a New Direction for the Republican Party?

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.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I quite liked Huntsman. If the right wants to come in from the cold, he seemed like he would be a decent candidate again.

**Lord Scythican**

Republicans need to break this opinion that many have on them if they want those votes they are missing out on:

**AustonT**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I quite liked Huntsman. If the right wants to come in from the cold, he seemed like he would be a decent candidate again.

You mean Mitt's cousin Jon?

**Testify**

a 1% swing could have given Romney the presidancy. A better candidate (Romney, at his very best, is wishy-washy) could have won with the republican's policies.

Some people in this thread seem to be regurgitating things they've seen pundits say on tv, which is disapointing.

**Lord Scythican**

Testify wrote:
a 1% swing could have given Romney the presidancy. A better candidate (Romney, at his very best, is wishy-washy) could have won with the republican's policies.

Some people in this thread seem to be regurgitating things they've seen pundits say on tv, which is disapointing.

Not with that electoral count.

**AustonT**

Testify wrote:
a 1% swing could have given Romney the presidancy. A better candidate (Romney, at his very best, is wishy-washy) could have won with the republican's policies.

Some people in this thread seem to be regurgitating things they've seen pundits say on tv, which is disapointing.

I'm no math wizard but 1% of 118M voters doesn't make Obama any less the winner. Unless you meant that those 1.18M where in very specific locations.

**MeanGreenStompa**

AustonT wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I quite liked Huntsman. If the right wants to come in from the cold, he seemed like he would be a decent candidate again.

You mean Mitt's cousin Jon?

I don't know a huge amount about him but I liked what I read and heard, especially in comparison to freaks like Bachman and Perry and the frankly terrifying Santorum.

wiki:

Huntsman rejects the notion that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. In 2011, in response to a statement by Rick Perry that global warming was unproven and that evolution remains only a theory, Huntsman tweeted, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." He said, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."

I liked that he had worked with the democratic administration and was, to me, the most willing to offer to work bipartisan across the floor.

**AustonT**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
AustonT wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I quite liked Huntsman. If the right wants to come in from the cold, he seemed like he would be a decent candidate again.

You mean Mitt's cousin Jon?

I don't know a huge amount about him but I liked what I read and heard, especially in comparison to freaks like Bachman and Perry and the frankly terrifying Santorum.

He and Mitt aren't exactly close, in fact I'm pretty sure I read an article where he was quoted as saying they were less than fond of each other. It's just funny because they ARE cousins. TBH I can't remember anything else about Huntsman, I'll easily agree that he's a better option than Bachman or Santorum: so is my niece but I wouldn't vote for her either. Mostly because she's a tiny liberal who expects me to redistribute my oreos.

Spoiler:

**Huffy**

AustonT wrote:
so is my niece but I wouldn't vote for her either. Mostly because she's a tiny liberal who expects me to redistribute my oreos.

B..B...But Comrade without redistribution of oreos the revolution will fail(mainly due to not enough sugary tastyness)

**d-usa**

Huffy wrote:
AustonT wrote:
so is my niece but I wouldn't vote for her either. Mostly because she's a tiny liberal who expects me to redistribute my oreos.

B..B...But Comrade without redistribution of oreos the revolution will fail(mainly due to not enough sugary tastyness)

My main complaint about redistributing oreos is the filling deficit. There should be at least twice the filling in each of them.

**sebster**

labmouse42 wrote:
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.

Continue to get out 60 million voters, which is enough to win when Democrats can't excite enough of their base, but a loss the rest of the time.

I don't think the republicans really want to look into the future and say 'when Democrats run rubbish campaigns like Gore and Kerry we're a shot at the Whitehouse'.

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.

Yeah, definitely this.

I mean, I think they can actually continue with a family values platform, but check the language with an eye towards the social justice values of many Hispanic voters (note I didn't say to directly appeal to these values, but just don't campaign so heavily on the feth the poor idea) and drop some other stuff (the heavy anti-immigration stuff)... then there's likely a large Hispanic audience ready to get picked up.

Look to what Texas is doing, basically.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

One of the more interesting points made during the election is that those comparisons were probably a little simplistic. Look closer at the numbers and it isn't the unemployment rate itself, but the direction it is heading in at the time of the election that matters.

So Carter's problem was not a high unemployment rate, but that the rate was getting higher every month.

Obama had stabilised the rate at around 8%. Not a good number, but nowhere near as bad as if it were 8% and getting worse every month.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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 think that's pretty decent advice, up to a point. But there's no point turning inwards, and having Republicans ask other Republicans what they should do - the guys that are turning out and voting right now don't matter

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
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.

I think that's the right approach for a guy like Ryan, who appeals to the base but could potentially also get left leaning voters out to vote against the guy. So if you put him on TV then both sides see him, and stuff he says is likely to get played and replayed enough and he could end up doing more to inspire people to vote against him as for him.

But get him out at campaign rallies, get the base excited, and telling their friends to vote, and you get all gains and no negatives.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Is that the problem? Candidates who'd be a shot at expanding the Republican base above 60 million voters never get through the primary?

Would Reagan win the primary these days?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:
Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

And a candidate only needs to pick up another 50,000 votes in Florida, and 100,000 votes in the other two states to flip them. Those results could happen without even running a better Republican candidate, just by having a slighter poorer Democratic turnout.

Seriously, the Republican loss in this election was not unrecoverable. And after 2006/2008 it shows how quick a party can turn its fortunes around.

In terms of next election Republicans can keep doing what they're doing, run someone like Jeb, and be a 50% chance of winning. The issue with the Republican party is more long term - that they can't be the white men party anymore because the demographic trends are starting to hurt, and are soon going to get a lot worse.

**Maddermax**

It seems like the Republicans aren't going to be working towards bipartisanship. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader just said that he won't be working with Obama unless Obama "moves to the center". Considering Obama is already at the center, and most of his big ideas were originally Republican ideas 20 years ago, I think McConnell just thinks that Bipartisanship means "do what the Republicans say". It does not bode well for a new sort of cooperation.

**whembly**

Maddermax wrote:
It seems like the Republicans aren't going to be working towards bipartisanship. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader just said that he won't be working with Obama unless Obama "moves to the center". Considering Obama is already at the center, and most of his big ideas were originally Republican ideas 20 years ago, I think McConnell just thinks that Bipartisanship means "do what the Republicans say". It does not bode well for a new sort of cooperation.

psst... here's the funny thing... Obama is Centerish (towards the right) to you guys.

But, he aint at the Center now in America.

However, this is standard negotiation... compromise tactic here... nothing new.

**WarOne**

Republicans do not want to backtrack from their mantra that Obama is a socialist communist looking to redistribute wealth. If they were to accept him now, it would alienate the more Conservative base they pander to.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:
Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

And a candidate only needs to pick up another 50,000 votes in Florida, and 100,000 votes in the other two states to flip them. Those results could happen without even running a better Republican candidate, just by having a slighter poorer Democratic turnout.

Seriously, the Republican loss in this election was not unrecoverable. And after 2006/2008 it shows how quick a party can turn its fortunes around.

In terms of next election Republicans can keep doing what they're doing, run someone like Jeb, and be a 50% chance of winning. The issue with the Republican party is more long term - that they can't be the white men party anymore because the demographic trends are starting to hurt, and are soon going to get a lot worse.

Doesn't anyone thing the "Bush" name is poison?

I'd rather it'd be Rubio than Jeb...

**Jihadin**

Stop complaining already. They're all elected by the people into the offices they hold

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Stop complaining already. They're all elected by the people into the offices they hold

erm... talking to me buddy?

I've aready accepted "see my temporary avatar"

**WarOne**

whembly wrote:

I'd rather it'd be Rubio than Jeb...

Jeb doesn't have the same political poison that Bush Sr./Jr. have. His only really big black stain was the 2000 election results from Florida. Aside from that, he's not a terrible candidate to field...if he wanted to run and everyone in the Republican party backed him.

**whembly**

WarOne wrote:
whembly wrote:

I'd rather it'd be Rubio than Jeb...

Jeb doesn't have the same political poison that Bush Sr./Jr. have. His only really big black stain was the 2000 election results from Florida. Aside from that, he's not a terrible candidate to field...if he wanted to run and everyone in the Republican party backed him.

I get that... but, you don't think his opponent won't try to "paint" him like his dad or brother?

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
sigh... so you think they're being brain washed now? They had to shift to the right in order to get past the primary... true, but that doesn't mean they'll govern as such.

No, but the issue is winning the election.

Having to move out the right, then move back in for the election makes it easy for the opposition to paint the candidate as a flip flopper.

Though this is hardly a unique thing, and is always worse when the other candidate is the incumbent and didn't have to go through a primary of their own - Kerry suffered the same problem as Romney as a result.

The issue is that while the voters who turn up for primaries tend to be more extreme in general, the Republican ones are even more so, especially with the impact of the Tea Party.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
sigh... so you think they're being brain washed now? They had to shift to the right in order to get past the primary... true, but that doesn't mean they'll govern as such.

No, but the issue is winning the election.

Having to move out the right, then move back in for the election makes it easy for the opposition to paint the candidate as a flip flopper.

Though this is hardly a unique thing, and is always worse when the other candidate is the incumbent and didn't have to go through a primary of their own - Kerry suffered the same problem as Romney as a result.

The issue is that while the voters who turn up for primaries tend to be more extreme in general, the Republican ones are even more so, especially with the impact of the Tea Party.

That's why they're politicians!

As any political junkie knows, that basically true for everyone. The issue is the low-information voters as it impacts their perception more...

**WarOne**

whembly wrote:

I get that... but, you don't think his opponent won't try to "paint" him like his dad or brother?

Jeb has enough different ideas and his own opinion to be Teflon against pinning the sins of his father and brother to his own record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/jeb-bush-a-different-kind-of-republican/2012/08/30/6a450822-f2b4-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush isn’t running for something. That might have allowed him a degree of candor that current officials and candidates don’t enjoy. But in a breakfast this morning in Tampa with journalists from The Post and Bloomberg News, he also showed that, in many ways, he stands head and shoulders — and quite apart — from fellow Republicans.

Bush is known, as his brother was, for his devotion to resolving the illegal immigration problem and making the GOP a more inclusive party. Asked about the party’s gap with the Democrats among Hispanic voters, he said, “I think the gap can narrow, and I think it will narrow, as people get to know Mitt Romney. I’m always amazed at how, for normal people, how little they know about our candidates until like a night like tonight or the debates.”

In part, the GOP’s path to Hispanic voters runs through issues unrelated to immigration. As Bush said, Immigration “is down the list [of issues Hispanic voters care about] — about the same place it is for everybody else, maybe a little bit higher, but significantly lower than the economy, jobs, education, deficit, debt, health care. Those are the issues that American voters say are the most important ones. But it’s a gateway issue, because it’s an issue that allows you — if you have shown some sensitivity — it allows you to be heard.”.

For Bush, the equation is simple. He was candid that his view is not the mainstream position within the Republican Party. Asked about his support for the Dream Act, Bush answered: “I think to use the power of the presidency effectively, you don’t have to use it for cynical reasons, and you don’t have to use it beyond what your power — what the Constitution allows. But having a solution to the fact that we have all of these young people, many of whom are making great contributions, don’t have a connection to their parents’ former country — yeah, of course I’m for it. You know, but then again, I’m — you know, I’m not running for anything and I can speak my mind.”

I asked Bush about what a Republican education policy should look like, given the party’s aversion to federal control. On higher education, he plunged right in, urging that we look anew at the entire student-loan system: “[W]hat we’ve done is, we’ve raised tuition. It’s been financed, by and large, by the federal government. Local government, state governments, as well, but mostly federal. And then we just put this load on unemployed graduates and those that don’t graduate. Those are the ones that Paul Ryan talked about — that are in their pajamas in their parents’ guest room looking at the faded Obama posters. So we’re financing this off the backs of people that aren’t getting a bang for their buck. And this is a place I know that Governor Romney believes there has to be change. And where the federal government can play a useful role of providing education opportunities, but not at the expense of an unreformed higher education system.”

His idea is to use student loan monies to force reform upon higher education: He would say that “your university is not qualified to receive student loans, the benefit of student loans, if they don’t have performance criteria attached to it, that your graduation rate goes up . . . [So] require productivity gains. Require professors to teach. Require completion rates. Require that there’s counseling for students so they don’t change their degrees four times. Require the process to work more productively.”

On K-12 education, he had some praise for President Obama’s education secretary. He urged more of the same: “[T]he president can be a partner. Here — this is a place where, of all the policy areas, I think President Obama deserves some recognition for having a different approach than at least what I expected. He appointed a good education secretary, who’s worked across the aisle politically, and I think that could be expanded with stronger partnerships, more waivers that allow for meaningful reform.”

Bush is nevertheless an enthusiastic partisan, hopeful that Obama will be tossed out. He had an interesting take on Romney’s so-called likability problem: “[I]t’s not a bad thing to be reserved and humble and charitable and disciplined and hardworking. It’s being strangely viewed kind of as a defect in politics today, because we all have to be more Clinton-esque, I guess, and show our frailties in ways that people can relate to, because we’re all imperfect under God’s watchful eye.”

And he forcefully argued that Obama has failed to lead and bring in the opposition to solve our biggest issues. He told the journalists: “He didn’t win the election saying, ‘I’m a doctrinaire, hard-core ideologue. Vote for me.’ He won the election because he said that we can do things differently and we can find common ground. The old way’s bad, and we need to find a new way of doing things, and he — he violated his own mandate by moving in a completely different direction.”

Bush also painted Obama as a weak leader — who “outsourced” the stimulus and health care to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.) — lacking the skill himself to forge deals. The need to bring party leaders together can’t be accomplished by Obama, Bush says: “I’m convinced it’s not going to happen with Barack Obama as president.”

Bush is a successful two-term governor, with a record of reform and a inclusive attitude when it comes to courting voters and governing. If in the future he decides to return to the political arena, the country and the GOP would be well served.

**d-usa**

I was a non-caring teenager in 2000, so I don't remember.

If the VP decides to run, does he have to go through a primary or is he the automatic candidate?

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It has often struck me how many blatant misrepresentations have been made by conservative media and bloggers, etc.

Ultimately it is self-defeating because it makes any informed person feel that the commentators do not have any real arguments to make.

It is a preaching to the choir that turns into a kind of group think.

But perhaps I am fooling myself. Perhaps liberal commentators are the same.

The same tendency exists among the left wing, but right now in the rightwing is far worse.

I think it comes from one key issue - there is a lack of an intellectual core to the rightwing in the US right now. This is basically because the two core economic ideas they've centred themselves around - trickle down economics and the Laffer Curve, are simply and utterly wrong. Once you basically have to turn off your intellect to buy in to your core economic principles, everything else flows from there.

**WarOne**

d-usa wrote:
I was a non-caring teenager in 2000, so I don't remember.

If the VP decides to run, does he have to go through a primary or is he the automatic candidate?

VPs are automatically chosen in the Republican and Democratic parties when the primary winner decides to nominate one to be his running buddy.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I was a non-caring teenager in 2000, so I don't remember.

If the VP decides to run, does he have to go through a primary or is he the automatic candidate?

I'm pretty sure he still has to go thru the primary.

edit: You're talking about Biden... right?

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
There is a really terrific piece you guys may be interested in, if you participated in this thread. It addresses some structural issues with conservative media.

It's a good article, and does raise a point that I'd kind of half forgotten - there were a lot of really, really stupid Republican efforts to tarnish Obama in this campaign. Loads of misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and some just plain nutty weirdness (of which birtherism is the most famous, but far from the only one).

Exactly what kind of culture do we have in the rightwing in the US right now, that produces such silliness?

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:

Exactly what kind of culture do we have in the rightwing in the US right now, that produces such silliness?

The same that would have Sean Hannity label half the voters in this country as highly irresponsible people who want the government to take care of all their needs, redistribute their wealth and made America a liberal hippy haven.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
Ouze wrote:
There is a really terrific piece you guys may be interested in, if you participated in this thread. It addresses some structural issues with conservative media.

It's a good article, and does raise a point that I'd kind of half forgotten - there were a lot of really, really stupid Republican efforts to tarnish Obama in this campaign. Loads of misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and some just plain nutty weirdness (of which birtherism is the most famous, but far from the only one).

Exactly what kind of culture do we have in the rightwing in the US right now, that produces such silliness?

Honesty... they go apeshit 'cuz the wrong team won. Then, the looney just comes out...

**WarOne**

whembly wrote:

Honesty... they go apeshit 'cuz the wrong team won. Then, the looney just comes out...

A part of the looney issue is that the media and the populace love to eat up the outlandish, foolish, and the absurd like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. People like Glenn Beck have a platform to launch their lunatic ideals across a broad spectrum because they are both entertaining and convincing. It does not help that the liberal media laughs along with them, but they are also helping the problem grow because it galvanizes those who listen to the likes of Beck (I actually kinda like Hannity when he's not off on a far right mantra) and now we're back to square one as Limbaugh basically said no movement to the center; so no immigration reform advances for the Republicans for some time to come.