Is there a future for the GOP?

[OneOfTheseDays]

I've long questioned the viability of the GOP as a national party going forward. There are two major groups of voters that the GOP is driving away in large numbers these days, Hispanics and women voters. I read a recent statistic that showed Obama is winning Hispanic voters by an almost 70% margin. That alone is simply astounding to me, especially considering the fact that Texas has a major Hispanic population that is growing extremely fast. Can you imagine the GOP even sniffing another presidency if they could not rely on Texas anymore? That's effectively game, set, match right there between CA/TX/NY.

Without these two key voting blocks I think they can kiss the thought of ever winning a national election ever again. The GOP will be relegated to a regional party mostly concentrated in the Southern/Midwestern states with higher white populations.

This is why I feel a major realignment to the party is coming soon. The dangerous marriage the GOP made with the hardcore Christians and Tea Party activists will come to an end to bring moderates and Independents back into the fold. Ultimately this will be good for the country and we can get back to having substantive debates over real issues. Not discussing whether rape is really rape.

 

[zanejohnson]

i agree.

 

[Phokus]

I definitely see the GOP party splitting. The hardcore racists in their party will FLIP THEIR SHIT when (NOT IF) hispanics give Texas to the Democrats. What we're seeing with the extremism in their party is their last hurrah before the party falls.

 

[nageov3t]

I think at some point, the GOP will realize that it has to start pandering to religious extremists of color too.

 

[Fern]

The way our system is designed there will always be two parties IMO.

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, I see the GOP splitting, but only because of all the fraud they've done. The libertarians are going to leave the GOP.

 

[berzerker60]

The way our system is designed there will always be two parties IMO.

Fern

Sure, but those two have realigned in enormous ways, basically reversing which is 'conservative' and which 'liberal/progressive' multiple times. The Democrats used to be the party of the solid south racists, the Republicans the party of emancipation. If the Republican party had less racist baggage they could (and I think ultimately will) take in the large, religious and conservative blocs within the Latino and Asian communities.

 

[soulcougher73]

I see them splitting as well, and they should. One part will be the religious conservatives scared of change and the other part will see more socially liberal conservatives. The only thing they will really share in common is an idea of fiscal conservatism.

 

[Infohawk]

As long as we have the current electoral system, we will have two parties. These parties will shift in politics over time as they always have.

 

[jhu]

I see them splitting as well, and they should. One part will be the religious conservatives scared of change and the other part will see more socially liberal conservatives. The only thing they will really share in common is an idea of fiscal conservatism.

haha! More like pretending to think about fiscal conservatism. At best Republicans will spend marginally less than Democrats, just that they'll spend on different things.

 

[Lemon law]

I have another theory that is basically based on the premise that the GOP champions only the interests of richest among us and the democrats are supposed to champion the interests of the bulk of the American people. But therein lies the rub, as the democrats are equally addicted to the money from only the richest of Americans.

As a result all American's are screwed now in 2012. Tell us anything new since WW2 when the USA emerged in such great shape. As the USA has been pissing away our future ever since in government policy stupidity in a continous policy of reverse Kazan. Has it really mattered if the republirats or the dimorats were in charge? As I submit that answer is no.

But a new nuance has emerged AFTER THE GWB & CO DISASTEROUS PRESIDENCY that ended in 2008. Which ended up winning the GOP everything they have been bellyaching for since 1900 and before. As the real battle two party control has since shifted to control of the legisalative and judicial branches of the American government. As that control of the other two branches of American Government gives the GOP veto powers and makes it impossible to repeal GWB DISASTEROUS policies.

But the result the GOP can't live with in 2012 and forward is to win POTUS. Because then the GOP becomes responsible for the failures of the US Government policy and then they can't blame the democrats. As it why the GOP ran a repunsive patsy named Romney whose only virtue was being slightly less repellant than the other real idiots they ran against Romney.

 

[nehalem256]

I've long questioned the viability of the GOP as a national party going forward. There are two major groups of voters that the GOP is driving away in large numbers these days, Hispanics and women voters.

Hispanics is a harder problem.

But there would seem to be a group of people that essentially balance out women voters. Maybe Republicans could be the party that panders to those people?

 

[zinfamous]

if the teabaggers in this forum are a strong enough indication of what is to be the GOP going forward, then no--there is no future for these clowns.

 

[zinfamous]

Hispanics is a harder problem.

But there would seem to be a group of people that essentially balance out women voters. Maybe Republicans could be the party that panders to those people?

odd.


...48-52% of voters are women. (if large scale population sampling is to be believed)


Your theory is fascinating. I would like to hear more.

:hmm:

 

[ArizonaSteve]

I would think there's also a problem with old people dying out. Old people are generally more conservative than younger people.

 

[monovillage]

Is there a future for the GOP?

Yes, in the House and probably in the Senate and about a 40% chance in the White House in 2012.

 

[berzerker60]

I would think there's also a problem with old people dying out. Old people are generally more conservative than younger people.

New old people being made every day. What they're conservative about changes though

 

[nehalem256]

odd.


...48-52% of voters are women. (if large scale population sampling is to be believed)


Your theory is fascinating. I would like to hear more.

:hmm:

Well it would seem that 48-52% of voters are then men. If the Democrats are to be the party of women, it would seem logical for Republicans to be the party of men. Time to start pandering

 

[CallMeJoe]

Well it would seem that 48-52% of voters are then men. If the Democrats are to be the party of women, it would seem logical for Republicans to be the party of men. Time to start pandering

They're already working hard to be the party of misogyny...

 

[nehalem256]

In fact from here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...-married-types/story?id=16057761#.UDQtJcePV58

In February, 64 percent of unmarried women said they would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to a Democracy Corps survey analyzed by Democratic pollsters. Only 31 percent picked the GOP candidate. The gap — 33 points — was 10 points bigger than in it was in January.

Now look at what married women say: 56 percent said they would vote for Romney, and only 37 percent for Obama, with virtually no change from January to February.

The Democrats do not even win all women, but instead only single women. Which by and large is the group they pander to.

It seems like the Republicans could set up a coalition of married people and men and sweep the nation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Repubs are currently committed to becoming a regional rather than a national party, smug in their assessment that they can block progress with a minority in the Senate.

They've been right so far, and their only attempts to get a bigger share of votes have been to suppress & demoralize groups not likely to vote for them, and to froth up their teahadist & fundie base for more turnout, invoke Mediscare & death panels.

It's how they won the midterms.

Here's one of their latest efforts, true to form-

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...in-party-platform/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120821

I figure Mitt's toast, barring some miracle, so they'll focus on holding the HOR & gaining in the Senate, probably not in Missouri, however.

 

[dmcowen674]

Is there a future for the GOP?

If the people of the U.S. want the country to survive they should stop voting Republican until the club of the rich, religious and deranged is disbanded.

 

[Matt1970]

This is the same shit we have heard for years yet, and pun intended, the GOP cleaned house less than 2 years ago. You guys are kidding yourselves.

 

[glenn1]

I've long questioned the viability of the GOP as a national party going forward. There are two major groups of voters that the GOP is driving away in large numbers these days, Hispanics and women voters. I read a recent statistic that showed Obama is winning Hispanic voters by an almost 70% margin. That alone is simply astounding to me, especially considering the fact that Texas has a major Hispanic population that is growing extremely fast. Can you imagine the GOP even sniffing another presidency if they could not rely on Texas anymore? That's effectively game, set, match right there between CA/TX/NY.

Without these two key voting blocks I think they can kiss the thought of ever winning a national election ever again. The GOP will be relegated to a regional party mostly concentrated in the Southern/Midwestern states with higher white populations.

This is why I feel a major realignment to the party is coming soon. The dangerous marriage the GOP made with the hardcore Christians and Tea Party activists will come to an end to bring moderates and Independents back into the fold. Ultimately this will be good for the country and we can get back to having substantive debates over real issues. Not discussing whether rape is really rape.

You go on thinking the GOP might not be viable. In the meantime, they'll enjoy running the House of Representatives and their current lead in the polls for November elections (I'm using the realclearpolitics.com General Congressional Vote poll average here).

And honestly, even if the Democrats were to go on a long-term winning streak it wouldn't matter. The country has already committed every penny of future wealth to current entitlements and then some, so there's nothing left for you to promise new gimmes to your constituents going forward. You keep on acting like the next stop is universal healthcare when you won't even have the money to pay for the lavish pensions you've promised, Social Security checks for baby boomers, the sinkhole that is Obamacare and Medicaid, and all the other goodies you've already promised everyone. All the California municipality defaults are just the sneak preview for what's to come for the great welfare state.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the same shit we have heard for years yet, and pun intended, the GOP cleaned house less than 2 years ago. You guys are kidding yourselves.

2010 was all about turnout, and Dems lost. That's why Repubs are focusing on the aspects I mentioned above.

If Dems can rev up their own base, particularly younger voters, overcome voter suppression efforts, they'll come out ahead.

Long term demographics & economics do not favor Repubs, at all, despite all the raving about jobs that their champions have failed to deliver, even with the lowest taxes of the post-WW2 period.