From Lincoln to Lincoln: The way home for a wayward G.O.P

[Greyblades]

UKaians? USSRians?

While the former could be the awkward "United-Kingdomers"

We prefer "Britons" thank you very much.

[Montmorency]

Care to explain why You jump at things like these?

You advanced a terribly unwieldy and probably linguistically absurd demonym for "Americans". I suggested "Unionists" as an alternative, and you accused me of, I don't know, geographic self-centeredness. I pointed out that we would be taking first dibs on "Unionist" as a demonym, so you should have no cause for protestation.

Why should I be forced to explain these things? Was it really unclear?

We prefer "Britons" thank you very much.

Apparently...

[Tellos Athenaios]

I just got tired of bringing Canada, Mexico and all of the South American Continent to trial because of stupidity from the USAnians.

If you cannot stand calling them Americans, you could call them Yankees. If they complain about that, simply ask them if they would prefer "Redneck" instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In this thread, OP asks how to reform GOP for future elections, thread gets filled with Europeans telling all the "USAnians" how homogenized we are.

[Sarmatian]

Gay marriage is a popular policy and one that is becoming increasingly popular, particularly in younger demographics. If the GOP doesn't change its stance, and fast, then it will lose any chance it has of winning over younger voters. Doing so will alienate their core voters, however, and that is why they will not change. Any GOP member who is not vociferously anti-gay marriage will not be nominated, period.

This actually doesn't have to happen. Republicans are also, "less government, less regulations, more freedom" etc... and those issues are much more "core" republican values than being against gay marriages. They could vocally express their disagreement with gay marriages but support it because they believe it's not the place of the state to interfere in people lives and tell people how they may live in their household. They could even get points for consistency, as in "look, we're for less regulations and less state meddling even in things we oppose".

It might take some spinning but it would work, and now is the best time to do it. Four years until the next presidential elections and the next democrat candidate will invariably be in the shadow of Obama.

[CountArach]

This actually doesn't have to happen. Republicans are also, "less government, less regulations, more freedom" etc... and those issues are much more "core" republican values than being against gay marriages. They could vocally express their disagreement with gay marriages but support it because they believe it's not the place of the state to interfere in people lives and tell people how they may live in their household. They could even get points for consistency, as in "look, we're for less regulations and less state meddling even in things we oppose".

Theoretically, yes. But in reality? So much of the party's support comes from Evangelical Christians and so many of the party's leaders have made comments to play to this group that switching to "It is a state issue" will seem inconsistent and will ultimately not appease the base, or at the very least will not get them to volunteer in the same way that being vocally opposed or supportive would be. Not only that, but anyone who isn't vocally opposed to these things, particularly in very conservative districts, will ultimately face primary challenges from more conservative candidates who stand every chance of being elected or will ultimately force more money to be spent fighting to protect safe Republican seats. Further, it is entirely based on the idea that these politicians don't genuinely believe that the federal government should legislate against marriage equality.

[Sarmatian]

Further, it is entirely based on the idea that these politicians don't genuinely believe that the federal government should legislate against marriage equality.

Politicians for the most part believe in whatever will get them to power, and the closer they are to gaining power they're more willing to compromise.

It's a great poster issue for the GOP, nevertheless. It's one of those issues that affects only small number of people but attracts a huge amount of media attention, allowing them to talk about change and leave 99% of their (much more important) policies intact. Even better if they launch a new, younger politician to do it and on the plus side, it may bring a total divorce with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

[CountArach]

Politicians for the most part believe in whatever will get them to power, and the closer they are to gaining power they're more willing to compromise.

For the most part, yes, but for something that is so dependent on religion, and is really a gut call rather than something hypothetically empirical like the economy, there is a large extent to which the personal feelings of a politician will come into play. Otherwise there would be no difference between any politician in a given party. The GOP isn't one big happy family, they have factions and internal disagreements just like any other party and they don't always present a unified front. by changing official party policy towards making marriage equality a states issue they risk alienating some parts of their party and that is when things start to go wrong with lots of primaries in safe seats suddenly making things contestable. The Tea Party is the perfect example of how internal rivalries can weaken the party in its safer seats. It is also an example of how a politician's personal beliefs can come into play.

It's a great poster issue for the GOP, nevertheless. It's one of those issues that affects only small number of people but attracts a huge amount of media attention, allowing them to talk about change and leave 99% of their (much more important) policies intact. Even better if they launch a new, younger politician to do it and on the plus side, it may bring a total divorce with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

But who will institute that change? That is the problem here - it requires a fundamental change in the idea of who constitutes the 'base' of the party and that can only come about if the politicians hadn't been put in place by that base. Which they had. Thus they are not going to risk their own political career for a cause they may not believe in which may get them kicked out of office.