The Republican Party Going Forward

[Whirlybird]

Yeah, I say she has a shot.

[Bancroft Agee]

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, wait - you're serious.

Laugh now but do not underestimate that woman and the power of fear. Didn't The Mist teach you people anything! Scare the shit out of people enough and they'll follow anyone who gives them an answer. This is especially true of the American people.

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by bancroft agee

laugh now but do not underestimate that woman and the power of fear. Didn't the mist teach you people anything! Scare the shit out of people enough and they'll follow anyone who gives them an answer. This is especially true of the american people.

"Palin/Carmody 2012: We want the boy!"

[Richard Dickson]

This article explores a much worse possible ticket: Palin/Beck.

Her comments don't seem to indicate she's considering it as seriously as the article does -- it's more a polite acknowledgment of Beck than a ringing endorsement -- but the mere idea of it made my legs go numb.

[The Prankster]

I'd be more worried if the majority of the electorate hadn't consistently made it clear that they don't like her, or at the very least don't want her in office. She cost the Republicans one election, and her popularity among a small segment of crazies has obscured the fact that she has not gotten any more popular outside that base. Her actions over the last year have reinforced her as a hollow flake to most people, and the fact that people are reading her book doesn't mean they actually like her. For fuck's sake, even the most mainstream of comedians are already making jokes about her wall-to-wall responsibility-dodging in the book. That's the Sarah Palin narrative for most people.

If she gets the nod in 2012, Democrats will be doing cartwheels of joy. And it will show that the Republicans know they can't win, and have decided to give her her fair shot just to shut the crazies up.

[Jacob Singer]

Palin is a celebrity trainwreck fad. Only the 20%ers (and Snaieke) think she could possibly run a country.

[Pop Zeus]

Originally Posted by FrankCobretti

I'm still a Republican because I'm unwilling to cede the party to the Nutbag Wing.

That's a decent thing to do, but it seems like a lot of moderate Republicans are unwilling to actually shoot down the "crazy" in their party, they just seem to put up with it.

[Khaunshar]

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus

That's a decent thing to do, but it seems like a lot of moderate Republicans are unwilling to actually shoot down the "crazy" in their party, they just seem to put up with it.

Well, so far it looks like the Republican Party is in it to "win" this "war" with the democrats, and as such they cannot afford to lose an entire wing of their party.
Basically, a lot of the more moderate republicans arent happy with their wingnuts, but in order to have a shot at getting the needed votes ,they ll swallow their pride.

Rather win with the wingnuts and zealots in tow, than lose but get rid of them.

That is the real, dare I say tragedy of the situation. The Republican Party is now in a state where they ought to split up into two parties realistically, but since the american system wouldnt allow that solution and still make it reasonably possible to win an election, its out.
The whole situation is so deeply entrenched in the desire to win, you cant just unfuck it easily.

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by Khaunshar

That is the real, dare I say tragedy of the situation. The Republican Party is now in a state where they ought to split up into two parties realistically, but since the american system wouldnt allow that solution and still make it reasonably possible to win an election, its out.
The whole situation is so deeply entrenched in the desire to win, you cant just unfuck it easily.

Unless the Dems do the same thing and open up a truly "progressive" party that splits from the Liebermans and Baucus'.

[Sean Blackwell]

Originally Posted by Ratty

Unless the Dems do the same thing and open up a truly "progressive" party that splits from the Liebermans and Baucus'.

A four party system? What is this? Rationalville?

I'm afraid the two party mentality is too entrenched for anybody to have the stones to make the first move.

[jvc]

I think the successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia show the model the GOP needs to follow. Christie and McDonnell didn't run on social issues or immigration, which are wedge issues. They ran fairly positive and inclusive campaigns. They mainly ran on well-articulated conservative policies as solutions to real problems the voters were facing. They also were effective in making the case that they had the competence to do the job.

Rove's playbook was, in part, to exploit wedge issues where the majority of voters were at least sympathetic to your position. Obama's win was part of a repudiation of that style of politics (at least for the moment). Obama was inclusive and used rhetoric that seemed to rise above partisanship. But a year later, the economy is showing little to no signs of recovery with unemployment and budget deficits soaring. I think voters in this economy have become more pragmatic in reaction to this. They just want to know what you plan to do, how it will help them, and how you are going to get it done. They want competence and responsibility. The GOP candidate who can best convey this will win the nomination and stand a pretty good chance of winning in 2012 (provided the economy hasn't completely turned around by then). Jindal, Romney, Daniels, and Barbour can do this. Populists like Palin and Huckabee cannot.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by FrankCobretti

I'm still a Republican because I'm unwilling to cede the party to the Nutbag Wing.

How? What is it you could do to prevent it?




And why didn't you do it 600 000 dead Iraqis ago?

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by jvc

I think the successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia show the model the GOP needs to follow. Christie and McDonnell didn't run on social issues or immigration, which are wedge issues. They ran fairly positive and inclusive campaigns. They mainly ran on well-articulated conservative policies as solutions to real problems the voters were facing. They also were effective in making the case that they had the competence to do the job.

Rove's playbook was, in part, to exploit wedge issues where the majority of voters were at least sympathetic to your position. Obama's win was part of a repudiation of that style of politics (at least for the moment). Obama was inclusive and used rhetoric that seemed to rise above partisanship. But a year later, the economy is showing little to no signs of recovery with unemployment and budget deficits soaring. I think voters in this economy have become more pragmatic in reaction to this. They just want to know what you plan to do, how it will help them, and how you are going to get it done. They want competence and responsibility. The GOP candidate who can best convey this will win the nomination and stand a pretty good chance of winning in 2012 (provided the economy hasn't completely turned around by then). Jindal, Romney, Daniels, and Barbour can do this. Populists like Palin and Huckabee cannot.

This is entirely about how to win elections and doesn't address how to govern at all.

[Whirlybird]

Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun

How? What is it you could do to prevent it?




And why didn't you do it 600 000 dead Iraqis ago?

Capptaaaaain Hyperbole strikes again!

[jvc]

Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun

This is entirely about how to win elections and doesn't address how to govern at all.

Which is in large part what the thread is about. The Republicans have to win elections to be in the position to govern. To do that, the Republicans need to explain how they would govern, why they would govern that way, and how that would benefit the governed. Then they need to follow through once in office.

[Pop Zeus]

Originally Posted by jvc

Which is in large part what the thread is about. The Republicans have to win elections to be in the position to govern. To do that, the Republicans need to explain how they would govern, why they would govern that way, and how that would benefit the governed. Then they need to follow through once in office.

But that's part of the problem. The Republican party's election platform rarely matches up with their governing agenda. They're so concerned with scoring political points that they'll knowingly take harmful positions that any pragmatist would dismiss, solely for the reason that it works at getting votes/diminishing the vote-count of the opposition. Now, to a lesser extent, Dems do this sort of thing too, but to do in on the giant issues of the day is a recipe for governmental failure.

[Devildoubt]

Originally Posted by jvc

I think the successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia show the model the GOP needs to follow. Christie and McDonnell didn't run on social issues or immigration, which are wedge issues. They ran fairly positive and inclusive campaigns. They mainly ran on well-articulated conservative policies as solutions to real problems the voters were facing. They also were effective in making the case that they had the competence to do the job.

Rove's playbook was, in part, to exploit wedge issues where the majority of voters were at least sympathetic to your position. Obama's win was part of a repudiation of that style of politics (at least for the moment). Obama was inclusive and used rhetoric that seemed to rise above partisanship. But a year later, the economy is showing little to no signs of recovery with unemployment and budget deficits soaring. I think voters in this economy have become more pragmatic in reaction to this. They just want to know what you plan to do, how it will help them, and how you are going to get it done. They want competence and responsibility. The GOP candidate who can best convey this will win the nomination and stand a pretty good chance of winning in 2012 (provided the economy hasn't completely turned around by then). Jindal, Romney, Daniels, and Barbour can do this. Populists like Palin and Huckabee cannot.

It also helps to run against incumbents with a 30% approval rating.

[jvc]

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus

But that's part of the problem. The Republican party's election platform rarely matches up with their governing agenda. They're so concerned with scoring political points that they'll knowingly take harmful positions that any pragmatist would dismiss, solely for the reason that it works at getting votes/diminishing the vote-count of the opposition. Now, to a lesser extent, Dems do this sort of thing too, but to do in on the giant issues of the day is a recipe for governmental failure.

I agree. One of the things that pissed me off the most about the 2008 Republican primary was the focus of the debate seemed to be who would deport more illegal aliens, kill the most terrorists, and cut the most taxes (just for the sake of cutting taxes). In other words, they were competing to see who could be the best modern facsimile of the romanticized caricature of Ronald Reagan. The most qualified and competent of the candidates on paper seemed to be Mitt Romney. But he seemed most obsessed with convincing people he was Reagan reborn. McCain was the least willing to play this game, so I was kind of glad he got the nomination. Then, instead of showing he had real solutions to real problems, he inexplicably fell back on earmark reform every time he had to answer a question about the biggest issue in the election: the economy. Earmarks, while generally dumped on as government waste, actually create some jobs. Harping on it over and over again as the solution to all economic woes was verging on pathetic. McCain deserved to lose.

Next time, whether Republicans succeed or fail electorally, they need to nominate candidates at all levels who will directly address the biggest issues of the day with pragmatic solutions. Pragmatism and competence will hopefully be what candidates will offer to the voters.

[FrankCobretti]

Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun

How? What is it you could do to prevent it?

Vote in primary elections.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Maybe I have a distorted idea of the size of the crazy, but won't the sensible person you vote for in the primary going to have to either appeal to the same bunch Republicans have to appeal to now, or speak his sensible positions and get fried by the likes of Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and O'Reilly and Krauthammer?

The previous Republican PR strategy has been too successful; now there's a good sized chunk of the voting population that wants to hear what they heard from Republicans during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. They need to hear how putting a stop to odious health insurance practices will doom you all to lining up for 2nd rate toilet paper under some fascist dictatorship, that sort of thing. I imagine that success has a good amount of momentum.

But good luck.

[Cylon Baby]

Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun

Maybe I have a distorted idea of the size of the crazy, but won't the sensible person you vote for in the primary going to have to either appeal to the same bunch Republicans have to appeal to now, or speak his sensible positions and get fried by the likes of Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and O'Reilly and Krauthammer?

The previous Republican PR strategy has been too successful; now there's a good sized chunk of the voting population that wants to hear what they heard from Republicans during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. They need to hear how putting a stop to odious health insurance practices will doom you all to lining up for 2nd rate toilet paper under some fascist dictatorship, that sort of thing. I imagine that success has a good amount of momentum.

But good luck.

I don't think anyone has a clear handle on the number of crazies in the GOP (Can you imagine the survey? "Excuse me, Sir/Madam, are you fucking crazy? Are you so fucking ignorant you think creationism should be taught in schools?"). The problem is the crazies have control of the state party power structure in many states (especially in California). They are extremely loud, are willing to say anything to destroy moderate opposition, and have key Big Media figures like Limbaugh on their side. I really hope they are marginalized after a few failed elections, but they seem unwilling to even accept defeat when they get blown out in a national election

[Khaunshar]

Well, when it comes to the topic of actuallly governing the country, or at least a state, I think the current administration is sort of showing a very ugly truth that we used to pin on Bush and his evil cronies for years now:
It has become quite fucking difficult to govern the USA. Now, I am not so well-versed in the minutiae to put a date on that, but I would say that this is something that has grown over the second Bush legislation period (though I wouldnt blame him, actually), as that seems to be the time when the fronts on both sides hardened, and when half of the economy went batshit crazy with loopholes, money grabs and general gambling with the wealth of the nation.

I heavily doubt that any Republican Candidate, by the very definition of being a republican maybe, would take up the job of president with as good intentions and genuinely few ties to the powers-that-be behind the curtains as Obama. I am not a huge fan of Obama since I am not actually american, but as far as I can see, and as far as I have been reasonbly told, he is pretty much the real deal.
Unfortunately, and thats where this ties into this debate, that is not enough. During the Bush years, it was easy to pin stuff on the president as he was in bed with these most powerful groups of these times usually, and the lines between his agenda and those of the powerful lobbies blurred often.

Now, you see a president working AGAINST a large part of the real powerbase in Washington, and it shows: It shows just how many bowls of shit (to paraphrase the Wire) even the President, democratic at that, and not from one of these aristcrat clans like Clinton etc., has to eat to get anything done. And often not even that (hello inheriting a messed up bailout, yet having to eat the entire bowl of the last months of the bush mess too).

So, I dare say that the only way to get more done is to once again fall in line with the powerful special interests and whoever has a lot of pull. No matter how you dress that up, its a variation of business as usual, and people are always quick to forget that its exactly that what got you into 2 wars, one of them simply illegal even though the world didnt react to it enough, fucking up the global economy and your own, and the great fun of having to deal with a rising pile of social issues.

A republican candidate who actually wants to govern, and fix stuff, no matter what values he holds, would have to go against the very same opponents that Obama faces, minus a few wingnuts, plus a few liberals.
Frankly, if Obama cant get it done, I dont see a republican, who would have SERIOUS problems getting to be president with as few ties as Obama has, who could do better. He could do it smoother, but is that really worth the price?

If the economy doesnt rebound, you are right, 2012 is going to look ugly, because at that point, people vote with their wallets, and these are empty. Republicans being those who promise everyone great riches by default, they ll likely win it.
But if the economy is fucked up in 2012 still, there will be a very ,very different America left by then, with a very, very pissed off populace. So I hope Obama gets re-elected in 2012, because that means he did a passable job, and it means you guys arent that much closer to Mad Max.

[Clarence Boddicker]

The Republican party isn't going to stop being represented by retards, until the base is not comprised of retards.

The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. Clearly the ACORN card really is an effective one to play with the voters who will decide whether Hoffman gets to be the Republican nominee in a possible repeat bid in 2010.

[Jake]

Apparently this is a really big deal, according to a bunch of conservatives I board with elsewhere. They're probably going to pull the usual "THE NEWS MEDIA DIDN'T PICK THIS STORY UP THEY HAVE AN AGENDA" when this gets about as much media fanfare as the ACORN pimp/hooker thing. Even though that still totally fucked ACORN.

[soylentgreen]

"Warmergate". Cute.

[Khaunshar]

Originally Posted by Jake

Apparently this is a really big deal, according to a bunch of conservatives I board with elsewhere. They're probably going to pull the usual "THE NEWS MEDIA DIDN'T PICK THIS STORY UP THEY HAVE AN AGENDA" when this gets about as much media fanfare as the ACORN pimp/hooker thing. Even though that still totally fucked ACORN.

Just another excuse to continue trying to ignore that maybe we arent behaving in a responsible way. As if it all came down to just some temperature numbers ....

[Jake]

Oh man, they even badmouthed that Daly guy.

HOW DEEP DOES THIS RABBIT HOLE GO?

[dreary louse]

Nobody should vote for either party. This political process is inherently broken. Outside of social issues, republicans and democrats aren't very different, and these similarities contribute to the very social issues democrats talk so much about, either out of passion or to woo voters. I really like President Obama, I just wish he wasn't leading in office, which is proving to be quite beneath his abilities; as corporations wield the power they do, being President doesn't mean as much as it did before, which is especially saddening when you consider he's the first black President to be elected into office. I'm actually looking forward more to his post-Presidency years, when, who knows, he could lend some genuine legitimacy to a worker's revolution. Not communism, no (that's based on a centralized government!) But capitalism is looking even older and crustier than ever, eventually as much as Soviet-era communism. The digital age is leaving capitalism right the fuck behind.