Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Vic Vega, Nov 12, 2012.
It sure seems like it's going that way, based on recent polling.
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.
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
I sure hope so!
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.
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.
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.
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
I would be overjoyed if they did react this way, I am skeptical though...
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.
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.
^^ 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.
So what was the last fiscally responsible Republican administration?
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.
And the current GOP would consider him way too moderate and he would not make it through the primaries.
Ike most likely.
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.
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.
I agree with almost all of this.
LMFAO Could you please elaborate what views you consider to be extremist?
What amazes me their sheepal REALLY think (I use that term loosely) that they ARE Fiscally responsible LMFAO!!
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
Republican financial stuff is just as creepy as their religious stuff.