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.

One cable network targeted at half of the population ignored by the other 5 is always going to have a bigger audience.

Republicans can distance themselves from FoxNews if they want to, nothing anti first amendment about that.

I would be happy if the Republican Party would actually practice what they preach. Want a small government that doesn't tell people what to do? The quit trying to pass socially conservative laws telling people what to do! Want to cut spending? Push to cut spending across the board! Don't want a religious sharia based theocracy? Quit trying to make this a religious bible based theocracy! Of course this is a very simplified list of suggestions. We will see if the GOP will shoot themselves in the foot again on 2014.

This question is asked a lot, but can't be answered because the terms of the question aren't really very well thought through.

The Republican party has lost the last two elections, and that seems to be the final bit of evidence that the party has lost its way and needed fixing. But there wasn't anywhere near as much conversation about the Democrats after they lost the Presidency in 2000, giving Republicans control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The Democrats were in the wilderness for six years after that, and while they built on 2006 with another strong showing in 2008, it was just two more years before Republicans took back the house.

And as of right now, Republicans still hold the House (granted they polled considerably less votes and really its due to gerrymandering but they still control it). And I think it's extremely likely they'll retake the Senate in 2014 (as the 2006 performance, on which the current Democratic majority is built, cannot be repeated). So if we just look in terms of elections, the Republican party is clearly not as non-viable as people are claiming. And like any conservative party around the world, even if you're not very popular at all, it is always possible to just shut up and wait for liberal over-reach to return you to office.

Point being, if the question is 'how will the Republicans get voted back in again'... then the answer is they don't have to do anything. They will win their fair share of elections just by being the other party and cruising along. If Rove succeeds and they put up less outright crazies, that position only improves.

But there's another question, what do the Republicans want once they get back in power? And I think that's the bigger issue Republicans are still trying to answer in the wake of Bush's presidency. While the Democrats may have been left in a very weak position following the Clinton presidency, they could look at things achieved during those eight years and say that yes, that's what the party is about and what they'll do again when they're in office. But in the wake of Bush, what's the mission for Republicans at this stage? What is it they actually want to do? What parts of the Bush legacy could be looked at as things to build on?

That's the problem with the Republican party - there is simply no coherent mission statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I would be happy if the Republican Party would actually practice what they preach. Want a small government that doesn't tell people what to do? The quit trying to pass socially conservative laws telling people what to do! Want to cut spending? Push to cut spending across the board!

They want to cut spending, but they don't want to cut the military, and they either don't want, or don't dare, to cut medicare or social welfare. So instead they make noise about balanced budgets and put up proposals to cut discretionary budget items and hope no-one notices they don't really want to do the thing they keep making noise over.

And that, I think, is the major issue facing Republicans. People keep talking about their electoral chances, but just cruising along and doing nothing interesting, and the party will win its share of elections. But what actual, real policy do they want to enact when they win office? That's the real question for the party.

The problem is that Republicans have become associated with certain political ideologies that public opinion is starting to trend farther and farther away from. They have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The moderate republicans need to become more vocal than the crazies if they want to reel these voters back in.

Let it live by its own mantra.

Don't save it when it's floundering. Let it crawl back to success instead of giving it a bailout.

Yeah, Isnt the point of the republican mantra is to let people save their own bacon? They dont need help.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
The problem is that Republicans have become associated with certain political ideologies that public opinion is starting to trend farther and farther away from.

Sort of but not really. I mean, the ideas behind small government (that government is wasteful and inefficient, that tax cuts boost economic activity and all the rest) are still broadly accepted by the general population, and there's no trend away from those ideas that I can discern.

The problem is more, for a combination of politics and basic economic realities, the idea of vastly cutting the size of government is a thing that cannot happen. Well, not unless you want to cut defence and stop giving the elderly medical care, and those are things that aren't going to happen. This problem can be seen in the presidencies of both Reagan and Bush, who made lots of noise about bringing in small governments and cutting taxes. They cut taxes, but government spending under each grew considerably, producing very large deficits.

So with an inability to deliver their basic, core message, the party has prioritised other messages. Border control. Gun control. Abortion. Opposition to gay marriage. The problem there is that these messages all have their own problems. Border control is a net vote loser, especially for a party that already has a perception problem on matters of race. Gun control is a place holder position, the best they can hope for is the status quo, there is nothing to actually achieve, a government can do nothing but say 'look you're the same as you were before'. Opposition to gay marriage is just doomed, looking at the trend line for support for the position.

Which brings us back to the basic problem - what in the hell does anyone think the party will actually do when they win?

They have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.

That's the kind of thing that sounds a lot more meaningful than it really is. In that time they've held the house and the senate for much longer than they've been in the minority. I mean, if you want to consider US politics in terms of congress, the last two decades have been among the most dominant positions of the Republican party in their history.

Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.

I proffer a little torch and pitchfork action and the Republican party will be right as rain.

I may be a little far off the mark here, speaking as a Brit... But my impression of the Republican party from what I've seen can be sorted out in one easy step.

1. Stop recruiting nutters

 Frazzled wrote:
Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.

I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.

I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!

Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.

I'm not worried. There will always be at least two parties. They ebb and flow. After the coal industry is finally killed off the executive fiat (see Washington Post) and the US goes through 8 years of non-growth, we'll see how it is in 2016.

 Frazzled wrote:
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.

Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.

To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.

Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.

To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.

No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.

As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.

Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.

To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.

No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.

As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.

So are moderate swing voters the enemy too then? Or should they ignore anybody except their base?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.

Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.

To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.

No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.

As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.

So are moderate swing voters the enemy too then? Or should they ignore anybody except their base?

Nope, just supporters of the Democratic Party. Moderates are potential voters for their cause. They are the 'hearts and minds' as it were.
After all, you don't think Obama views the Republican Party as the enemy?

I couldn't care less how Obama views the party.

I vote Republican about half the time, and out my mark behind any independent I can out of principle. But since I don't have an R on my voter ID my opinion doesn't matter to some of them.

I think us moderates are the victims here...

 d-usa wrote:
I couldn't care less how Obama views the party.

I vote Republican about half the time, and out my mark behind any independent I can out of principle. But since I don't have an R on my voter ID my opinion doesn't matter to some of them.

I think us moderates are the victims here...

Why? We're the free agents of the political world. Everyone wants your vote.
Now thats a curse near election time with all the advertising...I'll grant you that one. You can still vote, still send letters to support different positions to your representatives, still provide monetary support for candidates you prefer.

And Remember, vote WienerDog Party straight ticket in 2014. A steak in every bowl!

 d-usa wrote:

I think us moderates are the victims here...

In that specific way, you can blame the victim.

Moderates need to be the person that steers their party towards milder climates, so to speak. A lot of the Republican message is diluted by the extremists who want much bigger changes to come about that is possible. Democrats have that same issue to, but it seems like a societal problem. We like to gravitate towards the larger than life, think bigger leaders than the guys who just go about their jobs and not make any noise. Look at Clinton (Bill); he enjoyed great popularity despite his views and actions.

Moderates need to take more control.

Tibbsy wrote:
I may be a little far off the mark here, speaking as a Brit... But my impression of the Republican party from what I've seen can be sorted out in one easy step.

1. Stop recruiting nutters

I'd ammend that by saying stop supporting ultra-conservatives with party funds. As a moderate Republican, these fethers are pissing me off.

 WarOne wrote:


Moderates need to take more control.

How, exactly? I did it by not voting for the ultra-conservatives in the last election (locally, state, and federal elections). What else can one devilishly handsome man do?

 kronk wrote:


How, exactly? I did it by not voting for the ultra-conservatives in the last election (locally, state, and federal elections). What else can one devilishly handsome man do?

I'll admit this would be hard. You need the moderates to compromise with the more extreme components of their party base. In the case of Republicans, this will be even harder to do as their philosophical ideologies are vastly different and core values are harder to compromise over. Conservatives however are conservative in one sense or another, so compromising the lesser stances for the bigger one could be their best shot, namely streamlining our debt to catch up to what we can owe responsibly and cutting costs where they can be reduced without hacking off vital components of our national infrastructure and bureaucracy.

It would also mean shrinking what the government pays out to people for their services (healthcare is one for example) and capping costs for businesses and individuals to make a living (malpractice insurance for example).

Doing so however will be unpopular and dangerous to the economy (in the prior examples, health care industry would deflate in value as money entering the system significantly decreases and the insurance companies involved receive less money to cover costs). Long term however, we need to make the system fair for all and stop the gouging of prices for services that have become very expensive for everyone to afford.

Again though, it would mean sacrificing stances on abortion, gay rights, and guns that while are lesser stances, evoke great emotional responses from said base. Of course, the Republicans have to learn how to come from behind as again, many people see the party floundering under its many-heads, a hydra at war with itself.

Also... they need to stop putting their foot in their mouwf.

See Akins... he'd would've won in MO had he not made that stupid statement. Everybody knew he was staunchly pro-life... but what he said was a PR catastrophy.

I think in general, the Republicans need to be better equipped with respect to Public Relations.

But, I honestly don't see that happening.

The question facing the GOP is simple: they have a shrinking base. Hispanic Americans, including millions of undocumented immigrants, are the last best hope for the Republican Party. Meaningful immigration reform -- and I mean something that would beneficially change the status of millions on a relatively short time frame -- could forge a tremendously powerful base.

There are three main obstacles:

(1) The need for (at least optical) economic improvement: Voters reiterate again and again that the economy is what matters to them. The GOP must therefore fight on this ground to retain a semblance of relevance. The economic situation would either have to change or seem to change for the Republicans to be able to talk seriously about immigration reform. The other option is to re-center the idea of economic reform around immigration reform but the cost to the party may be too high on that score to risk it.

(2) Extremism: Voters have also demonstrated a preference for moderation but the GOP has reached to greater and greater extremes in order to stay relevant since the end of George W. Bush's administration. While undoubtedly a polarizing figure, Bush also offered an impressively balanced political realism. His "compassionate conservatism," especially conveyed in a broad evangelical tone (religion as inclusive/vibrant rather than exclusive/irrelevant), is what the GOP badly needs today. I would be shocked if the impending death of Bush the Elder is not used to rehabilitate Bush the Younger.

(3) The rise of Rogue Statesmen: The politically expedient betrayal of George W. Bush and the subsequent invention of "Tea Party" conservatism has encouraged the model of the rogue statesmen. Ron Paul is the most extreme example (although their prominence was forshadowed by McCain in 2000). Basically, you have a candidate who is committed to ideological purity rather than political process. One of the many results of those priorities, which in turn leads them to being largely unappealing to voters, is that rogue statesmen say egregiously offensive remarks and support egregiously offensive policies -- for example, transparently racist voter ID laws. It works well enough in local politics but fails miserably in national elections.

The Republican Party has traditionally stood on three strengths: rationality, moderation, and discipline. Developments since 2007 have undermined all three strengths so it should be little surprise that the party is increasingly niche.

I'll stress that the GOP, despite being "conservative," also has the traditional strength of being flexible and dynamic. One could argue that there have been four different Republican Parties in the last three decades alone: the Party of Reagan, the Party of Gingrich, the Party of George W. Bush, and the Tea Party. It's no coincidence each version of the GOP except the current one can be associated with a powerful leader.

 Frazzled wrote:


Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...

Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...

Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.

If you want to get read of misleading news we need to purge every news source in the United State and all go watch the BBC

 juraigamer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...

Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.

You just said the same thing. So I get to repeat myself too:
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...

What does the first amendment have to do with the GOP telling FoxNews to feth off?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...

Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.

If you want to get read of misleading news we need to purge every news source in the United State and all go watch the BBC

Hold on. I'll the flamethrower. After all nothing says purge the unclean like a little flaming prometheum action. Who's with me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
What does the first amendment have to do with the GOP telling FoxNews to feth off?

Thats just fine. Of course thats not what he said. He said Fox should be purged. Then he amended that by saying they should be sent to re-education to more properly reflect the GoodFact view.

Fox News has pretty clearly contributed to the woes of the GOP by advocating a shrill tone of paranoid extremism among conservatives. Rage and fear have not led the Republicans to victory; in fact, this program has simply driven them into alienation. It is important to note that the problem facing the GOP is not just the GOP alienating voters. It is also that the GOP is alienating itself away from the voters. Republicans seem less and less able to even conceive of thoughts and opinions outside of their shrinking base. I think this is one reason that Republican officials and candidates say such bizarre and outrageous things so often -- they don't think they're being offensive because they don't understand many of the people who are going to hear them.

Fox News has reinforced the idea that Republicans only need to talk to Republicans and that they only need to deal with the Republican outlook -- you might call this the "just the [Republican] facts, ma'am" approach. It's not to say some Democrats aren't also living in an isolated world -- MSNBC is a very similar echo chamber. But the people voting Democrat do not seem to have MSNBC on the TV very often. Many Republican households have Fox News blaring around the clock, something like Big Brother from 1984. That's a lot of conditioning and the result has not been a more successful GOP.

The time has come to realize that the interests of Fox News are simply not the same as the interests of the GOP. Fox News is a business that sells sensationalism. They bank on fear and rage. The hypothesis has been that this same fear and rage could drive election results but that seems less and less true. Indeed, one might say the scales tipped long ago and it now does much more harm than good. It has effectively mobilized an important part of the base out of the GOP and into Obama's moderate Democratic party. What Fox News needs to do as a business in order to make money and thus survive is ultimately not what the GOP needs to do in order to get elected and thus survive even if money is very important to getting elected.

There is a good argument, and it goes around in far left circles all the time, that the "real" Democratic party is pretty much gone and the thing that we currently call the Democratic party is actually the GOP from the 1990s. There are certainly a lot of problems with that if you take it literally but it's a good point nonetheless.

This is all true.

Before Fox News, old white conservatives people were listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show.

Same thing, just more talking heads.

Also, MSNBC sucks.

Okay... who watches Fox News? Do any of you TRY to watch them before making the statement that they're the Republican mouthpiece? It's like some of you believe they're the Mouth of Sauron:



I usually watch CNN... but when I can, I'll watch Megan Kelly. Hey... I'm a dude... sue me!

And sometimes "The Five" is okay.

But, I generally avoid the evening slots... is all the angst from the O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta lineup?