The Next Step for the GOP

While the race is not over yet between Obama and Romney, the forecasts seem to put Romney behind by a considerable margin. Whether this will change after the debates starting tonight remains to be seen. But if we take as a given that Romney will lose, the question of "where do the GOP go from here" seems to be important.

Due to the changing demographics of the US, a party cannot win based off of white voters anymore. It is still possible for this election perhaps, but by 2016, this strategy looks to be done for. As such, both the Democrats and the GOP have been noticeably catering to latino voters who are for the most part independents that tend to vote Democratic but can be persuaded to vote Republican under the right circumstances. This is because a large population of latino voters according to the stats are very religious, mostly Catholic if I remember correctly. African Americans also have a large religious constituency, but for other (some obvious) reasons are unlikely to switch over to Republicans.

The GOP seems to be making a smart decision in how they are expanding their ranks. By catering to latino culture and religiosity, mostly through social issues the GOP could once again become the dominant party by going in the direction of being even more religious based. Because of this, does it seem given that Marco Rubio will become the next GOP candidate? Predicting this early seems stupid, but then again everyone seemed to have their money on Romney being next in line mere months after election day, 2008.

Other demographics are also up for grabs it seems, I heard an NPR report that talked about Asian-American communities being very undecided on who they feel most aligned with.

I read a lot of idiots online talking about how with the defeat of Romney, the GOP structure will come crashing down like a deck of cards. But the GOP has plenty of able candidates with many strengths to promote, and there is a lot of unexplored territory when it comes to this new era of multicultural American politics. The defeat of Romney, if it happens will not be the killing blow for the GOP in my opinion, but simply the end of a tactic that has served the party well over the past 30 years. The GOP reinvented themselves quite rapidly after Nixon, I do not doubt that they can do it again.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I guess I could clarify, the GOP efforts seem to be mostly concentrated on local and some state levels. The current batch of GOP candidates on the Federal level as well as certain states like Arizona still primarily cater to the scared white people that want a border wall to feel safe.

The margin is considerable in the College of Electors, but much closer across the board. Voting history over the last few elections make it obvious that some of the polls showing a nine or ten point margin for Obama in Ohio and Florida are skewed. However, it does seem likely that a smaller margin is breaking toward Obama and Obama does not need a 10% win to claim all of a given states electors, only half plus one of those voting.

I think the GOP is losing ground with much of the non-Cuban Latino vote. However, a 65-35 split against is far easier to work on than the 91-9 split among Americans of African descent. More important still is the split that favors Dems among women.

Reaching these groups is doable, moreover. Too much of the Dem side treats these blocs as large single issue blocs -- immigration and abortion respectively -- and a careful program that does NOT treat them as monoliths and works to show how the GOP message connects to the many varied values they hold can work.

I think the vast majority of voters who arent voting for Romney are turned off by the GOPs social conservatism. I think if they went more centrist then it would be much easier for them to win. Its hard to be seen as a "small government" party when you also advocate policies that increase government's involvement in citizen's private lives. Like gay marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The margin is considerable in the College of Electors, but much closer across the board. Voting history over the last few elections make it obvious that some of the polls showing a nine or ten point margin for Obama in Ohio and Florida are skewed. However, it does seem likely that a smaller margin is breaking toward Obama and Obama does not need a 10% win to claim all of a given states electors, only half plus one of those voting.

I think the GOP is losing ground with much of the non-Cuban Latino vote. However, a 65-35 split against is far easier to work on than the 91-9 split among Americans of African descent. More important still is the split that favors Dems among women.

Reaching these groups is doable, moreover. Too much of the Dem side treats these blocs as large single issue blocs -- immigration and abortion respectively -- and a careful program that does NOT treat them as monoliths and works to show how the GOP message connects to the many varied values they hold can work.

---

Dunno: if you want to position yourself as a credible alternative for those who vote Democrat out of need (them being the lesser evil) more than conviction you would need to lose a lot of the GOP talking points. Fast. This ranges from pretty much every social issue to quite a few budget issues and perhaps even to conduct when in office. I.e. it might help not to block the budget over sheer stubbornness on your part. At least it might help if you were not perceived as such.

But then again doing that is sure to annoy the socially conservative (Christian) and the US-armed-forces-flag-waving conservative voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I think the vast majority of voters who arent voting for Romney are turned off by the GOPs social conservatism. I think if they went more centrist then it would be much easier for them to win. Its hard to be seen as a "small government" party when you also advocate policies that increase government's involvement in citizen's private lives. Like gay marriage.

---

GOP needs to move towards Ron Paul's fiscal and social stances. Not fully embrace them, but definitely move in that direction.

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

But the GOP has plenty of able candidates with many strengths to promote, and there is a lot of unexplored territory when it comes to this new era of multicultural American politics.

---

Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.

Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint. ~:rolleyes:

---

There are plenty of up and coming Republican members from Congress and state Governor positions that decided to sit out on this election cycle for whatever reason. Marco Rubio and Chris Christie comes to mind. If Romney loses this one, just look out for a lot of mayors and governors to come out of the woodworks.

Chris Christie will never be elected because he is too fatzor. The best thing he could do for his chances is to go on The Biggest Loser or something, or maybe prove that "its my thyroid!". We have not had an obese president in going on 100 years I believe. You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, yes. I've been saying this for years. Unfortunately, there's too much cognitive dissonance amongst conservative leadership these days. "Freedom" to a neo-con is selective, and doesn't mean the same thing as what normal, rational human beings consider "Freedom."

:creep:

---

The meaning of a term like "freedom" changes from person to person. Two persons can look at the same phenomenon, with one calling it freedom, the other doesn't. And the funny thing is that they're both right of course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Chris Christie will never be elected because he is too fatzor. The best thing he could do for his chances is to go on The Biggest Loser or something, or maybe prove that "its my thyroid!". We have not had an obese president in going on 100 years I believe. You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

---

I lol'd. You may be right. But nevertheless I forgot to mention Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty might run again, John Thune and some others I may be missing out on. With Ron Paul finally retreating out of politics, Rand Paul may be taking up the crusade, in which case the Libertarian movement in the GOP now has a younger, more legitimate figure to rally behind and expand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

You lose credibility in telling people how to live their lives when you cannot see your own penis.

---

Whatevs, MRD, I am now and always will be a Taft man.

https://i.imgur.com/kqvZO.jpg

"He was fat, but he had the frame that carries weight with an effect of majesty, of the sort that primitive men, and even modern men in the average, like to see in their kings and leaders."

Ah....true gravitas. Or was that gravitational field?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Much will depend on how the House and Senate fall out. I'm usually for gridlock, but I think it's time the GOP gets marginalized on all fronts for a while. The inmates are running the asylum.


Not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Romney is the candidate mainly because all of his opposition were unelectable loons. 2016 is going to be interesting, I'm pretty sure the candidates from both sides are going to disappoint. ~:rolleyes:

---

Romney is the candidate because he is currently polling nearly half of the electorate. If he is so weak, other, stronger candidates would have faced him in the primaries. Don't delude yourself into believing this line of BS. He's got strong minuses but even stronger pluses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Romney is the candidate because he is currently polling nearly half of the electorate. If he is so weak, other, stronger candidates would have faced him in the primaries. Don't delude yourself into believing this line of BS. He's got strong minuses but even stronger pluses.

---

My point was that other, stronger candidates don't exist. And with respect to his current polling, Romney is running against a "failed" President who is quite frankly running a very poor campaign. If Romney was all that, he would be 5-10 points ahead. Weak economy, blatant lack of leadership, and no enthusiasm from the opposition base, and he's only almost level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

My point was that other, stronger candidates don't exist...

---

Oh, they exist. They just chose to sit this one out. There are plenty of top level republicans that could sweep this election in a landslide, but they didn't even bother participating in the primaries.

That makes no sense. If these strong GOP candidates exist, why would they sit 2012 out? You have a weak Democrat incumbent and a field of loons + Romney. If Romney pulls this off, these mythical candidates are sidelined until 2020.

Romney has money and a relatively sane record of executive experience, so he had the advantage. The base will probably never trust him since he is a flip-flopping Mormon elected by the People's Republic of Massachusetts, but they will vote for him against Obama. But who else out there could have challenged Mitt in the primaries, and still be electable by the general population?

You only get 8 years to create a record for posterity. Better someone else sorts out the mess the country is in and takes all the difficult decisions regarding the national deficit and wastage on medical care for example.

Then when there is no incumbent and things have improved that's the time to reap the reward from the work of others.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Because they were too busy being corrupt pork-mongers to stand on a platform.

---

The plenthora of evidence that you presented speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Right, so you deny that our republican-dominated Congress is covered in Pork? What country have you been living in? Not a bill gets passed that isn't full of pork.

---

Since when was I talking about congress? I was talking about republicans with a realistic shot to be president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Who come from Congress, Governorships, and sometimes state legislature.

---

So why are you tying them exclusively to Congress then?

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Since when was I talking about congress? I was talking about republicans with a realistic shot to be president.

---

Names then, please. And omit those tainted by their associations with the fundies and wackier fringe tea party types, the GOP has done a remarkable job poisoning potential candidates in this manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Names then, please. And omit those tainted by their associations with the fundies and wackier fringe tea party types, the GOP has done a remarkable job poisoning potential candidates in this manner.

---

Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, just to name a few. Eventually, I hope Rick Snyder joins the club as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

But everyone knows the GOP is a weak party. Why else try to rig elections and institute voting restrictions? They're desperate, dying, and need to go.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Jeb Bush? Really? The guy who presided over the biggest election scandal in modern history?

---

There was no scandal. George Bush won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't even...

---

Good.

Trolls trolling trolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Trolls trolling trolls.

---

Hey there! What's the news from Mother Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, just to name a few. Eventually, I hope Rick Snyder joins the club as well.

---

Mitch: The man who underbid the Iraq war by an order of magnitude? With links to Big Pharma? That would have been fun.
Jeb: Just no. The damage done by his brother is too fresh in our minds. As much as I like 41, his sons are not his strong point.
Chris: Like MRD said, no chance unless he hit the Weight Watchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Mitch: The man who underbid the Iraq war by an order of magnitude? With links to Big Pharma? That would have been fun.

---

Iraq war was a miscalculation by many people on many levels. Mitch is hardly unique in that sense. He is however a damn good governor.

Quote:

---

Jeb: Just no. The damage done by his brother is too fresh in our minds. As much as I like 41, his sons are not his strong point.

---

Jeb is not his brother. He is a smart and articulate guy with a very good record of his governorship.

Quote:

---

Chris: Like MRD said, no chance unless he hit the Weight Watchers.

---

This is not a serious argument. He's not too fat to run New Jersey, he should be good enough to run the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

This is not a serious argument. He's not too fat to run New Jersey, he should be good enough to run the nation.

---

Is he too fat to run the nation? No. Is he too fat to get elected? :yes: Image counts, we like our Presidents tall, thin, and distinguished, not Bobby Baccalieri look-alikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Is he too fat to run the nation? No. Is he too fat to get elected? :yes: Image counts, we like our Presidents tall, thin, and distinguished, not Bobby Baccalieri look-alikes.

---

He wasn't too fat to become a governor of NJ. If he's good at what he does (and he is), people will overlook his flaw. Everyone is allowed to have one flaw. Obama is a commie, Romney is a liar, McCain is old, Clinton was(is?) a womanizer, Bush 43 was an idiot. The list can go on and on. If anything, Christie's weight doesn't look so bad.

Also, Christie would just reinforce the "all Americans are fat" stereotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Also, Christie would just reinforce the "all Americans are fat" stereotype.

---

Who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Who cares?

---

Not sure, but if the answer is "a few thousand mugwumps in Ohio and Florida" then Christie comes up a cropper in a general election. Both states are important in the college and both are often decided by fewer than 50k worth of votes.

Obama is NOT a commie. He is a left-wing, big government, democratic semi-socialist. In Europe, his politics would probably be viewed as no more than mildly left of center and, I suspect, there would be more than a few who'd label him a tad on the conservative side by European standards. A communist? Not hardly.

Florida in 2k was decided by a very small margin, Gelcube, but subsequent recounts done by media outlets confirmed that the votes were slightly in Bush's favor. On the other hand, if even 25% of the fruit-bat left who voted for the Greens (Nader) in that election had held their noses long enough to pull a lever for Al "the internal combustion engine is evil" Gore, then Gore would have been President and W would have returned to baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Not sure, but if the answer is "a few thousand mugwumps in Ohio and Florida" then Christie comes up a cropper in a general election. Both states are important in the college and both are often decided by fewer than 50k worth of votes.

---

Exactly, if. Speculation can run wild, but to dismiss Christie solely because of his weight is silly imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Exactly, if. Speculation can run wild, but to dismiss Christie solely because of his weight is silly imho.

---

Granted. On the other hand, sizism is one of the "acceptable" bigotries -- more so even then religion bashing -- so it may well be that it would harm Christie's chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Granted. On the other hand, sizism is one of the "acceptable" bigotries -- more so even then religion bashing -- so it may well be that it would harm Christie's chances.

---

It's certainly a disadvantage, but a surmountable one. He's a political heavyweight either way.

All I know is I want to see the next American President travelling around the world meeting national leaders on a mobility scooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

All I know is I want to see the next American President travelling around the world meeting national leaders on a mobility scooter.

---

Maybe they could get the Popemobile on the cheap seeing as Benny isnt using it much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Maybe they could get the Popemobile on the cheap seeing as Benny isnt using it much

---

Well they would have to paint it red white and blue, always wanted to do that myself.

But srsly I now have this image in my thread of Honey Boo Boo becoming the First Lady...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Well they would have to paint it red white and blue, always wanted to do that myself.

But srsly I now have this image in my thread of Honey Boo Boo becoming the First Lady...

---

goes and googles this boo boo person and cops that we must be living in the last days of the roman empire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

All I know is I want to see the next American President travelling around the world meeting national leaders on a mobility scooter.

---

Somehow I'm reminded of the Baron Harkonnen from Lynch' Dune movie...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Somehow I'm reminded of the Baron Harkonnen from Lynch' Dune movie...

---

:laugh4:

The spice must flow

Just because a fat guy got elected by New Jersey is no proof he is electable anywhere else but in states full of dysfunctional beach people.

I mean, did I just seriously read the arguments that if a guy can run, or get elected in, New Jersey, that he can run a nation?

This country will not elect an obese president ever again. We are too shallow in terms of image, and the government, whether dems or repubs run, is too much of a big nanny big brother, and we will be damned if a guy whose naval is deeped than his index finger is going to tell us we cannot smoke, drink, get high or buy hookers. Not going to happen. EVER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Hey there! What's the news from Mother Russia?

---

People watching scantily clad girls vandalize property and cause civil disturbances while the government is trying to find ways to prevent people from forced to work until they are in their 100s while maintaining a high standard of living. Same as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Maybe, maybe not. So much of the evidence was destroyed or mishandled. :shrug:

But you know what? I never liked Gore much anyway. The Bush Administration could have been something entirely different, if 9/11 hadn't prompted them (and everyone else) to jump over the deep end. If a Republican candidate (looking at you Mitt) would come out and say something like "Yo, don't judge us by Bush. The wars were a costly mistake that destroyed our economy and ruined an entire generation, but because of them you never got to see us at our best. Sorry for that, we'll be smarter next time" then I'd be quite moved.

---

Why does a man have to apologize for another mans actions (who by the way not everyone reviles as much as you). I think you have the issue if you think that's a necessity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

goes and googles this boo boo person and cops that we must be living in the last days of the roman empire

---

...That's real?

Oh, dear god, I thought that was just something south park came up with.

Oh god.

I need to lie down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

People watching scantily clad girls vandalize property and cause civil disturbances...

---

One of those girls is really cute. They should let her go.

Quote:

---

while the government is trying to find ways to prevent people from forced to work until they are in their 100s while maintaining a high standard of living. Same as usual.

---

Don't they have a saying in Russia about this? Something along the lines of people pretending to work and the government pretending to pay them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hold the party accountable, that's what I'm saying. Bush was not the architect of the wars, the REPUBLICAN PARTY was. Lack of party accountability is our biggest problem.

---

But that also isn't true. Large numbers of the Democrats voted for the wars as well. And don't say the CIA with the WMD thing. Try to remember post 911 patriotism; everybody was running around screaming hooah like they were in black hawk down. The Wars were a group effort and the democrats have had time to get out if they wanted. Plenty of the republicans would probably kick and scream if we withdrew but others would probably just be glad to get out of there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

But that also isn't true. Large numbers of the Democrats voted for the wars as well. And don't say the CIA with the WMD thing. Try to remember post 911 patriotism; everybody was running around screaming hooah like they were in black hawk down. The Wars were a group effort and the democrats have had time to get out if they wanted. Plenty of the republicans would probably kick and scream if we withdrew but others would probably just be glad to get out of there.

---

I think your assessment is correct for the Afghanistan war, but I believe the post 9/11 patriotism had subsided by 2003 when the Bush Administration pushed false info to get enough support to invade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I think your assessment is correct for the Afghanistan war, but I believe the post 9/11 patriotism had subsided by 2003 when the Bush Administration pushed false info to get enough support to invade.

---

There is a difference between knowingly peddling false information so as to deceive and succumbing yourself to bad information through poor analysis. The former cannot be proven, though the latter demonstrably has been.

I wish it had been articulated from day one what the goals were/are in the WoT. It is pretty clear but has never been acknowledged. Should have been stated as part of a proposed DofW and then either done to the hilt or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Would you agree, then, that we should end the practice of committing troops to war zones without a formal declaration of war from Congress?

---

In general, yes. I believe that there is a place for quick executive response in an emergency -- even the War Powers act which attempted to curtail Presidential deployment by fiat acknowledges this -- but longer or more substantial deployments of ANY kind should require the "advice and consent" and any effort at true war-making should be done under a specific declaration of war (or at least a formal approval for the use of armed force) SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED by Congress. The legislative "dipsy-doo" that essentially gave Bush a blank check to attack and fight by fiat without additional oversight was grossly negligent by Congress. I know it wasn't impeachable on their parts, but it felt cheap and irresponsible. I am still annoyed by their willingness to simply hand that most critical of powers reserved to the legislative branch over to the executive simply so that they could avoid the political responsibility of authorizing conflict. If it is important enough to kill people, then have the gonads to vote on it and make your support known. Jeanette Rankin had more frimping courage than the whole lot of them combined.