What do the Republicans have to do to win in 2016?

[nehalem256]

Ummm I see you are Historically challenged as well....the origination of TARP occurred on Bushes watch and almost all Republicans signed on in normal lockstep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

That same day, the legislation for the bailout was put before the United States House of Representatives and failed 205–228, with one not voting. Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it.

...

The revised HR1424 was received from the Senate by the House, and on October 3, it voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote

So a minority is almost all?

 

[nehalem256]

See bolded.

(4) Do men commonly try to get erectile dysfunction? yes, in that prescriptions for it is abused routinely

Did you just claim that men try to get erectile dysfunction?

Is there no absurdity liberals won't argue to try and get men to pay for women's reproductive choices.

 

[zsdersw]

I would think at least since 1980.

That's not enough to make it a core principle. Reducing the cost and power of government to expand individual freedom is their core principle.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not enough to make it a core principle. Reducing the cost and power of government to expand individual freedom is their core principle.

Sorry, but I am betting there are a lot of Republicans who see social conservatism as a core principle of the Republican Party.

 

[Ausm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008


So a minority is almost all?

Hmm so are you still pissed at the Republicans who signed onto TARP then? Nice diversion from the fact that TARP was orginated by the R's who were in control of the WH at the time.

 

[nehalem256]

Hmm so are you still pissed at the Republicans who signed onto TARP then? Nice diversion from the fact that TARP was orginated by the R's who were in control of the WH at the time.

Seems to me that at best both parties support "corporate welfare".

Although for the most part calling it "welfare" is complete BS.

Even TARP was paid back with a profit. Doesnt sound like welfare to me.

And corporate tax breaks are there to offet having one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world. Sure we could lower that, but then how would we reward corporate donors?

Calling it corporate "welfare" is just a way for Democrats to drum up support. Even though they are just as guilty of it.

 

[zsdersw]

Sorry, but I am betting there are a lot of Republicans who see social conservatism as a core principle of the Republican Party.

Probably true.. in the base of the party, but the base is not the largest part of the party.

 

[airdata]

michael bloomberg and condi rice for vp.

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah those people are crazy and against healthcare reform because then they would be institutionalized or be put to death by the death panels.

 

[soundforbjt]

Did you just claim that men try to get erectile dysfunction?

Is there no absurdity liberals won't argue to try and get men to pay for women's reproductive choices.

No, they lie about erectile dysfunction so they can get presciptions for viagra.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The current Republican party is simply out of step with mainstream American culture. They are becoming a party that fewer and fewer people identify with (mainly male whites at this point).

I'm seeing no signs that they understand the demographic problems facing them, which means in all likelihood the party as we know it is headed for destruction then rebirth. Something different will rise out of the ashes, perhaps they will finally drop the social agenda altogether and adopt a more libertarian set of policies. Given how irrational the party has behaved, however, it's foolish to predict much of anything at this point.

 

[soundforbjt]

They (repubs) just held a retreat down south to have a discussion about how to handle minorities changin demographics, etc. The ironic part is it was held at a former slave plantation.

 

[nehalem256]

The current Republican party is simply out of step with mainstream American culture.

Is that why Romney lost by less than 4% despite being the worst candidate in history?

To make this clear if the Romney hadn't come off as an elitist douche who flip flopped every 5 minutes do you think he could have won an additional 2% of the vote?

Note: Romney won more votes than McCain.

It certainly looks like no one likes Republicans to me...

 

[zsdersw]

Is that why Romney lost by less than 4% despite being the worst candidate in history?

Our recent presidential elections are always within a few % of 50-50.

It certainly looks like no one likes Republicans to me...

This is a better way to look at it:

Why? Because places like Montana look impressive on the map as an area dominated by Republicans but guess what... the entire state has only around a million people.

 

[nehalem256]

Our recent presidential elections are always within a few % of 50-50.

Which would tend to refute the idea that Republicans need to blow up the party huh?

 

[Ausm]

Seems to me that at best both parties support "corporate welfare".

Although for the most part calling it "welfare" is complete BS.

Even TARP was paid back with a profit. Doesnt sound like welfare to me.

And corporate tax breaks are there to offet having one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world. Sure we could lower that, but then how would we reward corporate donors?

Calling it corporate "welfare" is just a way for Democrats to drum up support. Even though they are just as guilty of it.

I can see that you understand this issue as well as the birth control issue! LOL!

 

[zsdersw]

Which would tend to refute the idea that Republicans need to blow up the party huh?

Abandoning social conservatism isn't "blowing up the party". Social conservatism alone doesn't get them anywhere near enough votes to win the presidency.

Look at the Republican presidential primaries... toward the end they're always talking about who can win the general election, and guess what... it's never the candidates who make social conservatism their main theme.

 

[fskimospy]

Which would tend to refute the idea that Republicans need to blow up the party huh?

No that wouldn't say that at all. Only a small percentage of the electorate is in play, and Republican social conservatism is making it increasingly difficult to capture enough to win.

You're clinging to a hateful and losing ideology. Enjoy!

 

[zsdersw]

Even Hispanics, a group originally thought to be more aligned with social conservatives, is quite socially liberal... which is yet another nail in the coffin of social conservatism's stranglehold on the Republican party. Demographically, this is a key group.

 

[Incorruptible]

The gop MUST abandon these idiotic social "conservative" views, They will not help them succeed. What do these idiots not understand?

 

[nehalem256]

Abandoning social conservatism isn't "blowing up the party". Social conservatism alone doesn't get them anywhere near enough votes to win the presidency.

Who said it did alone?

What percentage of the electorate do you think votes based on social conservatism? 20% maybe, which would make it something like what 40% of the Republican Party?

You don't get near winning enough votes to win the presidency by stabbing a 1/3 of your own party in the back.

 

[soundforbjt]

The gop MUST abandon these idiotic social "conservative" views, They will not help them succeed. What do these idiots not understand?

What they do understand is, without "social issues" they'd lose a huge amount of their base. And with them, they lose enough to win any national election. They're screwed either way.

 

[Incorruptible]

What they do understand is, without "social issues" they'd lose a huge amount of their base. And with them, they lose enough to win any national election. They're screwed either way.

Because they offer no real solutions, they are a big government party like the democrats. If they offered REAL fiscal Conservatism then they would be able to attract more supporters

 

[Anarchist420]

We have several prospects: - Paul Ryan - Chris Christie - Marco Rubio - Rand Paul - Bob McDonnell - Bobby Jindal - Condi Rice - Rick Santorum - Mike Pence - Others Their opponents are likely going to be Clinton and Biden, there are a few other good choices but those two have a huge lead in several areas atm. Clinton stepping down gives her an opportunity to start planning now and focus on the race. Given the bad taste left in our nation’s mouth over the Republican primaries and the significant opponents the party will be facing in the race what will they have to change to win over a majority of the country and get people out to vote? Paul Ryan is a leading pick from some inner circles; he has the experience running at the national level and strong support from the party. He is budget minded and has tried several times to bring a discussion to the table on budget reforms. Chris Christie did a very good job handling a natural disaster and challenged the GOP when they denied his constituents funds to help with the relief effort. Many actually blame him for the Romney loss however which could be a negative in the primaries. Marco Rubio in my opinion will be a front runner as the Media sets him up for the nomination. He was a leading VP pick this past election and has been critical at times of the current GOP. Especially after the post-election blame game. Rand Paul will have a huge grass roots advantage and he does not have his fathers "senile old man" look. He was extremely critical of Clinton during the Benghazi hearings however he said she should have read all wires relayed back to DC which is in the thousands and almost impossible. It was a pure political move to set him up for a 2016 run. Rick Santorum if history is any indication would have him as the eventual pick to head the helm. He placed 2nd in the primaries and is seen as a steadfast Conservative in the modern party. I am not overly fond of the other prospects but I honestly do not see any of these guys bringing about change to the actual message other than Christie and Paul. Both of which are going to have a very difficult time securing a nomination given their past history or relatives. I very seriously doubt Condi even runs because of the Bush debacle. I would like to see Mike Pence make waves and challenge the party. The Republicans have to change several things to win imo; Make amends with minorities, abandon the interventionist foreign policy, focus on common sense tax/spending reforms (I'm looking at you Rand), work with Democrats and the President in the meantime to pass effective legislation, abandon the old dogs and implement new leadership and plan for the future. It all starts right now, even if another Reagan comes along the party cannot possibly win without an overwhelming change in the party focus soon.

Why do you think the Republican Party can be changed?

 

[soundforbjt]

They'd have to abandon "talk" radio hosts, Fox news talking heads, etc. These people ("talk" radio hosts, Fox news talking heads, etc) won't change enough over the next four years in time to win a presidential election.

Rubio has the same problem repubs complained about with Obama, no experience.

He'll get taken down for that in primary debates.