Senate The Future of the Republican Party

The right wing media has been ingenious at finding ways to agree with Romney's 47% remark, which, by the way, they really do agree with. Here's my favorite, from National Review Online, Kevin Williamson:

Mitt Romney was right: You can’t use tax cuts to buy off people who are net recipients of tax transfers.

See how easy it is to say it more elegantly?

 

fun numerology aside: in white supremacist circles 88 is a special number because H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and HH stands for Heil Hitler. 8-18 would be Heil Romney i dunno do with that what you will

meanwhile, in The Base:

 

My mother was a high school teacher in Alabama when Kennedy was assassinated. She said that when news of the assassination was announced over the school's intercom, a good percentage of the students applauded and/or cheered. What do you think would happen today? I think the teachers and school administrators would join in.

 

Rogue, I'll admit I just skimmed your post to get the gist of it, but my immediate question to you is how does everything you just posted fare for the democratic party moving forward?

The problem for the democrats is that in the upcoming years A.O. (after Obama), the democratic party is just about an elitist, old white man's club as the GOP is. That's the baggage that Obama has always fostered on the democratic party as a whole. Obama, has an extremely effective, razor sharp personal brand. But it doesn't really carry over to any other democratic candidate. Let's hypothetically say Obama was out of the picture. Would hispanic voters still flock to a Biden/Edwards ticket? Black voters certainly wouldn't. How about Mike Gravel? Chris Dodd? Harry Reid? Andrew Cuomo? Jerry Brown? Is the answer to break the glass and bring out Hillary Clinton to run again? Let's say that Kerry had won in 2004. What would happen if Kerry had been the President from 2004-2012, and this current election was a "fresh" one for both parties? By all accounts, Kerry was more wealthy, more white and more elite than Romney. The problem with using race as the sole metric for the success or failure of a candidate is that it doesn't make any allowances as to who the best candidate would be, it just illustrates who voted for someone because of the color of their skin.

The trap that the democrats haven't yet acknowledged is that for 4 years now (which will be a total of 8) the party has put all their eggs in a single basket, that basket being Obama. Obama =/= the democratic party. There is real folly to assume that once Obama's second term is up, that his personal charisma is going to carry over. In fact, there is a very real possibility that the GOP has a huge leg up moving forward because the party has had to operate against Obama. On the flip side, it would also be safe to say that Obama may have damaged the brand of any other democratic candidate alternative in comparison.

 

There's a meaningful difference between an old white man and an old white woman. First, old white women live longer. A 69-year-old president Hillary Clinton is going to have no problem making it through two terms. The Clinton brand has been fully rehabilitated now, both hers and her husband's side. She is a big reason for the president's current popularity. She's the best secretary of state we've had in decades. She will have absolutely no problem bringing along the Obama coalition, and will take even more white women votes away from the GOP.

If she runs. Otherwise I agree. There's no one else. If Biden needs to be talked out of running by walling him up in a room with an iron mask over his face, then so be it.

 

after 8 years of bush and 4 years of the tea party, Otherized americans (ethnic minorities, working women, gays) know exactly who has the most disdain for them. honestly, democrats arent much better and i didnt vote for obama for that reason. but im describing demographic perceptions here, and im telling you these people know the republicans are not for them. i wish they'd see the democrats aren't much better but that's a ways off i think

 

Yeah, but all I'm saying is that at some point, you (the collective you, not you specifically) have to move on. The "8 years of Bush" card was old when it was played during this campaign. Obama used it a bit to a marginal effect, but in 2016, no one is going to be able to run on a "but we had 8 years of Bush..." platform.

As for Clinton, I'm not sure. That would come out during the campaign of course, but yeah, I guess I would agree that Hillary Clinton has the greatest chance of capturing some Obama-esque charisma, but no one else has a similar halo. But a general appeal is not really what I meant. I was thinking in terms of strict minority identity. I think Marco Rubio has a good shot at being the GOP nominee for 2016. Rubio, of course, is Hispanic. Could Rubio make a more effective case for the success of Hispanic voters than Clinton could, or would Clinton take a page from her husband and try to be the first "Hispanic President," which would be just as insulting as when Bill Clinton used it?

 

the "eight years of bush" have continued relevance because they have been extended and escalated by the tea party in terms of the racism and overall hostility to minorities that they represent

we dont say the roman empire was irrelevant because it ended nearly 2000 years ago, because we can trace its influence up to the present day

 

marco rubio wont make it through the primaries, braheemi

 

Neal Boortz augments his screed against the social conservatives from yesterday.

Link

 

Well, my point isn't to discuss specific what if's/opinions for an election 4 years away, but to set broader questions and illustrations.

 

If only Benghazi ( aka "exploiting a tragedy for political gain" ) had been discussed more? Was that even possible?

 

im pretty sure boortz just covered almost everything that the conservatives i know care about. why should they vote for a republican party that doesnt represent their perceived interests, nonsensical and manufactured though those interests may be? and the republican party manufactured the narratives that created those interests in the first place so they can hardly complain now that they've partitioned themselves into an ever-decreasing, whitebread corner

 

My post was a direct response to why you brought Kucinich up. You are, quite factually, wrong. He remained "as a candidate" for the same House district he had always represented. This is the first key difference I tried to highlight. Akin did not remain in his House district, but ran to represent a broader region where his views were incompatible. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I must again stress it was not just Akin's rape comments that were rejected. His overall views about abortion as government policy also enjoy much more widespread support within the Republican Party than Kucinich's ideas ever have for Democrats. It doesn't make any sense to compare these two. At all.

 

The idea that Kucinich's views are particularly extreme or at all offensive is hilarious.

Akin thinks that pregnant women who say they were raped are lying ****s, Kucinich thinks there should be a Department of Peace. Yeah, same thing.

Lowbacca edit: Can't use that word

 

Now that Even has pretty much put the nails in that coffin, let me turn to one other issue.

You asked what Democrats would do when Obama was out of office, and whether minorities would still be so overwhelmingly supportive of him. Let's explore that a bit. Throughout the last few years, a number of conservative commentators and posters right here on the boards quite regularly pointed out that Latinos were left disaffected by Obama's failure to attempt immigration reform. In major Spanish language interviews, he was grilled heavily about his insufficiency in these respects. The idea that the Hispanic vote was some how driven by love for Obama's personal brand is sort of ludicrous, in light of this. They weren't necessarily running towards him. They were running away from the toxic, racist rhetoric of the Republican Party as embodied in their lionization of people like Joe Arpaio and Kris Kobach. Likewise, yes, African-American voters have had a unique affinity for Barack Obama. But there is also a deep antipathy towards a Republican Party that spent the last four years flirting with racist Birtherism as they hunted for other ways to attack the President. Why would any of these groups ever vote in sizable numbers to a political organization that has been so incredibly hostile to them? That perception--and, let's be frank here, that reality--has to change or else minorities will vote for Democrats in droves whether Obama is the candidate or it's a piece of white bread with the crusts trimmed off.

 

"liked" for "piece of white bread with the crusts trimmed off"

 

the old white men should auto-suicide by specialized machine (if they design and build this machine themselves, all the better). then whoever is left needs to bring in some of them "my norritys".

 

flare?

 

sure they can use a flare i guess. i don't think that's a particularly effective method, though. those things are kind of unpredictable. it could just as easily take out one of them "my norritys" by mistake. i would be much more interested in seeing a complex machine constructed. the more complex, the better.

 

And that's enough of that. Let's continue this at the level that Jabba-wocky left off with

 

I agree with what Darth Guy and Jabba-wocky have said, regarding both Kucinich versus Akin and on the GOP alienating minorities/women based on ideology & policy not because of Obama's personal appeal.






In other news:
*Hannity now support amnesty for illegal immigrants
*Herman Cain says the party should allow more pro-choice candidates.







As for 2016 candidates for the Democrats that appeal to the same broad audience as Obama... as I said, above all, Democrats are winning these groups because of their policy, ideology, and tone. And I think the best candidates to continue the winning "Obama coalition" in 2016 are:

*Hillary Clinton​

*Brian Schweitzer​

*Deval Patrick​

*Joe Biden (though I don't think he'll be the nominee)​

*Amy Klobuchar (though I don't think she'll run, especially if Hillary runs)​

*Kirsten Gillibrand (though I don't think she'll run, especially if Hillary runs)​

*John Hickenlooper (though I don't think he'll run)​

*Tim Kaine (though I don't think he'll run)​

(in 2020 and beyond... Cory Booker, Julian Castro)​

​

​

​

Now, what possible 2016 candidates could expand the Electoral College map for the Republicans by 3 or more states?? Particularly by appealing better than Romney to Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, the White Working Class, and Generation Y??

*Jeb Bush? He's a political dinosaur now, his wife doesn't want him to run, and he probably won't run.​

*Chris Christie? Maybe he could do better among the White Working Class in the Midwest and the Virginia/NorthCarolina area... maybe. But he'd face hell in the primaries.​

*Nikki Haley? I don't know, but she isn't doing so well as Governor right now.​

*Condi Rice? Won't run. Has never run for elected office before.​

*Bobby Jindal? I don't see him appealing to any of the swing states, or the demographics mentioned above.​

*Susana Martinez? Possible... if she runs, and the next 4 years go well for her.​

*Bob McDonnell? Would alienate Women and Generation Y. Not that appealing to Hispanics, or any states beyond Virginia and possibly North Carolina.​

*Rand Paul? Joke who thinks he's serious.​

*Mike Pence? Hardly won for Governor of Indiana. Might help among White Working Class and Midwest... but you need more than that to win. Would alienate Generation Y. Nothing that appealing to Women or Hispanics either.​

*Brian Sandoval? Hispanic, from the Southwest. But he's pro-choice, and I honestly don't think the GOP would let that slide by '16.​

*Rick Santorum? No.​

*Scott Walker? Doesn't seem like he's the presidential type. May help in Midwest, but that's not enough. Not that appealing beyond white working class.​

*Rob Portman? Doesn't seem the presidential type. Might help in Ohio, but that's not enough. Not that appealing beyond white working class.​

*John Thune? Probably would rather become Senate Majority Leader. Same as Walker, Portman, and Pence.​

*Paul Ryan? I think he's highly damaged now, nationwide general electorate especially but also among the base. Didn't help Romney at all. Really doesn't appeal to any swing states or the demographics I mentioned.​

*Marco Rubio? Possible to appeal more to Hispanics, and possibly Generation Y. He may decide '16 isn't the time for him. Also, Hispanics aren't a single voting bloc, Mexican-Americans vote differently and have less in common with Cuban-Americans. Finally, like I said above, it's the policy/ideology of the GOP that's hurting them the most. As it stands, Rubio opposes the DREAM Act. It's not a given that he'd win the Hispanics over.​

Lastly, on Kucinich, skimming over his 2008 platform right now, the differences between him and Obama on policy (not the crazy personal stuff like UFO's and general suitability for higher office) are:

*Kucinich wants single-payer healthcare​

*Kucinich wants free college education​

*Kucinich wants to withdraw from WTO and NAFTA​

*Kucinich wants full repeal of the PATRIOT Act​

*Kucinich wants to abolish the Death Penalty​

*Kucinich wants to end the War on Drugs​

*Kucinich wants to lower the Drinking age to 18​

*Kucinich wants to lower the Voting age to 16​

*Kucinich wants strict Gun Control​

*Kucinich wants to create a "Department of Peace"​

Honestly, with today's voting population, only the last one on the Department of Peace is really "fringe."

Now, I don't agree with strict gun control, and don't think that would go over well with the general public. I also don't agree on withdrawing from WTO/NAFTA. But I don't think those are fringe positions, there's still a good chunk of Democrats that agree with strict gun control... and there's Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans that agree with more protectionist trade.

As for the rest, in the USA of 2012... single-payer healthcare, free college education, repealing PATRIOT Act, abolishing the Death Penalty, ending the War on Drugs, and even lowering the voting/drinking ages aren't really fringe positions. Some of them may be highly unlikely, like free college education, but they're not fringe.

 

Well said. Furthermore in that vein, it's time for the GOP establishment to ostracize Rush Limbaugh

 

Of course, the crux of the argument wasn't "who was more fringe, Akin or Kucinich," it was that how could someone like Kucinich, not suitable at the national level, in one party get excused as an individual on one hand, but then on the other, a similar example suddenly become more than an single person, and represents his entire party? Remember, Akin has been a Representative for over 10 years because, like Kucinich, he does have other views and he served his district. And up until his comments this campaign, he was well on the way to being re-elected. His stupid comments on rape defined this re-election, but it's not he came out of nowhere, this was he first election, and he ran around yelling about rape... or that it was even a platform of his party.