Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So considering their defeat in the Presidential election, do you see the Republican Party changing their strategy away from the Tea Party? Or will they shift farther towards crazyland in some of their stances?
discuss

If anything, they're likely to become more right-wing.

They failed to engage with the Hispanic vote, single women, and swing voters. The BBC was saying that natural Republican strongholds in places like Virginia, have seen a demographic shift, with the once majority white population now a minority to the Hispanic population. The Republicans failed to engage this reality.
In fact, with the Hispanic population growing, any future candidates (of both sides) will have to get at least 45% of the Hispanic vote just to be competititve.
Now, with the Republican party drawing it's votes from traditional white working class groups which are dwindling, they'll have to go back to the drawing board big time.

 Huffy wrote:
So considering their defeat in the Presidential election, do you see the Republican Party changing their strategy away from the Tea Party? Or will they shift farther towards crazyland in some of their stances?
discuss

No. They will believe they failed because they didn't pick someone conservative enough, and will pick someone crazy next time.

 Ouze wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
So considering their defeat in the Presidential election, do you see the Republican Party changing their strategy away from the Tea Party? Or will they shift farther towards crazyland in some of their stances?
discuss

No. They will believe they failed because they didn't pick someone conservative enough, and will pick someone crazy next time.

Or they'll find the right canidate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Republicans need to do two simple things:

They need to expand the voter base and really mean what they say coming up in the next election cycle for president.

Broaden the vote to include those who felt disenfranchised by Republicans politics and do not flip flop on issues when the election cycle goes from primaries to the presidential election.

Care less about who marries who because the electorate is only going to shrink on that particular demographic who wants that to stop happening.

Romney was good, but I don't think the Americans really saw it. It's a demographic shift that's affecting the party.

Why should they? They still got 48% of the popular vote.

Edit : Romeny was a poor candidate. The guy is a flip-flopper and had holes in his tax plan big enough to drive a battlewagon through.
If the republicans can push a candidate like that all the way to 48% popular vote, imagine what they could do with Chris Christie.

 AustonT wrote:

That grin...... Ugh. That grin scares me a little.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Romney was good, but I don't think the Americans really saw it. It's a demographic shift that's affecting the party.

Unlike some other demographics the Latin vote should stabilize equally between the parties. Much like the Catholic vote niether party can really "count" on the political partisanship of the brown vote from election to election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snrub wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

That grin...... Ugh. That grin scares me a little.

Lacist

Auston, who are those guys?

Jeb Bush and his son George.

There was an interesting stat mentioned on NPR yesterday: the Democratic Party is just over 70% white and falling. The Republican Party is over 90% white and holding steady. You can't win with that kind of base, not at a national level.

Republicans need to dump most social issues overboard. They've won elections on them before, but that era's ending. Run smart, disciplined, fiscal policy-oriented campaigns.

Better yet? Let sequestration go into effect.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Why should they? They still got 48% of the popular vote.

48% is not enough. The NE and California give Democrats almost half the votes alone to win the election. The population is swinging more towards the minorities that the Republican policies would negatively affect (or in their opinion, would even if they do not). Broaden the appeal or lose more ground.

Edit : Romeny was a poor candidate. The guy is a flip-flopper and had holes in his tax plan big enough to drive a battlewagon through.
If the republicans can push a candidate like that all the way to 48% popular vote, imagine what they could do with Chris Christie.

Romney is beholden to talk more right wing talk in the primaries. He as a moderate who once governed a strongly left leaning state would of had no chance in the Republican primary if he wasn't forced to flop.

I wonder what a Rick Perry/Barack Obama presidential election would of looked liked....

 Seaward wrote:


Republicans need to dump most social issues overboard. They've won elections on them before, but that era's ending. Run smart, disciplined, fiscal policy-oriented campaigns.

Better yet? Let sequestration go into effect.

So much of this, one of the main reasons I tend to lean more towards democrats is the social issues. If Republicans were to drop some of their more crazy positions like their stances on abortion and gay marriage(to give some examples) I would definitely consider them more.

And Jeb Bush? could he even do well at the National level considering what a bad rap that last name carries?

 Huffy wrote:

So much of this, one of the main reasons I tend to lean more towards democrats is the social issues. If Republicans were to drop some of their more crazy positions like their stances on abortion and gay marriage(to give some examples) I would definitely consider them more.

Gay marriage yes....abortion well....

Some people who vehemently oppose abortion need to know the social and governmental costs of such a decision. If you don't want to kill that baby, do you think the parents would be thrilled to have something they don't love? Millions of children would flood the government system of care and it would be an injustice to them to have to live through a life where they were basically unloved by their birth parents.

On the other hand, people who seriously oppose abortion are often children who were considered for abortion in the first place. If abortion occurred, they wouldn't of existed.

I'm pro-life because of the latter but also understand the deep scars and ramifications of what not getting an abortion could do so I stay silent on that issue most of the time.

 Huffy wrote:
.

And Jeb Bush? could he even do well at the National level considering what a bad rap that last name carries?

Yes. He cited "Bush fatigue" as his reason for not running in the primary, and largely he was right. But in 2016 a Rockefeller Rebuplican like Jeb (and his father) is much more appealing to the electorate at large. Socially moderate, fiscally conservative. The Bush name is less of an obstacle than I think it's been made out to be. When it comes down to it by 2016 it seems likely that it will be even less of an issue.

Is the Hispanic community largely (devout) Catholic? If so, that would not go hand-in-hand with some of the traditional Democrat social issue direction.

I agree with Austin. We make fun of Bush junior plenty on Dakka, but the guy held 1/3 of the population's support all the way into his final years in office and that support is likely to carry to Jeb who gets 1/3 of the vote by his name alone.

 AustonT wrote:
When it comes down to it by 2016 it seems likely that it will be even less of an issue.

If the economy is still in sinking into the toilet mode, the Democrats had better find a candidate that did not support Obama's (at that future time) failed economic recovery program; eight years of blaming Bush are not going to work anymore at that point as AustonT has correctly stated. But if there is continued Democratic failure continues to get the economy going, the Republicans would be biting at the chomp for Election Day to come....

Indeed.

In some of the media circles over here there was talk that the Rep. party top men had already pretty much written this campaign off a long time ago, with an eye on Bush in 2016. His wife being seen especially as an asset.

There would be, of course, X amount of people who'd never vote for any Bush ever..... but one would suggest they would also never vote Rep. anyway.

The group of people running for the Republic nomination this past year were a fairly lackluster bunch. Romney failed to energize the electorate until after the first debate in October and that's way too late in the process for that. He left a let a lot of negative press go unchallenged for months. Tax returns? The 47 percent? It all adds up. The American people want a strong leader and Romney didn't come across as one.

Republicans also shot themselves in the foot regarding several Senate races that they could have won but instead put forth candidates that for one reason or another wound up embarassing themselves into a loss.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Romney was good, but I don't think the Americans really saw it. It's a demographic shift that's affecting the party.

I don't know by what definition Romney was "good". He was easily the weakest candidate of either party I've seen in my lifetime (admittedly, I'm not that old).

He's been running for president for 8 years and I still have no goddamn idea what he believes in since there isn't a single major issue he hasn't strenuously argued both sides of.

With regard to Jeb Bush's son,I thought America didn't do dynasties.

The BBC were saying that in the last 50 years, an incumbent who runs with that level of unemployment, has always lost - Carter, Ford, Bush Snr etc

Now, regardless or not about who's to blame for the economic mess in America, Romney had an open goal chance to really hurt Obama. He blew it.

 Daba wrote:
Is the Hispanic community largely (devout) Catholic? If so, that would not go hand-in-hand with some of the traditional Democrat social issue direction.

Yes they are Catholic, but mostly in name only. Catholics in the US also tend to not march in lockstep with Rome with some exceptions

Short term, more of the same. Long term, the GOP evolves.

They can't win the Presidency until they can change the electoral math. At the end of the day, political parties are about winning elections, and so they'll change. Like I said in the other thread, they ran McCain and Romney back-to-back in the age of the Tea Party. They know what they're up against. The hard part for the GOP leadership is putting all the crazies back in their cages.

 Huffy wrote:
So considering their defeat in the Presidential election, do you see the Republican Party changing their strategy away from the Tea Party? Or will they shift farther towards crazyland in some of their stances?
discuss

Well as long as Republicans don't listen to any advice from liberal Democrats they may survive. The hare should trust not the fox.

As a guy who just wants to be left alone, I think they should push that. But they won't and neither will the Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
There was an interesting stat mentioned on NPR yesterday: the Democratic Party is just over 70% white and falling. The Republican Party is over 90% white and holding steady. You can't win with that kind of base, not at a national level.

Republicans need to dump most social issues overboard. They've won elections on them before, but that era's ending. Run smart, disciplined, fiscal policy-oriented campaigns.

Better yet? Let sequestration go into effect.

Yep. Also become the Bill of Rights Party. Defend people against government control and intrusion. It will be a unique concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
Indeed.

In some of the media circles over here there was talk that the Rep. party top men had already pretty much written this campaign off a long time ago, with an eye on Bush in 2016. His wife being seen especially as an asset.

There would be, of course, X amount of people who'd never vote for any Bush ever..... but one would suggest they would also never vote Rep. anyway.

yep

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to Jeb Bush's son,I thought America didn't do dynasties.

Well I never suggested George P was a consideration anytime soon. At a minimum he is 20 years away from even attempting a run.
But whoever told you we don't do dynasties isn't very observant. Off the top of my head there's the 2nd and 6th presidents and the naval dynasty of the McCains. Had JFK Jr survived his assasination terrible accident, you don't think he could have waltzed to the oval office on name alone? The entire Kennedy family is a political dynasty.

"The Bill of Rights" party thing is what ticks me off about the Tea Party folks. They campaign to be the "government shouldn't tell people what to do" party, but they are so pro-government telling other people what to do that it makes my head hurt.

"Government shouldn't tell us what to do! They should tell the Muslims to go away, tell everyone what language to speak, decide who can get married, tell them what to do with their body (abortion, drugs, sex, etc...). But less government is better, as long as it is less government for me!"

I think Chris Christie should run. That would probably make me vote Republican next time. My roommate and I were discussing it, if he ran against, say, Hillary Clinton, it would be a hard choice and we'd have to watch pretty much every debate to decide who to vote for.

 Breotan wrote:
The group of people running for the Republic nomination this past year were a fairly lackluster bunch. Romney failed to energize the electorate until after the first debate in October and that's way too late in the process for that. He left a let a lot of negative press go unchallenged for months. Tax returns? The 47 percent? It all adds up. The American people want a strong leader and Romney didn't come across as one.

Republicans also shot themselves in the foot regarding several Senate races that they could have won but instead put forth candidates that for one reason or another wound up embarassing themselves into a loss.

Yep.
Plus nonsense like kicking out 20mm illegal aliens. NO NO NO. You fix the border and then integrate these hard working people through legal means (kicking out the criminals and the cat lovers).

instead you have the nattering nabobs have taken over the party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
"The Bill of Rights" party thing is what ticks me off about the Tea Party folks. They campaign to be the "government shouldn't tell people what to do" party, but they are so pro-government telling other people what to do that it makes my head hurt.

"Government shouldn't tell us what to do! They should tell the Muslims to go away, tell everyone what language to speak, decide who can get married, tell them what to do with their body (abortion, drugs, sex, etc...). But less government is better, as long as it is less government for me!"

I can't disagree with you and thats my point.
Plus at the local level its not about less government. Its government for my cronies vs. your cronies.