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

[randomrogue]

Basically the question is could a "Romney" with charisma and ability to go more than an hour without flip-flopping attract say 3% more voters?

The issue isn't the 3,500,000 vote difference in the popular vote. It's the electoral college. It's quite possible that the republicans will lose Texas in the next election based on demographic changes.

Republicans need to win more states. 4 years is a long time but as it stands right now they'll lose the next election before making any real changes.

 

[nehalem256]

The issue isn't the 3,500,000 vote difference in the popular vote. It's the electoral college. It's quite possible that the republicans will lose Texas in the next election based on demographic changes.

Republicans need to win more states. 4 years is a long time but as it stands right now they'll lose the next election before making any real changes.

You mean the state Romney won 57-41?

I think what you meant to say is that in Democratic wet dreams they might win Texas in 2016.

For comparison Bush won 61% in 2000

 

[randomrogue]

Republicans got like 25% of the latino vote. That's a HUGE problem.

Is it probable? No clue. It is possible though.

How do you propose that Republican pick up enough EV to win with their current batshit crazy platform? It ain't happening.

 

[Matt1970]

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

This x100.

 

[nehalem256]

Republicans got like 25% of the latino vote. That's a HUGE problem.

Is it probable? No clue. It is possible though.

Even if their percentage of the vote declines in Texas over the next 4 as much as it did in the last 12 they still win 53-47.

Its more a wet dream than a serious possibility. But you are really proving my point. You are scared then Republicans might win and are therefore suggesting they blow up the party. Presenting insane possibilities as likely to scare Republicans into acting rashly.

How do you propose that Republican pick up enough EV to win with their current batshit crazy platform? It ain't happening.

(1) Run a candidate who does not come off as an elitist rich douche.
(2) Pretend the word rape does not exist
(3) Be willing to govern. See the fact that after they won the 2010 election they were unwilling to compromise even 10% on their agenda. This allows them to present a vision of what they want to do other than Not Obama.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They can win with a decent candidate and more skillful dogwhistling. By that I mean -- they have to continue to convey to their base of knuckledraggers that they support all the same regressive crap they always have, but do a better job of hiding that from everyone else and making themselves appear presentable.

In other words -- they need to learn how to lie better. That's pretty much the only way the GOP is going to win with its current base and platform.

 

[nehalem256]

They can win with a decent candidate and more skillful dogwhistling. By that I mean -- they have to continue to convey to their base of knuckledraggers that they support all the same regressive crap they always have, but do a better job of hiding that from everyone else and making themselves appear presentable.

In other words -- they need to learn how to lie better. That's pretty much the only way the GOP is going to win with its current base and platform.

How is this any different than the Democratic Party?

The put up Gore and Kerry and lost to George W. Bush :awe:

I think if you really looked you would that the Democrats have ideas that are equally as unpopular. Such as government paid for abortions. The difference is Democrats have the sense not to talk about these things very often.

 

[soundforbjt]

The republicans will have to divorce themselves from the tea party and the rest of the nuts before they have a chance of winning.

 

[Incorruptible]

How is this any different than the Democratic Party?

The put up Gore and Kerry and lost to George W. Bush :awe:

I think if you really looked you would that the Democrats have ideas that are equally as unpopular. Such as government paid for abortions. The difference is Democrats have the sense not to talk about these things very often.

This! Charles why dont you address this

This is wrong and a waste of the tax dollars

 

[soundforbjt]

This! Charles why dont you address this

This is wrong and a waste of the tax dollars

Is caring for a child for 18 years with tax dollars cheaper than an abortion or birth control? Which is the biggest waste of money?

 

[nehalem256]

Is caring for a child for 18 years with tax dollars cheaper than an abortion or birth control? Which is the biggest waste of money?

Oh come on. If you think Democrats want taxpayer funded abortions to save taxpayers money I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

 

[randomrogue]

They can win with a decent candidate and more skillful dogwhistling. By that I mean -- they have to continue to convey to their base of knuckledraggers that they support all the same regressive crap they always have, but do a better job of hiding that from everyone else and making themselves appear presentable.

In other words -- they need to learn how to lie better. That's pretty much the only way the GOP is going to win with its current base and platform.

That recording of Romney was interesting because it could be a sign of the future. With everybody wielding a high resolution video camera politicians can find themselves putting their foot in their mouth much easier than before. I'm sure other candidates have said the same thing but nobody was there with small video camera that fits in the palm of your hand and the internet to upload it to for the whole world to see.

Candidates might just have to stop catering to the lowest common denominator. lol What a ridiculous idea. That'll never happen.

 

[Incorruptible]

Is caring for a child for 18 years with tax dollars cheaper than an abortion or birth control? Which is the biggest waste of money?

Except the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the child, Welfare encourages these births with single mothers because the government replaces the father

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Even if I grant your ridiculous premise that not trumpeting socially conservative views on social issues amounted to "stabbing 1/3rd of your party in the back" (which it doesn't), your still full of fail.

Independent voters and conservative Democrats can easily make up any losses in the stupid and idiotic evangelical base.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Why do you never stop responding to that idiot?

In a two-party system, you don't really need to appeal to the extreme fringe of your side. You only need to make them think you are, at least enough that they don't stay home.

The more extreme anyone is on one side of the spectrum, the more likely they are to support a moderate on your side if only to keep the other guy out. This is pretty much what the Democrats have done for years -- you never see the far left have much power in the party.

The problem with the GOP is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. They've pandered to social conservatives for years, and now they've caught the tiger by the tail.

 

[zsdersw]

Why do you never stop responding to that idiot?

Because I find him amusing; a charity case, if you will.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because I find him amusing; a charity case, if you will.

You really need to get out more.

Please reconsider? He is only here to push his two pet causes and destroy threads with endless back-and-forth. The fewer people who respond to him, the fewer threads that get destroyed.

 

[zsdersw]

You really need to get out more.

I couldn't be any more out.

Please reconsider? He is only here to push his two pet causes and destroy threads with endless back-and-forth. The fewer people who respond to him, the fewer threads that get destroyed.

Nah.

 

[nehalem256]

Even if I grant your ridiculous premise that not trumpeting socially conservative views on social issues amounted to "stabbing 1/3rd of your party in the back" (which it doesn't), your still full of fail.

Where did I say trumpeting? You said they should completely drop social issues.

Obviously good politicking is to bring up the right issue to the right group of people.

And NEVER mention rape.

Independent voters and conservative Democrats can easily make up any losses in the stupid and idiotic evangelical base.

This seems unlikely. You just large a substantial share of your voters. You no longer need to peel off a couple percentage from the Democrats, but also enough to make up for all the social conservatives that just dumped.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you never stop responding to that idiot?

In a two-party system, you don't really need to appeal to the extreme fringe of your side. You only need to make them think you are, at least enough that they don't stay home.

The more extreme anyone is on one side of the spectrum, the more likely they are to support a moderate on your side if only to keep the other guy out. This is pretty much what the Democrats have done for years -- you never see the far left have much power in the party.

The problem with the GOP is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. They've pandered to social conservatives for years, and now they've caught the tiger by the tail.

I think it is more that the far leftists have the sense to keep their mouth shut.

Unless of course you are arguing that essentially moderate positions like opposing the redefinition of marriage are extreme.

 

[zsdersw]

Where did I say trumpeting? You said they should completely drop social issues.

Obviously good politicking is to bring up the right issue to the right group of people.

And NEVER mention rape.

They should drop social issues in which a clear majority of the country doesn't support their opinion. Unfortunately for you, this means opposition to gay marriage should be dropped... and there are more and more signs that this is going to happen.

This seems unlikely. You just large a substantial share of your voters. You no longer need to peel off a couple percentage from the Democrats, but also enough to make up for all the social conservatives that just dumped.

There are social conservatives who will vote for whomever the Republican nominee is, others will just stay home on election day. Combine the former with independent voters and you can easily overcome any losses from those who don't vote.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nah.

Then you're as big of a problem as he is.

He has no interest in honest discussion of subjects, and if you are happy to help him derail threads, I guess you don't either.

 

[zsdersw]

essentially moderate positions like opposing the redefinition of marriage are extreme.

That is not a moderate position, unless you consider more than half of the country to be "extreme". Support for gay marriage is above 50% nationally (54%, IIRC).

 

[zsdersw]

Then you're as big of a problem as he is.

He has no interest in honest discussion of subjects, and if you are happy to help him derail threads, I guess you don't either.

Get over yourself and over your preconceived notions of what this forum is or should be.

 

[nehalem256]

Then you're as big of a problem as he is.

He has no interest in honest discussion of subjects, and if you are happy to help him derail threads, I guess you don't either.

There is tons of discussion here about what the Republicans have to do to win.

I think as usual you are just butt-hurt that it disagrees with you.

You don't want "honest discussion" you want a circle-jerk.