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.

 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 think a lot of people aren't seeing the difference between the GOP in the short term and GOP in the long term.

Short term the Republican party can be pretty confident of turning up to the next election with a decent shot. They can be pretty confident of getting out 60 million voters, including potentially winning numbers in each of the swing states. But the demographic problem keeps growing each election after that, a lot of those 60 million voters are older, and the core demographic, white people, isn't growing like other demographics.

I agree that leftwing pundits are crowing, and overstating how much this win means for future elections (I'm reminded of Rove's permanent majority in 2000...), but there is still a problem the GOP has to address long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

I think 'Bush' is a hindrance, but not necessarily a lethal one.

From what I've seen of the guy he seems a pretty strong candidate, though I don't see so much in him that pushing past that name will be an automatic thing.

No the Bush name isn't poison. Sr was really well respected amongst the Rockefellers. You know before the Liars for Jesus got ahold of the party. He was never particularly fond of the religious right and the feeling was mutual. Jr spent both his terms tearing down his fathers legacy, often using the same people. It was a little sickening to watch for those of us who liked Bush Sr.
Jeb is a true big tent Republican of the stripe not found on the national stage anymore. He's made no attempt to pander to the far right and while he's a party man I think he's a lot stronger than his brother, and I don't think he's willing to prostrate himself at the Kochs or the RRs feet to win the primary. With his name, family, and let's be honest money; he doesn't need to.
Jeb is really everything the current establishment fears and the old guard is secretly cheering for.
As a fun aside, did you know that there's a pretty easy conspiracy connection from George Sr to JFK?

 whembly wrote:
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...

Yeah, but there's no denying it costs the Republicans more. I mean, even if you just look at the opposition, who have a bigger base, but one that's less inclined to turn out to vote. One of the most effective tools Democrats have for getting their base out is anything they say, but in scaring their voters about how bad the other guy is.

So that's why we saw the attacks on Bain Capital, why we saw Obama run heavily on the 20% tax cut thing. Now, imagine if a Republican could get through the primary without having to say anything potentially scary to the left? How much less ammunition would the Democratic candidate have?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
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...

Yeah, but there's no denying it costs the Republicans more. I mean, even if you just look at the opposition, who have a bigger base, but one that's less inclined to turn out to vote. One of the most effective tools Democrats have for getting their base out is anything they say, but in scaring their voters about how bad the other guy is.

So that's why we saw the attacks on Bain Capital, why we saw Obama run heavily on the 20% tax cut thing. Now, imagine if a Republican could get through the primary without having to say anything potentially scary to the left? How much less ammunition would the Democratic candidate have?

Yeah... good point.

Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.)

 AustonT wrote:
No the Bush name isn't poison. Sr was really well respected amongst the Rockefellers. You know before the Liars for Jesus got ahold of the party. He was never particularly fond of the religious right and the feeling was mutual. Jr spent both his terms tearing down his fathers legacy, often using the same people. It was a little sickening to watch for those of us who liked Bush Sr.

Yeah, Bush Sr's inability to appeal to the religious vote is considered a primary reason for his defeat. Alongside 'no new taxes' and running against Clinton.

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?

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?

He has to run in the primary. Sometimes he loses, it takes a pretty strong canidate to beat the incumbent VP though.

 WarOne wrote:

 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.

I was thinking about Gore running for President. Was there a primary, or was it an automatic advancement from VP to nominee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Didn't see the post above this one.

You don't remember it because only one Dem ran against him, a Senator from somewhere. Gore swept him in every state.

 AustonT wrote:
You don't remember it because only one Dem ran against him, a Senator from somewhere. Gore swept him in every state.

To be honest, I don't even know who Bush ran against, was McCain one of them?

Between not paying that much attention in 2000 and Cheney not running in 2008 I didn't remember what protocol was.

Not sure how I would feel about a President Biden...

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
You don't remember it because only one Dem ran against him, a Senator from somewhere. Gore swept him in every state.

To be honest, I don't even know who Bush ran against, was McCain one of them?

Between not paying that much attention in 2000 and Cheney not running in 2008 I didn't remember what protocol was.

Not sure how I would feel about a President Biden...

Christ, you guys are young.

Yeah, Bush was against a few folks, McCain among them. Bush played extremely, extremely dirty with McCain, particularly in South Carolina.

2000 was my first election. I was young and didn't care. I also voted for Bush...

Edit:

Looking through Wikipedia: Herman Cain was running even back then?

Yeah McCain was the only one I remember because I preferred him over Bush. I still maintain that in 2000 McCain would have beaten Gore badly and the only reason Bush won the primary was the Karl Rove machine.

If I remember correctly McCain actually got Bush to apologize for a negative comment made by Bush about his military career

 whembly wrote:
Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.

You don't.

The problem with the extreme religious right is that they're really bad for appealing to moderates, but they're very consistent with high turnout and always voting for the guy with an "R" next to his name. If you marginalize them they certainly aren't voting democrat, but they can stay home on election day. So if you lose that block of consistent votes you're going to have to work very hard to make up for it with new moderate voters, and that probably means reinventing the party. The end result is an awkward situation: they can't afford to lose the "liars for Jesus" crowd, but they can't afford to keep them either.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... good point.

Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.)

Bloody good question

I mean, right now the party simply needs that voting bloc to win. There isn't that many but their participation rate is miles above any other group. So they can't alienate them, but at the same time they have to modify that message so it doesn't alienate other groups, and find new messages that appeal elsewhere.

I think it's about modifying the message. A classic example is abortion - you can maintain a strong abortion position, but just don't have anyone out there saying stuff about rape means you can't get pregnant. Which is really just message discipline - something that's hard while there's Tea Party style nuts winning primaries.

 whembly wrote:
.

Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.)

In the 2014 gubernatorial and congress races you remove marriage equality and abortion from the planks, real publically. You emphasize a return to the big tent philosophy, you stop taking thier money.
Somehow the democrats have had religion firmly in thier corner and not had to deal with crazy. Take notes.
Basically be Republican. Social libertarians and Fiscal conservatives.

 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 get your point.

There are two things about it.

1. Romney was the best candidate the Republican Party could find. That's a problem that the Party needs to fix, not Romney.
2. The demographics are constantly changing against the Republicans, so they will not be as close as 1% in 2016.

It is quite the shame. the origins of "Grand Old" Republican is intrinsictly LEFT. initiating emancipation. abolishing slavery. a considerable progress to american society. well it is another discussion entirely because it involves with American Civil War.

so is it G.W. Bush policy that trademarks the Republicans as Rightwing Party?

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Booker?

Booker T

This is not Pro Wrestling discussion but. Booker did return to WWE as a GM

 AustonT wrote:
In the 2014 gubernatorial and congress races you remove marriage equality and abortion from the planks, real publically. You emphasize a return to the big tent philosophy, you stop taking thier money.
Somehow the democrats have had religion firmly in thier corner and not had to deal with crazy. Take notes.
Basically be Republican. Social libertarians and Fiscal conservatives.

Marriage equality, yes. That's a lost fight and has been for some time.

Abortion's not something the GOP needs to give up on, though. Polling has actually moved very slightly in the pro-life position's favor over the years, and, more importantly, it is a third rail with a huge chunk of the Republican base. The country's in the middle on the issue - most don't want to ban abortion, most don't want it to be completely unrestricted.

The press knows full well than no President can overturn the Supreme Court ruling on abortion but they toss out the question looking for a drama bomb to explode. You'd think that most people would hear Admiral Akbar's voice in their head shouting, "It's a trap!" but then shure as sh#@ some f-tard like Todd Akin will decide that it is a wonderful opportunity to open his screaming howler and show the world what an absolute deluded tool he is. Once that's done, the reporters all cry out in unison, "To the interwebs!"

Seriously, people. Reporters are not therapists. Stop sharing your innermost feelings with them - especially if your beliefs make Scientologists look sane.

There was an interesting set of charts in The Metro this morning to explain why Romney lost.

The basic point is that he scored well with white men and people on over $60,000 a year.

The obvious solution is for the Republican Party to devote itself to raising up the people on under $60,000 a year.

 sebster wrote:
I mean, even if you just look at the opposition, who have a bigger base, but one that's less inclined to turn out to vote. One of the most effective tools Democrats have for getting their base out is anything they say, but in scaring their voters about how bad the other guy is.

That right there, is the core of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are the party of exclusion and they insist on purity of thought. The Democrats are the party of inclusion. They don't usually care what you believe as long as you don't try to force them to abide by those beliefs. With the diversity in the Democratic party, it is hard to get them pointed in one direction for what they believe in, but rather it's easier to get them pointed in the direction opposing someone that tries to impose the rules of their belief system on them. Your average Democrat doesn't care if you are against gay marriage. However, it's when you try to stop other people from trying to get married that they have an issue.

Both parties get the most riled up by an enemy. The difference is that Republicans create the enemy by nature due to the purity of thought principle. Granted, the easiest way throughout history to get people together is to find a common enemy.

It's all kind of like the argumented between the 'hobbiests' and the 'power gamers'...Or the 'Role players' and the 'Roll players'.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
.

Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.)

In the 2014 gubernatorial and congress races you remove marriage equality and abortion from the planks, real publically. You emphasize a return to the big tent philosophy, you stop taking thier money.
Somehow the democrats have had religion firmly in thier corner and not had to deal with crazy. Take notes.
Basically be Republican. Social libertarians and Fiscal conservatives.

You are right, but you just have to be prepared to be out int he wilderness while you "rebuild" your base. Rebuilding a base could take a generation, and I don't think the current R big-wigs really want to do that kind of work if they don't absolutely have to.

 CT GAMER wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I do not think this was just happenstance that Romney lost. I believe they did this so they could put someone better in the ring next time around.

The democrats did this in 2004 with Bush Vs. Kerry. They put up, to use wrestling terms, a jobber against Bush because they knew they couldn't compete. They instead allowed the republicans have another four years and allowed them to wear out their welcome. So when 2008 came around the once reigning champs that were the republicans were too weak to hold up against the onslaught that was the democratic ticket. I sincerely believe McCain wanted the presidency but his party was too weak hold on to the spot. We now see the same game but with the roles reversed.

The republicans have a plan and just because they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a part of their plan like the democrats.

i think you give them far too much intellectual credit...

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

They's be smart to start grooming some more moderate republican candidates that actually understand the importance of the latino vote moving forward...

Honestly, I don't think I give them too much credit, their politicians and they play those kinds of games.

Both parties, all political parties, play these kinds of games. They are OK with taking one to the face if it means it gives them a better shot later on.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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 get your point.

There are two things about it.

1. Romney was the best candidate the Republican Party could find. That's a problem that the Party needs to fix, not Romney.
2. The demographics are constantly changing against the Republicans, so they will not be as close as 1% in 2016.

A 1% swing isn't enough even now.

If 1% of voters changed from Democrat to Republican (assume equally among every state), that still gives Obama the popular vote by over a million. And, Obama still wins Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virgina, New Hampshire and Ohio. The only state that flips is Florida.

This election really wasn't all that close (despite the hype).

 Grakmar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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 get your point.

There are two things about it.

1. Romney was the best candidate the Republican Party could find. That's a problem that the Party needs to fix, not Romney.
2. The demographics are constantly changing against the Republicans, so they will not be as close as 1% in 2016.

A 1% swing isn't enough even now.

If 1% of voters changed from Democrat to Republican (assume equally among every state), that still gives Obama the popular vote by over a million. And, Obama still wins Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virgina, New Hampshire and Ohio. The only state that flips is Florida.

This election really wasn't all that close (despite the hype).

Yeah, I think the run Jeb => win White House crowd in this thread has missed the message somehow. There are fundamental, structural reasons why the Dems are set up well for 2016 and beyond without some meaningful shifts by the GOP AS A PARTY.

I think they'll eventually happen, but those shifts will be painful. It's easy to change candidates, but hard to convince people that the GOP platform and possibly its values are at fault. It's hard to muzzle the Teabaggers and "legitimate rape" mongers -- who clearly did put the fear of God into some voters through no fault of Romney's.

Note how conservative talk radio reacted to the Romney loss (I've been doing a little of this the past few days). Those guys are hard at work creating "blame doughnuts," hanging the loss on everyone and everything around them while they sit inside a perfect center of blamelessness. Them sure are some tasty doughnuts.

Anyway, here's a fun rebus for everyone.


ROVE

----->----->----->---GAME->


http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15007504-karl-roves-election-nightmare-super-pacs-spending-was-nearly-for-naught?lite

gorgon wrote:

 Grakmar wrote:
Note how conservative talk radio reacted to the Romney loss (I've been doing a little of this the past few days). Those guys are hard at work creating "blame doughnuts," hanging the loss on everyone and everything around them while they sit inside a perfect center of blamelessness. Them sure are some tasty doughnuts.

Remember, you are forgetting the cardinal rule of Conservatism....

"Conservative principles never fail. They can only BE failed."

*shrug* It's a behaviorial thing that isn't exclusive to conservatives.

It will be interesting:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/

I am being a good friend by not being mean to my buddy. And I hope that Obama doesn't turn crazy-liberal this term. But the amount of hope and/or delution the week before the election on his part was just nuts. Each night at work he would watch Karl Rove predict all the states and chart the ways he could win, calling blue states for Romney left and right. And I would talk to him abou how those projections are bogus just by looking at all the data. But he was sucked into the "the polls are faking it" argument. When Fox News called it for Obama he was truly in shock.

I think the pundits are partly to blame. I don't know if they are living inside their own lies, or if Fox News knew that they were predicting crap but want to give their viewers what they want to hear to boost ratings.

But if your cheerleaders are lying to you instead of telling you the truth so you can change, then it will be a long decade for you.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
.
Now, how do we marginalize the "Liars for Jesus" crowd? (the extremes one... not picking on all religious folks.)

In the 2014 gubernatorial and congress races you remove marriage equality and abortion from the planks, real publically. You emphasize a return to the big tent philosophy, you stop taking thier money.
Somehow the democrats have had religion firmly in thier corner and not had to deal with crazy. Take notes.
Basically be Republican. Social libertarians and Fiscal conservatives.

So how do you make up for those lost votes?

For example, consider NC. In 2008 we voted narrowly for Obama, in 2012 we voted narrowly for Romney. However, part of that Romney support was from the poor, but very religious western parts of the state (our gay marriage ban passed with 70% support or more in some of those counties). If you publicly remove the "Liars for Jesus" element you're going to lose a lot of support there. They might vote democrat for economic reasons, or they might just stay home on election day, but you're not going to have that consistent support unless you keep {censored}ing the religious right. Fail to do it and you might just turn NC blue, and that's 15 electoral votes you have to make up somewhere else.

And of course changing the party platform to make up for the lost social conservative vote and building new support is going to take time. 2014 is a lost cause, and 2016 probably is too. So imagine the worst-case scenario for the new republicans: the economy recovers, 10+ years of democrats in power don't destroy the country, and all of those democrats are now incumbents. At that point, is it even possible anymore for the republican party to become anything more than a permanent minority?

Conclusion: the Liars for Jesus will continue to cost the republicans elections, but they can't afford to just tell them to off and stop talking.

 Seaward wrote:
Abortion's not something the GOP needs to give up on, though. Polling has actually moved very slightly in the pro-life position's favor over the years, and, more importantly, it is a third rail with a huge chunk of the Republican base. The country's in the middle on the issue - most don't want to ban abortion, most don't want it to be completely unrestricted.

Poll numbers aside, the problem with abortion is that the scientific facts are against the pro-life position. The pro-life argument is inherently a religious one, and if you get religion involved you're inevitably going to have to deal with the extremists saying stupid things and making you look bad. And can you really blame them? Certain candidates need a lesson in biology, but their basic argument against rape exceptions is absolutely consistent with, and in fact a mandatory consequence of, a belief that life begins at conception. As morally repulsive as these people are, they are the ones who are consistent in their beliefs, and the people who want to allow abortion in the case of rape are spineless hypocrites who are too afraid of public opinion to accept the consequences of their beliefs. Likewise for the extremists who want to kill abortion doctors. If you genuinely believe that life begins at conception it is your duty to kill anyone who tries to offer an abortion, and you have blood on your hands every time you decide that you're too afraid of prison to do it.

End result: the "mainstream" pro-life position is a hypocritical mess, and it only "works" if you don't think about it in any detail. That's fine if you're an "undecided moderate" (IOW, uninformed) voter who never thinks about it, but campaigning on a pro-life position inevitably associates you with the people who don't have to balance appealing to the party faithful with keeping their opinion poll numbers up.