Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 423
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,448
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    Unless the vast majority of Republican party primary voters change their stances on a whole host of issues, neither Paul nor anyone else with similar views will ever come close to the nomination. That was true in 2008, it's true now, and it will be true next time around.
    LOt of truth here. The reason the GOP has the positions on social issues is their voters have those positions. Republicans are not Libertarians. They have issues they agree on, but their voters believe in different things. Ron Paul didn't win the primary because most GOP voters didn't agree with his positions. Until he changes or they change, the new Paulite candidate won't win the nomination either.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,108
    vCash
    1500
    Rand Paul 2016

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,706
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    FWIW, I agree with much of what you say here. What chance do you think that any of it actually happens? How do you get the social conservatives to stop running the train without chasing them off to a third party?

    The thing I disagree with you about is the Romney campaign. Given the social issues/immigration, it seemed Romney did a real nice job of attracting moderates and undecideds. I don't see a true conservative doing any better next time around.
    The honest answer I don't know. I was listening to Greg Garrison this morning on WIBC (figure being from Indy you will know who I am talking about) and he had someone on who said that the GOP needs to close their primaries. I don't know if they are open or not but if they are that is true they do need to close them. Just as the Democrats need to do the same to avoid idiotic moves like Rush's operation chaos during the 2008 midterms.

    Beyond that I don't know if the Republican party can move past its outdated line of thinking on social issues. They are going to lose every time until they figure out that they are just wrong on most of them. That is personally why I refuse to call myself a Republican because I disagree with most all of their social positions.

    The problem with the Romney campaign is he let Obama beat him up early over idiotic things like his tax returns that he ended up releasing anyway. Romney was more or less unknown to the general electorate and let Obama define who he was without putting up much of any type of rebuttal. When you let the opposition paint you as some sort of monster its hard to overcome that first impression.

    With how negative of a campaign Obama ran its going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out moving forward. With much of the same House there is going to have to be a LOT of compromise from both sides. How quick the Republicans are to do so after such a bitter campaign remains to be seen.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,706
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    LOt of truth here. The reason the GOP has the positions on social issues is their voters have those positions. Republicans are not Libertarians. They have issues they agree on, but their voters believe in different things. Ron Paul didn't win the primary because most GOP voters didn't agree with his positions. Until he changes or they change, the new Paulite candidate won't win the nomination either.
    Ron Paul had absolutely no chance in hell of winning the Republican primary nor the election had he won. His views are far too outside the mainstream of a majority of American's to win. It's just that his fan base is very rabid.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,519
    vCash
    1500
    I certainly don't think its GTFO-level. But they need to adapt and quick. Because demographics are turning quickly on them and they could implode on themselves if their not careful.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,567
    vCash
    5471

    ewing

    Quote Originally Posted by Halladay View Post
    The republicans seem to be decades behind the rest of the world IMO. Look at the rest of the West, all these things they still defend are ancient history in other countries. The bubble is a strange phenomena. The fact that health care is still being debated is ridiculous.


    Why is it ridiculous? America is a pretty healthy nation
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,234
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    First I am going to admit to not having read this thread so if I repeat things already said you know why.

    First I disagree that the GOP is dead because of this one election. We are pretty much right where we started out on Monday with the President/Senate under D control and House under R. So in that regard it looks like to me the country voted for status quo. Granted the districts all just got redrawn with a majority of state legislatures being Republican. That in of itself is going to keep the GOP in charge of the House for the foreseeable future.

    Obama was very vulnerable to losing with a still very weak economy the problem for the GOP is they ran a HORRIBLE group for President. When you start the conversation of nominees with Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry you're not going to get very far. They needed to do a much better job of getting a more qualified candidates to run for office. I am a HUGE Mitch Daniels fan and think he would have handily beaten Obama last night.

    Second I agree with the few posts I have read that the GOP has a huge issue with their social issues. They are the ones who allowed women's rights to become an issue. If it hadn't been for Santorum and his statement about outlawing contraception (or whatever it was) you would have never heard of Sandra Fluke. If the two idiots from MO and IN hadn't made moronic statements about rape/pregnancy there would be two more R Senators. The GOP candidates need to learn to shut their mouth and whether they believe it or not never say stupid things like that. They just need to realize they aren't going to do away with abortion and need to drop it from the platform. If that pisses off the social conservatives so be it they aren't winning with them anyway.

    And lastly they need to embrace a constructive path to citizenship. As long as they are seen as anti brown immigrant they are going to be kept out of power. That means they need to run out of town much of the establishment old white men. Karl Rove simply needs to go away.

    So I think its premature to right their death certificate. Though certainly hope this wakes the powers that be up to realize they need to desperately change things on social issues and get out of the 50's mindset.
    I may disagree with you often but I agree with pretty much all of this and think it was well-stated. The problem is really more political for Republicans than ideological. Their coalition is no longer viable so they need to change at the margins to be more inclusive. Their ideas (the moderate ones at least) are still good. Market-based solutions with government as a restrained but strong and effective remedy to market distortions.

    I think going forward the GOP should consider rebranding itself in a similar way on the issue of military spending/war efforts. The chest-beating crowd is already Republican for life anyway so there's no reason to pander there. Plus, the GOP actually has a better record for restraining our foreign policy excesses than the Democrats (not in the last 30 years, but it's not like the Democrats have been particularly scintillating in the last 30 either). Stronger and leaner military force is what we should strive for, and rooting out the corruption that has enveloped the defense industry. They could also brand themselves as the party for privacy rights in the digital age. Both of these issues are going to be big going forward, and I don't see the GOP doing this in the next cycle but it seems ripe for politicking.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,567
    vCash
    5471

    ewing

    I blaming the base for not reproducing at same rate as these minorities. Romany's Mormon buddies seem to be the only ones taking their jobs seriously
    Last edited by ewing; 11-07-2012 at 11:22 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,706
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    I may disagree with you often but I agree with pretty much all of this and think it was well-stated. The problem is really more political for Republicans than ideological. Their coalition is no longer viable so they need to change at the margins to be more inclusive. Their ideas (the moderate ones at least) are still good. Market-based solutions with government as a restrained but strong and effective remedy to market distortions.

    I think going forward the GOP should consider rebranding itself in a similar way on the issue of military spending/war efforts. The chest-beating crowd is already Republican for life anyway so there's no reason to pander there. Plus, the GOP actually has a better record for restraining our foreign policy excesses than the Democrats (not in the last 30 years, but it's not like the Democrats have been particularly scintillating in the last 30 either). Stronger and leaner military force is what we should strive for, and rooting out the corruption that has enveloped the defense industry. They could also brand themselves as the party for privacy rights in the digital age. Both of these issues are going to be big going forward, and I don't see the GOP doing this in the next cycle but it seems ripe for politicking.
    I agree a lot with your first paragraph. Fiscal conservatism in my opinion is an absolute winning argument. Nobody R or D wants huge deficits. Though that is never what is talked about its always all about the moronic social views. Once those views are brought more in line with modern thought you will see a dramatic resurgence of the GOP brand. That is the reason I think pretty much all of the current establishment of the GOP needs to go away and quickly.

    If they can go about rebranding themselves in the next two years you will see a move in Congress further toward them. If they don't and keep the same tired platforms the move will be in the other direction. So instead of it being a near death sentence its more in my view a cross roads. Which path are they going to take? One leads to further diminishment of their role. The other leads to a more prominent role.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,519
    vCash
    1500
    I think the argument that the Republicans are done for as a party is obviously disproven by the fact that they hold the House by roughly the same amount they did before. When broken down regionally (as the House is) there is still a chunk of the country that will vote for the GOP. But nationally, they are going to see problems as higher population areas shift to the Democrats.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    There is something really annoying about a bunch of Democrats lecturing Republicans on what needs to change about the Republican party.

    It just seems like passive aggressive gloating.

    It's like when your team loses a playoff series, and fans of the other team start giving false praise. "You guys are right there, you just need a more consistent bench."

    At a certain point it needs to be pointed out that Obama barely got over 50% of the popular vote, and Republicans still held the House. A lot of those swing states were ridiculously close.
    Last edited by gcoll; 11-07-2012 at 11:27 AM.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,234
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    There is something really annoying about a bunch of Democrats lecturing Republicans on what needs to change about the Republican party.

    It just seems like passive aggressive gloating.

    It's like when your team loses a playoff series, and fans of the other team start giving false praise. "You guys are right there, you just need a more consistent bench."

    At a certain point it needs to be pointed out that Obama barely got over 50% of the popular vote, and Republicans still held the House. A lot of those swing states were ridiculously close.
    Well I am registered D but it hasn't always been that way and I don't particularly care for either party. Nevertheless, my second paragraph was more about what I want either party to do and I don't think the Democrats are going to do it. Since it really jives with historically Republican ideas to be less interventionist, more realist in foreign policy, cut useless spending on the military, and champion civil liberties (debatable, but neither party has a great record) I am hopeful it's the party that does need to do something to get away from this extreme rightwing stuff.

    As for the closeness of the election, this was probably the most winnable election versus an incumbent since Ford. I think that's more why it's such a disappointment than anything.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Well I am registered D but it hasn't always been that way and I don't particularly care for either party. Nevertheless, my second paragraph was more about what I want either party to do and I don't think the Democrats are going to do it. Since it really jives with historically Republican ideas to be less interventionist, more realist in foreign policy, cut useless spending on the military, and champion civil liberties (debatable, but neither party has a great record) I am hopeful it's the party that does need to do something to get away from this extreme rightwing stuff.

    As for the closeness of the election, this was probably the most winnable election versus an incumbent since Ford. I think that's more why it's such a disappointment than anything.
    Bush in 04 was a pretty weak candidate. The Democrats just came up with an incredibly weak field. Howard Dean and John Kerry? Come on.

    And if the Republican party becomes more libertarian, you'll get no complaints from me. But libertarianism is much less popular than republicanism. If you come out as a pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization, pro cuts to military spending AND social spending, you basically alienate every group of voters.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts
    10,023
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    Why is reading becoming such a lost art?

    sir, Bush/Gore wasnt the first time that has happened.
    My rationale has NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULAR VOTE CAUSING THE CHANGE.PLEASE READ CARFULLY.

    IF Teaxas goes blue, then CA, Ny and texas would form a block of Democratic electoral college votes that would be nearly undefeatable.

    those three states are 122 electoral votes, right off the bat.
    Republicans would never win the white house again.

    It MUST go to the popular vote otherwise there will be civil unrest.
    While not impossible, I think this is highly unlikely.

    What I think will actually happen is a party-wide shift towards the center. As political parties move away from the center, they start losing voters. As they move towards the center, they gain voters back. The Republican party has gotten too far to the right (see platform on abortion, religion, guns, taxes, military spending, gay marraige). If they want to win, which they do, they will have to give ground on some of these issues to get more votes.

    Right now, they are losing women, minorities, and gays. If they give these groups some lifelines, they will get some of their votes. If (and I can't see thm doing this) the Republicans decide they want to be completely stubborn and not cave on any of these issues, then they will continue to lose.

    And actually, I'm not convinced the Republicans have moved to the right. It seems to me like the Republicans have stayed firm for awhile now in their platform while the contry has moved left (and the Democrats have moved with it). Either way though, the Repubican party is too far from center to win elections right now.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    5,169
    vCash
    1500
    You know something is wrong with your party when your strategy is to hope that less people vote.
    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    - Arthur Schopenauer

Page 7 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •