Rights for Afro-Americans, and the resultant social unrest.

1976: Watergate

1980: The economy

1992: The economy

2000: Sex scandal

2008: The economy and the Iraqi war.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

Good plan, it certainly worked for Obama.

No, it didn't. Obama built an effective *communication* operation, which was mostly accurate, not propaganda, though to a small degree it was less than accurate, e.g., on civil rights.

Obama *did not* sell out policies to the highest bidder - the limited corruption of the Democrats pales in comparison to the wholesale corruption of the Bush administration literally appointing hundreds of donor industry representatives to the government oversight positions, setting policy by holding meetings with donor industries and asking them for wish lists which were made into bills (sometimes, the industries actually writng the bill itself), etc.

You are lying, and I'll point out the lies. Care to say more and hurt your side some further when I point out the next lies?

What's your point? There were problems with the last administration. The topic of the thread is "How can the Republicans win it all back?"

You're just someone who cannot see beyond your partisan roots.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Preying on people's fears, advocating a few wars, blaming the Democrats for the economic situation and, in general, by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

You liberals always cry out for actual serious discussion, for this forum to cut out the partisan crap, then when you guys actually have the chance you still shit all over it

I'm not even American and I'm only a liberal on Tuesdays between 18:30 and 21:00 sharp.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234

The same way as usual. Build an effective propaganda machine that lies, obtain funding by selling the policies to the highest bidders, and count on the short memory of the public.

What's your point? There were problems with the last administration. The topic of the thread is "How can the Republicans win it all back?"

My post answered the question.

You're just someone who cannot see beyond your partisan roots.

You're post is idiotic. The truth about Republican flaws is not 'partisan'.

 

[Phokus]

As old people die off, minority populations (especially hispanic) rise, and more young people (who reject the bigoted ways of the GOP) become voters, the GOP is going to have a difficult time overcoming the demographic shift.