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.

Leave religion out of it. Let the religious right go their own way and create their own party. If it's something that really matters to the average American they will vote for them. Perhaps it's time for you to have more than two parties? Given the whole whole right, left and centre views, no party can appeal to all.

It is the fact of modern politics. "Economics lead Politics". In France. N. Sarkozy lost to F. Hollande due to his debacle on economics. Romney might beliefs that most Americans want a powerful military that capable to rule the world. Obama might have done a pamphlet 'suggesting' American citizens that a very very large army drains national treasury fast. and it could ruin the USA pretty much the same matter that oversized military budget had leeched Soviet Union dry.

Flat Taxation is one thing though. still I'm wonder does Obama really capable to "overcome" corporate lobbyists? he doesn't seem to take serious action against corporate malpractrices. does he?

 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

Does Romney really affilates with the alleged fascist organization "The Tea Party" movement?

 Huffy wrote:

 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

eh... the Hispanic actually mesh up well with moderate Republicans... but the current party has largely been ignoring this demographic to their peril.

Romney is a poor candidate...(I think I've said that before) and I think that really played into this election because so is Obama. No one really knew what you'll get from Romney... but, we do know what Obama stands on. This is a case where the electorate voted for the status quo. Plus, the Obama campaign absolutely kicked ass on the GOTV.

If the Republican candidate actually could provide a clear contrast to Obama, it might've gone the other way.

Here's an interesting thing... since the Ryan's VP nomination... I think he was largely muzzled. He was supposed to be the guy to rally the conservative, but you only really saw him on the campaign trail. I didn't see him engage the talk shows/news publication as I thought he would.

Okay, so I've thought about this and here's my recommendation. The crisis is long-term in nature, and so it requires a long-term solution.

Instead of trying to sweet-talk the Teabaggers, Christian Right, generic reactionaries, etc., the GOP leadership should go the other direction and flat-out tell them the train to moderation is leaving, and they can get on or off. Forget pandering to them the way McCain and Romney were forced to. They won't like that, of course, and it'll probably culminate in a very ugly primary season. They might even run a 3rd party candidate out on the right flank.

But that's okay if they do -- the presence on the right will make the GOP seem more moderate. The GOP will probably still lose in 2016, but maybe they put a few new states in play just because they back off on things like social issues, immigration, etc. You have to walk before you can run, right? That sets them up for 2020. Things could get interesting then, even against an incumbent. A GOP with several years of moderation under its belt -- combined with a humbled reactionary base that's utterly sick and tired of seeing Dems get elected POTUS -- might be able to shake up the electoral landscape and make things interesting. Think 1992.

The more I think about it, Chris Christie should be chairing the GOP instead of running for POTUS. They could use a strong-armed NJ Sopranos type at the top to tell the fringe elements exactly what they need to be told. He'd do it.

 whembly wrote:
I didn't see him engage the talk shows/news publication as I thought he would.

Really I saw him quite a bit. More than Uncle Joe for sure about the same as Axilrod.

There's only One Direction for the Rebuplican party

I also cant take you seriously with that grotesque Argentinean as your avatar. But at least Obama can manage and economy better than Che.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
There's only One Direction for the Rebuplican party

The second one that sings looks like a genertic cross between Mick Jagger and Andrew Jackson...

Saying that Obama isn't as bad as Che doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

 AustonT wrote:
I also cant take you seriously with that grotesque Argentinean as your avatar. But at least Obama can manage and economy better than Che.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
There's only One Direction for the Rebuplican party

The second one that sings looks like a genertic cross between Mick Jagger and Andrew Jackson..

.

Avatar is part of a wager with Seb... I lost, so he get's to pick what Avatar I need to have for the next month.

No biggie...

Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

 Breotan wrote:
Saying that Obama isn't as bad as Che doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

Sarcas-o-meter broken?

gorgon wrote:
Instead of trying to sweet-talk the Teabaggers, Christian Right, generic reactionaries, etc., the GOP leadership should go the other direction and flat-out tell them the train to moderation is leaving, and they can get on or off. Forget pandering to them the way McCain and Romney were forced to. They won't like that, of course, and it'll probably culminate in a very ugly primary season. They might even run a 3rd party candidate out on the right flank.

There is no path to elected office for a Republican without the "tea party" conservatives or the evangelical right. Being a clone of the Democrats didn't work for McCain and it didn't work for Romney so I don't know why you're suggesting it would work in the future.

 whembly wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Saying that Obama isn't as bad as Che doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

Sarcas-o-meter broken?

No. Just making an observation.

 Seaward wrote:
Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

I disagree...

He'd be a great VP.

As for the top ticket? Who knows... maybe Jindel or Rubio?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Instead of trying to sweet-talk the Teabaggers, Christian Right, generic reactionaries, etc., the GOP leadership should go the other direction and flat-out tell them the train to moderation is leaving, and they can get on or off. Forget pandering to them the way McCain and Romney were forced to. They won't like that, of course, and it'll probably culminate in a very ugly primary season. They might even run a 3rd party candidate out on the right flank.

There is no path to elected office for a Republican without the "tea party" conservatives or the evangelical right. And being a clone of the Democrats didn't work for McCain and it didn't work for Romney so I don't know why you're suggesting it would work in the future.

No... the calibration is realizing that the voter demographic/tendencies of '08 and '12 are real, not aberation. If they accept that, then they'll know what to change.

I can see the Republican now engaging on Amnesty now in attempt to bring in the hispanic into the fold (first secure the damn border!).

 Seaward wrote:
Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

He should run and find out. The Republican "base" is not the Republican party, nor the majority of the US. He's anti Second Amendment, and even I like him.

Breotan wrote:Saying that Obama isn't as bad as Che doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

But it are true enough ya?

whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

I disagree...

He'd be a great VP.

As for the top ticket? Who knows... maybe Jindel or Rubio?

I've given up on Bobby Jindal, and I don't think Marco Rubio has national appeal. Both are more supporting cast, and have been noticeably absent in this campaign.

 AustonT wrote:

Breotan wrote:Saying that Obama isn't as bad as Che doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

But it are true enough ya?

whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

I disagree...

He'd be a great VP.

As for the top ticket? Who knows... maybe Jindel or Rubio?

I've given up on Bobby Jindal, and I don't think Marco Rubio has national appeal. Both are more supporting cast, and have been noticeably absent in this campaign.

Thats changed starting with ROmney's concession speech.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats changed starting with ROmney's concession speech.

Don't get your hopes up.

We'll see. And if not so be it. I vote for the best candidate regardless. If the Republicans don't field that candidate, I'll be happy to keep voting Libertarian or Democratic.

When there's not much difference between the major parties, it doesn't matter that much.

Frazz, at last we agree on something.

 Breotan wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Instead of trying to sweet-talk the Teabaggers, Christian Right, generic reactionaries, etc., the GOP leadership should go the other direction and flat-out tell them the train to moderation is leaving, and they can get on or off. Forget pandering to them the way McCain and Romney were forced to. They won't like that, of course, and it'll probably culminate in a very ugly primary season. They might even run a 3rd party candidate out on the right flank.

There is no path to elected office for a Republican without the "tea party" conservatives or the evangelical right. Being a clone of the Democrats didn't work for McCain and it didn't work for Romney so I don't know why you're suggesting it would work in the future.

If you really think that, then you might simply be in that segment that I'm suggesting the GOP needs to bring to heel.

Romney and McCain ran as anything other than moderates. In fact, they reversed many of their stances and beliefs -- badly damaging their moderate brands in blue states -- and clearly attempted to pander to the more conservative elements of the party (if nothing else, see Palin, Sarah and Ryan, Paul). The GOP can seek ideological purity all they want, but it's become a mathematical thing at this point. Demographics are against them, and on this course the Electoral College will be stacked against them too. A "true" conservative would have won not one single EV that Romney lost.

Obama was as vulnerable as an incumbent can be, and he won fairly comfortably, with the Dems holding serve in the House and Senate. That's a failure for the entire GOP brand.

 Huffy wrote:
So considering their defeat in the Presidential election, do you see the Republican Party changing their strategy away from the Tea Party?
discuss

I really hope so. The party big-wigs need to lay down the law to the Far Right. "Get in line, or join the Tea Party." Withhold party funding from their campaigns. These "Legitimate Rape" and other insert-foot-in-mouth guys are NOT representative of the Republican party. They don't speak for me or any moderate Republicans.

It's high time to clean house.



Also, Vote Quimby!

I think the Republicans in 2012 are facing the same problem the Democrats did in 2004. The extreme side of their party had forced the party's entire position further away from center, which resulted in a very disappointing loss to a largely unpopular incumbent.

The Democrats responded by shifting much more centrist and have had success doing so (and pulling the country slowly to the left).

The Republicans can (and should) do the same by giving less and less focus on the Tea Party. Doing this will enable them to actually stand a chance in 2016, even with the ever-shifting demographics. Of course, they'd risk the Tea Party itself splitting off and running their own candidate, which would be devastating for the right. But, I think even the Tea Party is smart enough to realize that would be completely self-destructive.

Their other option is to follow what a lot (not all, or even a majority, but certainly the loudest) of Republicans are suggesting by going even further to the right. This would result in the Republicans becoming a regional party without much influence on the national level at all. That would either result in the Democrats establishing a dynasty that would last for decades, or possibly the Republican party withering away and the Democrats splitting into two parties.

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

I am a liberal democrat.
I suggested that the Repuclican's don't need to change their platform as they won 48% of the major vote with a weak candidate.

Ergo, according to your logic the Republicans better change things up!

Get Ron Paul. He's awesome.

 labmouse42 wrote:

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

I am a liberal democrat.
I suggested that the Repuclican's don't need to change their platform as they won 48% of the major vote with a weak candidate.

Ergo, according to your logic the Republicans better change things up!

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Get Ron Paul. He's awesome.

Awesome loon that is.

What's wrong with him?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's wrong with him?

When you get down to it, he's completely insane.

A lot of his beliefs do speak to the idealistic libertarian (at least, at the big picture level). But, the details of his plans would pretty clearly destroy America.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's wrong with him?

Total isolationist...

Wants to go back to gold standard...

among others...

 whembly wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's wrong with him?

Wants to go back to gold standard...

Goddamn communist
put up your dukes its time for fisticuffs!

 Lone Cat wrote:



fascist

Learn what this word means first, then you can actually use it


And yeah Ron Paul's completely nutters, the Republicans should not turn into Ron Paul