Author Topic: What's next for GOP?  (Read 6766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6817
  • Tommy Points: 889
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2012, 07:33:31 PM »
I am speaking for myself only.  I am a fiscal conservative/social liberal who has belonged, at one time or another, to both parties.  I may be one of very few who like Hiliary (my gender "may" have something to do with that,  ;) I have felt for a while that she looks worn out and not  well, and in desparate need of a rest to recharge.   

The last election cycle I had problems with both parties. 

As a Floridian for the past 15 years, I would support Jeb Bush if he ran.  I thought he was an excellent governor and I said that on this blog a few years ago.  His policies seem to me to be more conservative/middle of the road, and that is how I like it.    Having a wife who is from Mexico might possibly help him with the Hispanic population.  I thought Condoleeza Rice was an excellent Secretary of State, and would love for her to agree to be candidate for vice president...thus far she has not been interested in that.
 
I am afraid, however, that people may consider Jeb running  to be establishing something of a "dynasty" and that may work against him.

I do think that it is way to early to speculate on possible candidates, even though I have now done it, too.  :-[

Though I don't think  I could stand another Bush, I think he's likely an excellent candidate (and I actually wouldn't hold 'Bush' against him).  I see myself not far from where you are in that I am (I guess) fiscally moderate and socially liberal.  What I mostly feel though is opposition to strict adherence to a big or small government ideology -- that also includes opposition to adherence to a libertarian ideology (which I think you favor).  I believe that times and variables change so readily in a country so large and diverse that you have to be open to tightening up sometimes and loosening up at others.  Moderates appeal to me most and I wish moderates did not have to tie themselves, and become beholden to a party base.

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36647
  • Tommy Points: 1775
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2012, 07:54:18 PM »
I am speaking for myself only.  I am a fiscal conservative/social liberal who has belonged, at one time or another, to both parties.  I may be one of very few who like Hiliary (my gender "may" have something to do with that,  ;) I have felt for a while that she looks worn out and not  well, and in desparate need of a rest to recharge.   

The last election cycle I had problems with both parties. 

As a Floridian for the past 15 years, I would support Jeb Bush if he ran.  I thought he was an excellent governor and I said that on this blog a few years ago.  His policies seem to me to be more conservative/middle of the road, and that is how I like it.    Having a wife who is from Mexico might possibly help him with the Hispanic population.  I thought Condoleeza Rice was an excellent Secretary of State, and would love for her to agree to be candidate for vice president...thus far she has not been interested in that.
 
I am afraid, however, that people may consider Jeb running  to be establishing something of a "dynasty" and that may work against him.

I do think that it is way to early to speculate on possible candidates, even though I have now done it, too.  :-[

Though I don't think  I could stand another Bush, I think he's likely an excellent candidate (and I actually wouldn't hold 'Bush' against him).  I see myself not far from where you are in that I am (I guess) fiscally moderate and socially liberal.  What I mostly feel though is opposition to strict adherence to a big or small government ideology -- that also includes opposition to adherence to a libertarian ideology (which I think you favor).  I believe that times and variables change so readily in a country so large and diverse that you have to be open to tightening up sometimes and loosening up at others.  Moderates appeal to me most and I wish moderates did not have to tie themselves, and become beholden to a party base.

Well said. Represents the moderate VP very well.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Quote from: IndeedProceed
(insert funny/insightful/inside joke from me here at some point)

Online thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 2178
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2012, 08:32:53 PM »
The GOP has a credibility problem.  It’s great to talk about being Fiscally Conservative, but in the last 25 years the GOP track record is that of out of control spending on Middle Eastern conflicts.  After the R primaries, I was convinced we’d be knee-deep in Iran during year one of a Republican administration. 

And domestically, who doesn’t like the idea of Small Gov’t?  It’s the calling card of the GOP.  But, looking closer, you see the R’s advocating more bureaucracy around:  women’s healthcare, gay civil rights, and Latinos in public without ‘papers’.  So really the platform is Small Gov’t for some (ie: white men) while more scrutiny is needed for everyone else.   

From the outside looking in, seems like the GOP is underestimating the effect free access to information has had on American gullibility.
There is no "lesser of the  evils."   Don't give me the line about how the Democrats are more in touch with the people.  Obama did not run away with the election, he did not receive a "mandate."  He won a majority of the votes in the states that counted in the electoral college.  There was no "landslide."   No matter how you look at it, someone always wins, someone always loses, and people are either gloating or unhappy.
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Offline D Dub

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1599
  • Tommy Points: 71
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2012, 08:59:50 PM »
The GOP has a credibility problem.  It’s great to talk about being Fiscally Conservative, but in the last 25 years the GOP track record is that of out of control spending on Middle Eastern conflicts.  After the R primaries, I was convinced we’d be knee-deep in Iran during year one of a Republican administration. 

And domestically, who doesn’t like the idea of Small Gov’t?  It’s the calling card of the GOP.  But, looking closer, you see the R’s advocating more bureaucracy around:  women’s healthcare, gay civil rights, and Latinos in public without ‘papers’.  So really the platform is Small Gov’t for some (ie: white men) while more scrutiny is needed for everyone else.   

From the outside looking in, seems like the GOP is underestimating the effect free access to information has had on American gullibility.
There is no "lesser of the  evils."   Don't give me the line about how the Democrats are more in touch with the people.  Obama did not run away with the election, he did not receive a "mandate."  He won a majority of the votes in the states that counted in the electoral college.  There was no "landslide."   No matter how you look at it, someone always wins, someone always loses, and people are either gloating or unhappy.

Not claiming mandate, just making an observation on policy deployment.  Mitt did walk away with almost half the popular vote.  Ironiclly enough think the number was 47%

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6670
  • Tommy Points: 411
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2012, 09:21:39 PM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

Offline Change

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6666
  • Tommy Points: 544
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2012, 11:51:18 PM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

Online D.o.s.

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5567
  • Tommy Points: 341
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2012, 06:58:41 PM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

If they're all trying to be in the same place at the same time, yes.

As a portion of the 312 million people who live in the US, not so much.


That said, Romney lost both the popular vote and the electoral votes. The majority of the people who voted in the 2012 election did not want Mitt Romney as president--any way you slice it.
Michael Jordan: It's a man's game, and you can't play.
 Bill Murray: It's 'cause I'm white, isn't it?
Michael Jordan: No. Larry's white, so what?
Bill Murray: Larry's not white. Larry's clear.

not sure the point of this thread.

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2987
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2012, 11:01:42 AM »
I think electoral victories are over stated in terms of what they mean for the future of the party. Given how big a market of non-consumption there is, either party can rout the other by engaging a previously un-voting demographic. This is OfA playbook from 2008. Like FDR in the depression Obama used the weight of incumbency plus added in his own campaigns ability to use analytics to both hammer Romney with negative adds and target and turnout his own supporters. This enabled him to win reelection despite a miserable last four years.

I think the big thing for Republicans is not to change their policies. Federalism, free markets, strong national defense - these are things all people can embrace.  There are two issues:

1. Republicans look like big Gov't lite a lot of the time - being the lesser of big gov't evils isn't compelling.

2. The messengers they have had are not great. Romney's flip flops and Romneycare handicapped him greatly, despite messaging that was above average during this election cycle. McCain was despised by his base. This cycle the R's lost the governorship in NH because the candidate was a bad messenger for NH libertarian conservatism (he'd be fine in the south.) They also lost several senate seats because of the "rape" candidates.

Not having Obama as a national candidate eroded all the 2008 gains of the Dems in 2010. 2012 was weaker year for Obama than 2008. I'd guess 2014 is even worse for the Dems than 2010, outside of Obama pulling a serious 180 and turning into Bill Clinton 2.0 (highly unlikely IMO.)

What all this means?

Republicans need to stay to the core conservative principles that they claim to stand for, they need to translate these principles into policies that make sense for 2012 and beyond, and they need to recruit candidates that can deliver this message.

Offline Cman

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10301
  • Tommy Points: 224
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2012, 11:08:41 AM »
Republicans need to stay to the core conservative principles that they claim to stand for, they need to translate these principles into policies that make sense for 2012 and beyond, and they need to recruit candidates that can deliver this message.

Agreed, in part. My view is that whichever party defines itself as the party with a better handle on economics is the party that will do well in the future. The Republican party is basically squandering its chance to do this.
Celtics fan for life.

Online nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26103
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2012, 11:13:53 AM »
I think electoral victories are over stated in terms of what they mean for the future of the party. Given how big a market of non-consumption there is, either party can rout the other by engaging a previously un-voting demographic. This is OfA playbook from 2008. Like FDR in the depression Obama used the weight of incumbency plus added in his own campaigns ability to use analytics to both hammer Romney with negative adds and target and turnout his own supporters. This enabled him to win reelection despite a miserable last four years.

I think the big thing for Republicans is not to change their policies. Federalism, free markets, strong national defense - these are things all people can embrace.  There are two issues:

1. Republicans look like big Gov't lite a lot of the time - being the lesser of big gov't evils isn't compelling.

2. The messengers they have had are not great. Romney's flip flops and Romneycare handicapped him greatly, despite messaging that was above average during this election cycle. McCain was despised by his base. This cycle the R's lost the governorship in NH because the candidate was a bad messenger for NH libertarian conservatism (he'd be fine in the south.) They also lost several senate seats because of the "rape" candidates.

Not having Obama as a national candidate eroded all the 2008 gains of the Dems in 2010. 2012 was weaker year for Obama than 2008. I'd guess 2014 is even worse for the Dems than 2010, outside of Obama pulling a serious 180 and turning into Bill Clinton 2.0 (highly unlikely IMO.)

What all this means?

Republicans need to stay to the core conservative principles that they claim to stand for, they need to translate these principles into policies that make sense for 2012 and beyond, and they need to recruit candidates that can deliver this message.
Unfortunately the core of the principles that THIS CURRENT Republican Party stands on is grounded in religiously based stances on social issues as well. It is to this core of the party that the RNC panders to.

Honestly, if they walked away from these principles that have so dominated their efforts to get out their core vote, I believe a lot more independents, moderates and minorities would find the Republican Party more appealing.

Also, they have to start doing something to fight the perception that they are a party that is only interested in the protection of the rich. I am not saying that is true. But that's how the Democrats are portraying them and unfortunately, much of their policy and hard line stances on debate-able subjects help to further that perception.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 11:26:39 AM by nickagneta »
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6087
  • Tommy Points: 582
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2012, 11:22:16 AM »
This cycle the R's lost the governorship in NH because the candidate was a bad messenger for NH libertarian conservatism (he'd be fine in the south.)

Ovide Lamontagne was not a good messenger for libertarians, no.  Maybe, he would have been ok in the South, but I'm not entirely sure.  He is not a very personable guy.  Somewhat socially awkward, in the same manner Romney is.


Ovide lost, mainly, due to being seen (falsely in my opinion) as an "anti-woman" candidate running against a woman.  Hassan seems like an ok choice for governor though, just not my choice.
DKC Los Angeles Lakers
GM: Micheal Corleone
Head Coach: Mike Krzyzewski
Roster

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21185
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2012, 11:36:23 AM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

  It's very small by re-election standards. The difference in popular vote (about 4%) was slightly larger than Bush's margin, about half of Clinton's margin and about 1/5 or less of the margin that Reagan, Nixon or LBJ won by.

Offline InfiniteMH

  • Gerald Wallace
  • Posts: 127
  • Tommy Points: 17
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2012, 12:05:38 PM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

  It's very small by re-election standards. The difference in popular vote (about 4%) was slightly larger than Bush's margin, about half of Clinton's margin and about 1/5 or less of the margin that Reagan, Nixon or LBJ won by.

Whenever I see this on TV and whatnot, I fail to see the significance in those comparisons. Can someone explain it to me like I'm a five year old? Isn't it still 100% of the votes he won by?

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2987
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2012, 12:17:08 PM »
This cycle the R's lost the governorship in NH because the candidate was a bad messenger for NH libertarian conservatism (he'd be fine in the south.)

Ovide Lamontagne was not a good messenger for libertarians, no.  Maybe, he would have been ok in the South, but I'm not entirely sure.  He is not a very personable guy.  Somewhat socially awkward, in the same manner Romney is.


Ovide lost, mainly, due to being seen (falsely in my opinion) as an "anti-woman" candidate running against a woman.  Hassan seems like an ok choice for governor though, just not my choice.
He would never make it out of a primary in the south IMO, but he could win a general election. He's a bad retail politician and he's genuinely only in it to help (truly sees it as public service), but that's really not enough against effective politicians. What was done to him through negative adds is a joke, but that's the lesson for the next candidate. (Ovide stunk at fund raising so couldn't respond in kind.) I've met him numerous times and know plenty of people who are close to him, but he just isn't a good retail politician. Too bad for NH that he didn't beat Kelly Ayote in the Sen primary of 2010. We'd have Gov Ayote Elect today, and probably Ayote running for Sen in 2014.

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2987
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Re: What's next for GOP?
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2012, 12:26:29 PM »
Trouble is popular vote means nothing, electorally he got pummeled.

President won the popular vote by nearly 5 million. That is a huge margin.

  It's very small by re-election standards. The difference in popular vote (about 4%) was slightly larger than Bush's margin, about half of Clinton's margin and about 1/5 or less of the margin that Reagan, Nixon or LBJ won by.

Whenever I see this on TV and whatnot, I fail to see the significance in those comparisons. Can someone explain it to me like I'm a five year old? Isn't it still 100% of the votes he won by?
These are all re-election margins. I'll explain what I think BBall is saying:

Obama's margin was about 4%. He won 51% and Romney 47.3%. (3.7% to be more precise)

Obama won by slightly larger margin than Bush: Bush 50.7% vs Kerry 48.3 - 2.4% victory for Bush vs 3.7% for Obama.

Clinton's margin was about double (or Obama's was half of Clinton's) so Clinton had about 8% margin over dole (something like 53 to 45 I guess.)

Obama was about 1/5th of the other guys (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan) so they won by 5 times 4% or about 20%.

The reason to use % is the population changes (grows over time) and election turnout (% of eligible voter who actually vote) can vary greatly.

Looking at hard numbers is useful. For example if less people voted for Obama in 2012 than 2008, you could interpret that to mean people are getting sick of him, but just don't like Romney enough to show up. Or if more people vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008, you could interpret that to mean he's converting apathetic and/or republican voters to convert to his cause. These kind of analysis are hard to do at a data level because there is so many variables, so you tend to get the TV blaring some cheesy high level interpretations. Doesn't mean there is no value, just take with grain of salt.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog