Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[SentinelMind]

The Conservative Party of Canada made attempts to reach out to ethnic minorities in Canada and has set aside a lot social issues such as debate on gay marriage and focus more on fiscal issues. They are currently the ruling party of Canada, with a majority of members in the House of Commons. Perhaps the GOP should copy other right wing parties in the western World.

According to Canadian Taxpayer Foundation, the national debt is going to grow from 550 billion in 2011 to 600 billion in 2013.

I can't all that excited about trying to become a ruling party when principles are being thrown out the window. I agree with Para in that I'd rather the Democrats just take control if you're going to adopt policies within their paradigm of thinking anyway. If both Dems and GOP merely arguing about how fast the government and national debtwill grow, its a losing war that is not worth fighting.


Short term, that would be a losing strategy for Republicans to abandon the social right as they are still a sizeable minority in the populace. They could still hold onto some gubernatorial elections. Social liberals will always side with Democrats over a watered down Republican Party...and the mutiny by social conservatives will splinter their base.

Even if you think social conservatives are a dying breed, trying to become more libertarian can't capture a populace that is becoming more supportive of welfare, nanny state, and bailouts.
Sure you may put gay marriage and abortion to rest, but a libertarian GOP can't capture a populace that wants bailouts or wants every luxury service funded by insurance mandates. The country is moving gradually towards more centralization of government, police state, and erosion of liberties. I think its waste of time of the GOP to try quickly adapt towards being a lite Dem Party just to win some elections.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think Obama got 73% of the Latino vote which scared the GOP so much they're about to reverse their stance on immigration.

 

[Pink Ranger]

The Conservative Party of Canada made attempts to reach out to ethnic minorities in Canada and has set aside a lot social issues such as debate on gay marriage and focus more on fiscal issues. They are currently the ruling party of Canada, with a majority of members in the House of Commons. Perhaps the GOP should copy other right wing parties in the western World.

It's interesting how the Conservative Party of Canada managed to capitalize on the ethnic minority vote; in some ways, they're doing the opposite of what the Republicans are (and maybe should) be doing. The Conservatives often present a progressive face to white people, saying they've evolved beyond the gay rights issue and the abortion issue, but when they go into ethnic communities, particularly the Chinese, Korean and Sri Lankan communities, then they bring out the social conservative stuff.

Often, individual candidates create print campaign materials specifically in those languages promising to roll back gay rights, etc. Which is ridiculous, because gay rights have been so enshrined in our laws, it would take a fascist military coup to make that happen. They might as well promise us moon colonies.

That stated, I am warming up to the Conservatives slightly: they have done way, way more to stand up for gay rights abroad (like openly denouncing fellow Commonwealth nations in Africa) than the Liberal governments ever did.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

The Republicans thought they'd get the women vote in 2008 when they picked Palin for their VP.

How'd that work out again?

Hispanics, like everyone, care about policy, not the dude in the suit.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think Obama got 73% of the Latino vote which scared the GOP so much they're about to reverse their stance on immigration.

That 73% is definitely a problem, but a good chunk of their base aren't exactly fans of immigrants. So, they're going to have to do a balancing act, and that's hard.

 

[wiegeabo]

You forgot war loving

Conservatives want a big military close to home, liberals want a small military spread all over the world /oldjoke

 

[Raiden]

That 73% is definitely a problem, but a good chunk of their base aren't exactly fans of immigrants. So, they're going to have to do a balancing act, and that's hard.

Any reversal on their anti-immgrant policies will also be perceived as an attempt to try to cater to the Hispanic votes as well. Plus, I doubt the Tea Partiers would support softening the stance on immgration, as well.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The Republicans thought they'd get the women vote in 2008 when they picked Palin for their VP.

How'd that work out again?

Hispanics, like everyone, care about policy, not the dude in the suit.

I think it'd be rather naive to say that doesn't play a part. However big or small a percentage of the population it was, I think it'd foolish to deny African Americans voted for Obama because he was black (or on the flip side that whites didn't vote for him because he was black), or that the Hispanic community wouldn't give their support to a candidate because he was also Hispanic.

That doesn't mean that every Latino would vote for Rubio only because he's a Latino himself (just like obviously not every African American voted for Obama only because he is black), but that element does exist within all demographics.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You keep saying that.

Black people voted for Obama because he was black. Study the poll data. The percentage of blacks who voted for Obama is the same as the percentage who voted for Kerry.

Having said that, not praising Arizona's immigration law, and foregoing racial innuendo (like the Birther stuff) could do a lot for the Republican party's image with minorities.

The question is, will it be enough? And it might put off the base.

I'm going to bite my tongue though, since I'm treading into dangerous waters.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You keep saying that.

Black people voted for Obama because he was black. Study the poll data. The percentage of blacks who voted for Obama is the same as the percentage who voted for Kerry.

What about the raw numbers, however? It is my understanding that the past 2 elections have had much higher African American voter turnout than in elections past.

And I'm also talking about what I see with my very own 2 eyes, and I can't tell you how many times I talked to black people who were supporting Obama off the fact that he was black and they wanted to see a black man in the White House. Hell, one of my good friends said he wanted Herman Cain to win the Republican nomination so that he would be guaranteed a black man in the White House. He didn't care about the policy, he just cared that a black man be President.

I don't claim that one friend is indicative of all black people. But I have noticed a trend, at least in my area, of a very energetic African American voter base because their candidate was black.

Now, I live in a red state, so even with an energetic voter base and high turn out, Obama still got blown out by about 30 points in my state. But from what I have seen with my own 2 eyes, I refuse to deny that the race of the candidates plays a part.

I think that's awesome that we here on the Hype only base the politics on our conscious and are blind to the race of the candidates, and obviously not every African American is going to vote for Obama because he's black (or in the case of this thread, every Latino for Rubio because he's Latino), but I think it's naive to deny its existence.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Did some black people vote for Obama because he was black (he's actual biracial, but I've stopped bothering with that distinction)?

Yes, some did. Would they in his absence have voted for a Republican? All the evidence says no.

Some of that higher voter turn out in 2008 was because Obama is black (historic election and all that). But it's also changing demographics. And what you're seeing now, you can reasonably expect in 2016, if not more blacks turning out to vote.

Latinos aren't a unified group. At least not the way black Americans are (they all share a common history and ancestry).

So, the mere fact that Rubio is Hispanic won't do all that much to sway, let's say Mexican Americans.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Just out of curiosity what state do you live in, Neil?

Anyway I see your point, but I don't think AA voters would have flocked to Herman Cain or another AA conservative if they had won their nomination. There's something deeper there that's harder to nail down than just the guy having the same skin color. The GOP might have to choose between Hispanics or the tea-party. I think they should choose Hispanics. What's the tea-party gonna do, vote for the Dems? They will be disgruntled, but they'll vote for the GOP nominee anyway, pro immigration or not.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Just out of curiosity what state do you live in, Neil?

Anyway I see your point, but I don't think AA voters would have flocked to Herman Cain or another AA conservative if they had won their nomination. There's something deeper there that's harder to nail down than just the guy having the same skin color. The GOP might have to choose between Hispanics or the tea-party. I think they should choose Hispanics. What's the tea-party gonna do, vote for the Dems? They will be disgruntled, but they'll vote for the GOP nominee anyway, pro immigration or not.

A fair point. But if they make that call, the Republicans are really going to have to woo Hispanic voters.

And who do you think will win a wooing contest for Hispanic voters given their respective histories? The Democrats or the Republicans?

The Democrats can woo Hispanics all they like, and their other bases won't care.

 

[warhorse78]

What about the raw numbers, however? It is my understanding that the past 2 elections have had much higher African American voter turnout than in elections past.

And I'm also talking about what I see with my very own 2 eyes, and I can't tell you how many times I talked to black people who were supporting Obama off the fact that he was black and they wanted to see a black man in the White House. Hell, one of my good friends said he wanted Herman Cain to win the Republican nomination so that he would be guaranteed a black man in the White House. He didn't care about the policy, he just cared that a black man be President.

I don't claim that one friend is indicative of all black people. But I have noticed a trend, at least in my area, of a very energetic African American voter base because their candidate was black.

Now, I live in a red state, so even with an energetic voter base and high turn out, Obama still got blown out by about 30 points in my state. But from what I have seen with my own 2 eyes, I refuse to deny that the race of the candidates plays a part.

I think that's awesome that we here on the Hype only base the politics on our conscious and are blind to the race of the candidates, and obviously not every African American is going to vote for Obama because he's black (or in the case of this thread, every Latino for Rubio because he's Latino), but I think it's naive to deny its existence.

Well, if race plays a card, then how come Allen West, who is a black republican, got hardly any black support at all?

 

[Thundercrack85]

At this point the Republican Party's slogan should be,

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Just out of curiosity what state do you live in, Neil?

Anyway I see your point, but I don't think AA voters would have flocked to Herman Cain or another AA conservative if they had won their nomination. There's something deeper there that's harder to nail down than just the guy having the same skin color. The GOP might have to choose between Hispanics or the tea-party. I think they should choose Hispanics. What's the tea-party gonna do, vote for the Dems? They will be disgruntled, but they'll vote for the GOP nominee anyway, pro immigration or not.

I live in Tennessee.

 

[The Overlord]

"They" accused Obama of being a socialist? Who is they? All Republicans??? All Conservatives??? All who disagree with Obama??? Who is they???? THAT is a generalization. The entire GOP called him a "socialist"???? Did anyone say that in their speeches at the RNC? If they did I missed that, or was it the idiots on talk radio????

I agree that the Republican party should look inward, and fix their problems....but calling Obama a "socialist" was not the main problem, or even close to it....good lord.

My point is they directed their frustrations on Obama far too early, to the point that the GOP assumed they didn't have to deal with the internal questions that were plaguing the party. If they can't deal with their internal problems, they were not ready to deal with Obama's problems, yet they seemed to ignore these problems. Fix your own problems before criticizing someone else, the GOP put all their focus on Obama and none on themselves. The GOP put the cart before the horse and paid the price for this willful ignorance of these problems. They should have solved their internal problems before focusing almost entirely on Obama's flaws, not the other way around. Instead they focused entirely on Obama's flaws and even made some stuff up about him, instead of dealing with their own problems. Maybe they should have put their house in order before attacking someone else. If they didn't put their house in order 2008, why should one assume they will do it now?

Again this like an morbid obese man criticizing someone else for being overweight, that man should lose weight before he criticizing anyone else. Lose some weight yourself before criticizing someone else, otherwise the nature of the messenger undercuts the message.

If the GOP had addressed these problems and presented well reasoned criticism of Obama, then perhaps they would be the governing party now. Instead they seemed to often lash out at Obama in frustration and make wild accusations about him, that he was going to create death panels or some such non sense.

According to Canadian Taxpayer Foundation, the national debt is going to grow from 550 billion in 2011 to 600 billion in 2013.

I can't all that excited about trying to become a ruling party when principles are being thrown out the window. I agree with Para in that I'd rather the Democrats just take control if you're going to adopt policies within their paradigm of thinking anyway. If both Dems and GOP merely arguing about how fast the government and national debtwill grow, its a losing war that is not worth fighting.


Short term, that would be a losing strategy for Republicans to abandon the social right as they are still a sizeable minority in the populace. They could still hold onto some gubernatorial elections. Social liberals will always side with Democrats over a watered down Republican Party...and the mutiny by social conservatives will splinter their base.

Even if you think social conservatives are a dying breed, trying to become more libertarian can't capture a populace that is becoming more supportive of welfare, nanny state, and bailouts.
Sure you may put gay marriage and abortion to rest, but a libertarian GOP can't capture a populace that wants bailouts or wants every luxury service funded by insurance mandates. The country is moving gradually towards more centralization of government, police state, and erosion of liberties. I think its waste of time of the GOP to try quickly adapt towards being a lite Dem Party just to win some elections.

And yet Canada has less debt then America does. And who started the trend of moving away from surpluses towards debt in America? America had surpluses in the 90s. Why didn't the GOP reduce debt when they had control of the senate, Congress and White House from 2002 to 2006? Why should anyone assume the GOP will reduce the debt, when they had the chance to do so in the past and didn't take it? What evidence is there that GOP has learned a lesson from their past mistakes and want to change? How can anyone say they want to reduce the size government and still support massive military spending? Military spending is one of 3 big ticket budget items, if the GOP doesn't want to cut that, they have no hope of dealing with the debt and reducing the size of government.

Besides isn't it a huge contradiction to say there should be less government in people's lives and then say the government said get involved in the personal lives lives of two consenting adults? How is that not contradiction, to say the government has no business in the economy, but should be involved in the bed rooms of the nation?

Massive military spending and social conservationism are big government, no matter how you slice it. You can't be favor of those things and still say you support small government, its a contradiction. That's why Ron Paul supports a smaller government then any other member of the GOP, say what you will about him, his values are more consistent then other Republicans.

 

[Excel]

Well, if race plays a card, then how come Allen West, who is a black republican, got hardly any black support at all?

boom

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well, if race plays a card, then how come Allen West, who is a black republican, got hardly any black support at all?

Who is Allen West? Was he on the national ticket? Because it's hard for any demographic to support someone who's not even on the ballot.

 

[Kelly]

Who is Allen West? Was he on the national ticket? Because it's hard for any demographic to support someone who's not even on the ballot.

He was up the incumbent in Florida for the 22nd Congressional District, he was a total *****e as far as his campaign is concerned, I am not surprised that he was defeated, nor am I surprised that he is filing legal action. He lost, and he needs to bow out of politics before he losing any semblance of respect as a veteran.

 

[Kelly]

My point is they directed their frustrations on Obama far too early, to the point that the GOP assumed they didn't have to deal with the internal questions that were plaguing the party. If they can't deal with their internal problems, they were not ready to deal with Obama's problems, yet they seemed to ignore these problems. Fix your own problems before criticizing someone else, the GOP put all their focus on Obama and none on themselves. The GOP put the cart before the horse and paid the price for this willful ignorance of these problems. They should have solved their internal problems before focusing almost entirely on Obama's flaws, not the other way around. Instead they focused entirely on Obama's flaws and even made some stuff up about him, instead of dealing with their own problems. Maybe they should have put their house in order before attacking someone else. If they didn't put their house in order 2008, why should one assume they will do it now?

Again this like an morbid obese man criticizing someone else for being overweight, that man should lose weight before he criticizing anyone else. Lose some weight yourself before criticizing someone else, otherwise the nature of the messenger undercuts the message.

If the GOP had addressed these problems and presented well reasoned criticism of Obama, then perhaps they would be the governing party now. Instead they seemed to often lash out at Obama in frustration and make wild accusations about him, that he was going to create death panels or some such non sense.



And yet Canada has less debt then America does. And who started the trend of moving away from surpluses towards debt in America? America had surpluses in the 90s. Why didn't the GOP reduce debt when they had control of the senate, Congress and White House from 2002 to 2006? Why should anyone assume the GOP will reduce the debt, when they had the chance to do so in the past and didn't take it? What evidence is there that GOP has learned a lesson from their past mistakes and want to change? How can anyone say they want to reduce the size government and still support massive military spending? Military spending is one of 3 big ticket budget items, if the GOP doesn't want to cut that, they have no hope of dealing with the debt and reducing the size of government.

Besides isn't it a huge contradiction to say there should be less government in people's lives and then say the government said get involved in the personal lives lives of two consenting adults? How is that not contradiction, to say the government has no business in the economy, but should be involved in the bed rooms of the nation?

Massive military spending and social conservationism are big government, no matter how you slice it. You can't be favor of those things and still say you support small government, its a contradiction. That's why Ron Paul supports a smaller government then any other member of the GOP, say what you will about him, his values are more consistent then other Republicans.

OK, now that I can agree with....

 

[Darthphere]

Marco Rubio is not very liked by non-Cuban Hispanics down here. I live in Miami by the way. There's even reason to believe he's not that well liked by Cubans.

 

[DACrowe]

I think this article pretty much sums up what has been wrong with the GOP for at least the last four years--I'd argue it goes back to 2002--and why they are in such dire straights politically right now:

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-denial-2012-11/index2.html

Good read.

 

[Excel]

why did the rubio thread get merged

 

[Marx]

I merged it because he is a republican and possibly seen as a major player in the party's future. This thread is about the party and it's future. In the past, the only people that have had their own threads are primary or general election candidates. Rubio is not currently a candidate.