User Tag List

Page 3 of 80 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 798

Thread: The future of the Republican party

  1. #21
    Senior Member Array Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007


    Rolling Stone has a pretty good article on why some Republicans just don't "get it" when it comes to figuring why some demographic groups just don't identify with them.

    Here's an excerpt:

    There's been a lot of hand-wringing among conservatives of the Rush/Hannity school in the last few days, a lot of concern about this outreach question, and honestly, the tone of the discussion is beginning to sound like the last days of a failed 1950s marriage. The husband who's gone all day at work comes home and throws his hands up in the air in mock frustration: what do you want from me, another Cadillac? Another fur coat? I just got you new shoes last week!

    And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen to her, or take a day off work sometime and take her for a drive in the country, or make some spontaneous show of affection, maybe popping home for lunch like in the old days – just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse, because in his very manner of asking her what's wrong, all hubby does is reveal that he thinks of his wife entirely as a nagging, financial parasite who's always on his ass about something.

    Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.

    But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

    It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #22


    my latino friend told me a joke. i used to consider myself republican but than i remembered im not white.

    on a serious note, he would actually be a good poster boy of one, with the social Darwinistic view. *shivering at what might be*

  3. #23


    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    People keep on saying this...but he was the first black president of the United States. In what world was he ever going to lose? Just think about it a bit, he represented a turning's obvious that he'd get as much time as is allowable to prove himself.

    Four more years and he's out...Glenn Beck talking about "buy guns and farm land" is acting like like he'll be the president for life. He won't be...

    People need to take a chill pill...may I suggest moving to Colorado? It's legal there now...
    Glenn Beck is a little extreme in what he suggests, but using welfare policies to deal with the debt isn't going to work. If the last four years are indicative of what's to come, people have good reason to be concerned that Obama won't deal with this. I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept or understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I agree with this for the most part. The extreme social conservatives are going to look at Akin and Mourdock as failures of presentation rather than failures of ideology. If Republicans think getting the white woman vote, alone, can save their party, nationally, they're going to get crushed in 2016. I've heard many Republicans say that the natural place for Hispanics is the Republican party, and that the only thing they need to fix is their immigration policy. I just don't buy it. While most Hispanics are Christian, they're not as socially conservative as whites, as a group (for example, a higher percentage of Hispanics are pro-choice). I think the Republican party is going to have to do quite a bit more than just fix their immigration policy if they want to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election, much less win. They're going to have to moderate on social conservative issues, and I just don't see it happening.
    I've been reading that the reason they think latinos voted for Obama was because he was more lenient about immigration. One would think that those who got into the country fairly would find it appalling that people just sneak in and get as much as them, but maybe not. I guess if I was a latino...I don't know...I don't even know what their communities are like. I'm guessing this implies they are tight-knit. That's the only way I could see this working in Obama's favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I've heard the point made by various sources that one of the most striking things about this election was how strongly things seemed to break down racial lines. Obama's campaign was able to effectively cultivate damn near every demographic that didn't consist of angry white men: Latinos, blacks, women, gays, young people ect. I mean, if voting Democrat becomes as culturally entrenched in the Latino community as it has in the African-American community the spectre of another Republican president becomes fainter all the time.
    Frankly, I'm surprised the Republicans didn't expect this. Obama tries hard to appeal to minorities and he always has. He presents himself as a champion of those who are downtrodden, a 21st century Robin Hood who will bring fairness and justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by gasoline View Post
    if we are going to start with new regulations, how about making it illegal for broadcasting misinformation.
    *sigh* Instead, how about talking about what you feel is misinformation, instead of making a generalization. I don't listen to Glenn Beck, but not everything he said in that video was 'misinformation' and the stuff that we could say was, was more of his prediction/opinion/analysis of the future and what he thinks people should do than something you can disprove or necessarily deny without seeing what happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Here are the unaccountable reasons I've heard from Republicans for why the Republicans lost.

    The problem is that the liberal media fixed it for Obama (patently delusional).
    Fixed, maybe not; but favored him, definitely. I didn't watch NBC or ABC because when I did they wouldn't cover the stuff about Obama that the other networks would, instead focusing on defaming the Republicans, but I remember watching the second debate on youtube (fed courtesy of ABC news). I remember the last question where Romney got a chance to correct any false image people might have about him to the world. You know they fucking put a headline on the bottom of the screen mentioning Romney's 47% comment that he made behind closed doors. And who knows how serious he was about it. People say politically incorrect stuff all the time when they are around people they can trust - it doesn't mean they truly believe it, it's just lazy communication. Kind of how people communicate on here when they use a type to explain people rather than using their behavior to explain a type. And this was from ABC news, mind you. And it was a really scummy thing to do. And they did not do it for Obama.

    The problem is that Mitt Romney was an awful candidate (this doesn't explain the senate, which was the worst area of performance for the Republicans, or address the fact that all of his primary challengers were worse).
    Bullshit. He was an alright candidate for someone who had business qualifications and wasn't really all that conservative.

    The problem is that a lot of the senators were awful candidates (this is said as if systematically producing awful candidates indicates no problem).
    Do people let who runs for Senate effect which President they will vote for? I've never thought about doing that, but it seems strange when you can just not vote for the senator. I don't understand, will you explain for me?

    To actually have a future, Republicans must make a big, concerted effort to stop scaring away blacks, latinos. Romney had a 20% lead amongst whites and managed to lose, and with each year a 20% lead amongst white will translate to fewer votes. Likewise, they should stop scaring women, and to that end they should never bring up sex or female biology again. They managed to lose two, two shoo-in senate seats by bringing those things up. And as it happens, apparently a majority of Americans want higher taxes.
    And throw in a better bobblehead too - preferably a latino american to run for President. I wouldn't mind Marco Rubio. Oh wait, I guess he can't run for President on a I kind of like him. Eh, maybe I can go democrat if they get someone with more reasonable and stable economic policies.

  4. #24


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Rolling Stone has a pretty good article on why some Republicans just don't "get it" when it comes to figuring why some demographic groups just don't identify with them.

    Here's an excerpt:
    The only thing I see wrong with that is that if you take that away and you force the Republicans to be humble about what they are good at, what are you left with? What is there left to flex?

  5. #25
    Freaking Ratchet Array Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    This sums it up nicely. Pluralism and tolerance. As it stands now, I do not consider the Republican party pluralistic, nor do I consider the group really tolerable.

    The ideals of the younger generation:

    The CNN exit poll is very telling, the last 3 presidential elections were even more telling [2000][2004][2008]. Our generation started voting in 2000. Of the three presidential elections, those in the 18-29 range has been more towards democrat. And, that age group has also been consistently democrat while every other group has been about split one way or another. With that said, nationally, ~60% of that age range voted for Obama. That has got to have a sign that the Democrat party is doing something right that the Republican party isn't. And no, it isn't because the Republican party isn't conservative enough.

    Let's look at the swing/battleground states shall we:
    18-29 year olds
    Florida: 66% Obama
    Ohio: 63%
    Colorado: <---- unsure about percentage, most likely similar.
    Nevada: 68%
    North Carolina: 67%
    Iowa: 56%
    Wisconsin: 60%
    New Hampshire: 62%

    In some "solidly" republican states, we see this same idea popping up:
    Arizona: 63% Obama
    Missouri: 58%
    Mississippi: 55%

  6. #26
    Blah Array Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Pluralism and tolerance. As it stands now, I do not consider the Republican pluralistic, nor do I consider the group really tolerable.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #27
    .~ *aĉa virino* ~. Array Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    549 sx/sp
    LII Ni


    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    It depends on the issue, and the extremity of the position: support for gun rights and (to a lesser extent) opposition to abortion in most circumstances have actually increased in recent years, alongside increased support for gay marriage and drug legalization.
    I really agree with you there -- I've seen the same shifts as well in the culture.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #28
    respect the brick Array C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I personally hope the religious nuts and the xenophobes break off to form another party, leaving the Republican with just the moderates.
    The extreme right doesn't need to leave the Republican Party; they practically control it now. They can nominate candidates of their choice for every office except president, and they might get over that hump in 2016. They drove out the moderates, many of whom are now Democrats.

    The big question in my mind is, what will the big money guys do? Will they ever give up on the Republican Party and shift their support to a new party like the GOP but without the tea-baggage? But if they do that, then where will the votes -- and the grass-roots organization, which the conservative churches provide -- come from?

    The GOP might continue to run the same strategy, even though it's been disastrous in presidential and Senate elections, because they did OK in the House elections. There are enough Republicans concentrated in enough congressional districts, thanks to post-2010 gerrymandering, to perhaps hold on to the House for some more cycles. There are enough congresspeople in the Tea Party caucus to play coalition politics with establishment Republicans and force the agenda far to the right. They can't enact anything, but they sure as hell can obstruct. And that might be enough for the big money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Yea except... CA really only has one party. One giant union owned party. It seriously seriously does not matter what color they claim, they are all union owned, and they all do the same things.
    California used to have two viable parties, but Republicans got a big hate-on for Latinos and other minorities and alienated almost all of the latter, putting themselves way on the wrong side of the demographic curve. Which is to say, the California GOP is looking like a leading indicator of the national GOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Rolling Stone has a pretty good article on why some Republicans just don't "get it" when it comes to figuring why some demographic groups just don't identify with them.
    Very good article, but then I've always been a Taibbi fan. I read the article before I read your quote, and the part you quoted is exactly the part that jumped out at me. "Why do those dirty moochers we have nothing but contempt for hate us so?" Heh.

  9. #29
    Freaking Ratchet Array Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yeah, I don't know if the article was posted here, in another thread or not at all. But an article was written that compared the Republican party to a stereotypical husband from the 50's and 60's that just doesn't understand his wife(Democrat.) So the husband gets pissed off without truly understanding the wife when they do have a deeper discussion.

    And the wife just sits there... shaking her head, feeling like she has done everything for the husband to try to understand with no avail. The process repeats, and the husband gets angry again still having no clue what is going on.

    Never-mind, Lateralus posted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    California used to have two viable parties, but Republicans got a big hate-on for Latinos and other minorities and alienated almost all of the latter, putting themselves way on the wrong side of the demographic curve. Which is to say, the California GOP is looking like a leading indicator of the national GOP.
    Not only that, I want all Grover Norquist signers, Howard Jarvis/Karl Rove followers out of this state.

  10. #30
    Meat Tornado Array DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    You guys will pine for the days of our extremism once we've reformed the party.
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so

Similar Threads

  1. Something only a Republican would do...
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-16-2012, 02:39 PM
  2. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Republican? WHY?
    By maliafee in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 374
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 08:15 PM

Posting Permissions

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