Not calling this a "referendum", but it makes me wonder what the right will/should do

[scootermaster]

It seems like there's two schools of thought here:

1). Be more conservative! No abortions, unless the baby will grow up to be a dem! Assault rifles in every house (for shooting illegals!) Prayer mandatory in schools! Export the muslims! Repeal all taxes for income > 120k and get rid of all entitlements! Entitlements are for muslim immigrants anyway, and after we shoot them all, we won't need 'em!

and

2). Be more liberal and meet somewhere in the middle.

So, my question is: Which strategy do you think would have helped the GOP win the presidency?

And, as a secondary question: At what point do you think the general GOP populace mandates a flip from one strategy to the other one, if the one strategy [you/they/the politicians in question/etc] is currently using continually doesn't work? I.e. If neo-Con was the answer to the last election, what's the answer to this one?

I really am curious, I guess, if the thought amongst republicans is to redouble their efforts, and get MORE right-winged, or to think, "Hey you know what? Maybe we should let up on some of these social issues to, you know, actually win an election".

 

[zanejohnson]

number 2 obviously..

number 1 is an ignorant mindset.. there's no room for it in todays world.

 

[Agent11]

If they keep going to the right they will cease to exist.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Double down on their current trajectory of course. They obviously aren't being conservative enough.

 

[sportage]

It is terribly painful watching the Faux News meltdown.
Guess Karl got it a little wrong? ...Ya think?

 

[nageov3t]

I'm going to ignore the Presidency, because that was going to be an improbable win no matter who they nominated... but this is the second election in a row that they've squandered an opportunity to retake the Senate because of far right tea party nominees winning in Republican primaries.

they need to take a cold hard look at what they want... a permanent minority status with ideologically pure members, or do they want to sacrifice 5% of their agenda to get the other 95% passed by electing more palatable candidates?

 

[Incorruptible]

They need to embrace the message of Ron Paul otherwise they will be gone

 

[OrByte]

Ohhh I gotta tune into Fox to watch the crying!!

GOP needs to move to the center...PLEASE

The echo chamber AM radio is hilarious to listen to

 

[scootermaster]

number 2 obviously..

number 1 is an ignorant mindset.. there's no room for it in todays world.

Well, I was exaggerating for effect, and yeah, that's what you'd figure...

BUT...

"Reinvigorating the base" and "Neo-conservatism" and a bunch of other ideals were all the supposed answers to 2008 and previous Senate/House elections. So, there really is an idea that in order for the right to "come back", the answer is to be MORE right. You could even look at Romney as an example of that. So I'm wondering if Republicans think this is a good strategy or not. I, personally, hope they keep going righter and righter (cough, tea party, cough) because those of us back here in reality will continue to try and make the world a better place, unimpeded.

So that's how I feel. I was just wondering what the rest of the world thought.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I expect the party will split between those strategies. It's going to be interesting to watch over the next four years.

 

[scootermaster]

I'm going to ignore the Presidency, because that was going to be an improbable win no matter who they nominated... but this is the second election in a row that they've squandered an opportunity to retake the Senate because of far right tea party nominees winning in Republican primaries.

they need to take a cold hard look at what they want... a permanent minority status with ideologically pure members, or do they want to sacrifice 5% of their agenda to get the other 95% passed by electing more palatable candidates?

Exactly my point.

We're not QUITE there yet, but we're -- literally -- 5-10 years away from the public simply not accepting anti-abortion, gay-bashing, xenophobic candidates. As in, when history is written, this generation will be the last for which these sorts of things are even a debate (and I'm talking big picture. Of course pockets will still exist, and some candidates will manage to win minor things, but you get the idea).

This WILL happen. The question is how long it'll take the right to get there. And lord, when they do, it'll take the left YEARS to come up with something that'll appeal to country more than that.

 

[nextJin]

They need to embrace the message of Ron Paul otherwise they will be gone

Well in a general sense yea, the sheer power of the Paul grass roots and his no bullshit real conservative ideas could have presented a much more interesting race than this.

The Republicans lost this election because they lost the youth vote. Paul would have delivered them in spades.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well in a general sense yea, the sheer power of the Paul grass roots and his no bullshit real conservative ideas could have presented a much more interesting race than this.

The Republicans lost this election because they lost the youth vote. Paul would have delivered them in spades.

Dream on.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Xenophobia is still on the rise, and it's not something endemic to Republicans alone. The union folk don't like their jerbs being taken either. The more typical religious conservative policies will inevitably decline, of course, and I don't think the Republicans will try to hold on for more than a few election cycles. The old religious folk will simply die off and the R's will act it never happened.

 

[Genx87]

The GOP should reach out to Latino voters plain and simple. Bush won because he grabbed about 60% of the latino vote.

 

[nageov3t]

The GOP should reach out to Latino voters plain and simple. Bush won because he grabbed about 60% of the latino vote.

+1

Republicans have to reconcile with the fact that they're going to need minority voters to win. there's even some overlap with their conservative standpoint on a lot of social issues, but they need to moderate their stance on immigration.

 

[Genx87]

+1

Republicans have to reconcile with the fact that they're going to need minority voters to win. there's even some overlap with their conservative standpoint on a lot of social issues, but they need to moderate their stance on immigration.

Hell from a social conservative standpoint they should also be winning the black vote. For Bush's faults he did understand that and Rove pushed it home.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

It seems like there's two schools of thought here:

1). Be more conservative! No abortions, unless the baby will grow up to be a dem! Assault rifles in every house (for shooting illegals!) Prayer mandatory in schools! Export the muslims! Repeal all taxes for income > 120k and get rid of all entitlements! Entitlements are for muslim immigrants anyway, and after we shoot them all, we won't need 'em!

and

2). Be more liberal and meet somewhere in the middle.

So, my question is: Which strategy do you think would have helped the GOP win the presidency?

And, as a secondary question: At what point do you think the general GOP populace mandates a flip from one strategy to the other one, if the one strategy [you/they/the politicians in question/etc] is currently using continually doesn't work? I.e. If neo-Con was the answer to the last election, what's the answer to this one?

I really am curious, I guess, if the thought amongst republicans is to redouble their efforts, and get MORE right-winged, or to think, "Hey you know what? Maybe we should let up on some of these social issues to, you know, actually win an election".

If you look at the vote breakdowns, you will see that Romney lost big time when it comes to women voters and various minorities. I'm betting that loss is based on his social policies rather than his fiscal policies. This would suggest that republicans could do better by being more socially progressive, while remaining fiscally conservative. Problem is, if the Republicans become more socially progressive, they risk losing their voter base in the midwest, which eats up social conservative policies.

Meanwhile, democrats can play the trump card, which is essentially "vote for us, because we'll give you stuff. Don't vote for them, because they'll take stuff you already depend on (but were never entitled to) away."

Long term policy for the republicans, and I'm only half joking, would be to institute some form of incentive system for massive population growth in the midwest. This would result in long term restructuring of electoral college votes away from the coast to the heartland, making it easier for republicans to win based on their current platform. Plus everyone would be happy because they would scrumping so much. Problem with that plan, however, is that we may not have an "America" to speak of in 30+ years.

FWIW, I'm independent with strong leanings towards the libertarian party. I like my government small and my freedom unburdened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Double down on their current trajectory of course. They obviously aren't being conservative enough.

It's what they did in 2009 to win the 2010 midterms. It's how they'll hold the HOR & a lot of State govts in 2012.

They've radicalized their base too much to do anything else. Expect a bitter rearguard action for the foreseeable future.

 

[Munky]

They don't have to do anything. The House already got a bigger repub vote then the dems, and that in a way is more critical to making an impact than the presidency. All they have to do is watch Obumma fail 4 more years until even more people get fed up with the dems. Of course, now the dems will whine about repub stonewalling even louder.

 

[Infohawk]

I wouldn't be so sure it's the social issues. The economy is the big issue. That was the big election theme for both candidates. It seems possible people don't blame Obama for a downturn that started when he was elected. The Republicans were in control for a long time. Also, at the end of the day, when people see their quality of life declining I don't think they're satisfied with laissez-faire strategies.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

They need to embrace the message of Ron Paul otherwise they will be gone

Or Gary Johnson both of whom had more street cred then Romney when it boils down to substantive issues relating to individual freedoms and free markets. I believe Peter Schiff had a pretty good tear down on Romney's fallings during his own youtube/radio show dissection of each presidential debate.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I wouldn't be so sure it's the social issues. The economy is the big issue. That was the big election theme for both candidates. It seems possible people don't blame Obama for a downturn that started when he was elected. The Republicans were in control for a long time. Also, at the end of the day, when people see their quality of life declining I don't think they're satisfied with laissez-faire strategies.

Quality of life doesn't go up with socialist policies or centralize planning, everyone else just gets brought down to lower standards.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

+1

Republicans have to reconcile with the fact that they're going to need minority voters to win. there's even some overlap with their conservative standpoint on a lot of social issues, but they need to moderate their stance on immigration.

Amnesty is not reconciling it is surrendering all value to US citizenship and gut punching everyone else who waited in line or is waiting in line to become a US citizen.

 

[Slew Foot]

The party of lincoln was killed off by the party of Jesus.