REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rebuilding the GOP: Can Republicans pitch a bigger tent?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, November 26, 2012 07:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 726
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

With a rainbow coalition of voters propelling President Obama to a decisive Electoral College victory in which all but one battleground state turned blue, election night 2012 was a wake-up call for many Republicans. Now, the GOP is beginning to delve into a long and likely divisive period of self-examination over what it can do to right itself with a rapidly changing America.

The consensus among many top Republican strategists and politicos, from Karl Rove to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to Sen. Marco Rubio is this: If the GOP can't rebuild a foundation more welcoming to key subsets of the electorate, it runs the risk of being shut out of the White House for good.

"Our party needs to realize that it's too old and too white and too male, and it needs to figure out how to catch up with the demographics of the country before it's too late," Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, told Politico after the election. "Our party [has] a lot of work to do if we expect to be competitive in the near future."

If the goal is straightforward, however, the course is anything but. How does the GOP bridge that waning demographic gap exposed by the election and recalibrate its message to a changing electorate? How does it preach change to a staunch base of party faithful? How does it embrace a more colorful coalition of voters without alienating its fundamental values or its base? These are the difficult – and divisive – questions that the Republican Party will be grappling with for years to come.

But grapple it must, warns Republican strategist Ford O'Connell, "or else [it will be] wiped off the electoral map."

That process begins with diagnosing what, exactly, went wrong Nov. 6. Many party activists interpret the election's close split in popular vote as evidence that the fundamentals of the party are solid. These individuals, including Rush Limbaugh and tea party activist Matt Kibbe, say the problem was the candidate, not the party. If anything, they say, the GOP must become more conservative.

"We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America's founding principles," Tea Party Patriots cofounder Jenny Beth Martin told The Dallas Morning News shortly after the election. "What we got was a weak, moderate candidate, handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment."

Citing the roughly 51 percent to 49 percent split in popular vote, Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak says Mitt Romney's loss was not a repudiation of conservative ideals, but a cautionary tale about superior Democratic campaigning.

"Conservatives don't feel like conservatism lost. Conservatives feel like they nominated another establishment, moderate nominee and came up short," he says.

That line of reasoning is self-destructive, says John Hudak, an analyst in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"People who think it was Mitt Romney's fault that Republicans lost and not the Republican brand don't have a full grip on demographic realities," Mr. Hudak says. "If they don't settle on the idea that they have a demographic problem, they will be demographically barred from controlling the White House."Excerpts from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/1121/Rebuilding-the-GOP-Can
-Republicans-pitch-a-bigger-tent


There is much more to the article, and I think it's right on target. This is particular is very telling:
Quote:

Consider the numbers: The president won Latinos 71 percent to 27 percent, Asians 73 percent to 26 percent, gays and lesbians 77 percent to 23 percent, and blacks 93 percent to 6 percent. Single women gave 68 percent of their vote to Mr. Obama and voters under age 30 gave him 60 percent of their vote. All are growing sectors of the electorate.

Given Romney won the white vote 59 percent to 39 percent, and that's the best a GOP nominee has done among whites since 1988, that's not very promising, as it's the one sector of the electorate that is shrinking. Just take Latinos; projections are that they will make up 30 percent of the population by 2050.

Then there are the social issues:
Quote:

"The GOP cannot continue to engage in fire-and-brimstone rhetoric with respect to social issues," O'Connell says. "The GOP mantra for the past decade has generally been, 'Our way or the highway.'...

The suggestion is that they "just stop talking" about social issues...not that they change their stance, mind you, just that they stop talking about it!
Quote:

"I don't know necessarily that [the party] needs to change principles as much as it needs to change the way it communicates. We have a communication problem on social issues," he says. "[We need to] figure out how to better communicate, package, and sell our policies."

In other words, lie to the people! It worked great in 2010 by using the mantra "jobs, jobs, jobs", while in reality what they did after getting elected was focus on virtually everything BUT jbos. In my view, while that may work for a while, eventually their ACTIONS will cease to fool anyone.

On the other hand, if they actually DO leave the social issues behind, maybe that would work:
Quote:

"A well-reinvented Republican Party has to be the party of fiscal responsibility and fiscal pragmatism, and it needs to get away from social issues entirely.... Social issues will go the way of women's suffrage – no one's going to care about it. But we're always going to have economic problems. We're always going to have periods of recession in a cyclical capitalist economy. Brand yourself as an economic policy party and you do well."

But if they leave the social issues behind, what happens to their base?
Quote:

"That's their challenge," Hudak says. "Tiptoeing through a mine field."

I don't see how they maintain their most fervent base, which IS focused on social issues (and I don't see that changing), by becoming more moderate on those issues. It would require an actual moderation of their POSITIONS, which would lose them their base--or would their base continue to support them as the only alternative to progressives? It's a conundrum.

I definitely want at least a viable two-party system, but the way it is now, the right is becoming increasingly less relevant; does this mean there needs to be a third party, an actual fiscally-conservative party which has little or no interest in social issues? Seems to me that would take a long time, with Republicans split between two parties and unable to gain a majority for a long time. I don't like that idea.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:39 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Republicans don't need a bigger tent, they just need candidates who can win because of their enormous established popularity base ...

1. Porn Stars
2. Kardashians
3. Vampires
4. Zombies
5. Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders
6. Reverse Mortgage Pitchmen
7. American Idols
8. Sopranos Crew
9. Batman Villians
10. Flo from Progressive

* some of those categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive


Give any of 'em a little campaign coaching, and you got yourself an election victory.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:49 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Naw, no chance.
If they fell asleep on their backs, the biggest tent the R's could pitch when they woke up is only 2 inches tall.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 26, 2012 4:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ouch, Jong. Is there ANYONE in the current Republican party you could back, or even approve of? What do YOU think they should/could do to become viable again?

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 26, 2012 5:49 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Ouch, Jong. Is there ANYONE in the current Republican party you could back, or even approve of?


No.

Quote:

What do YOU think they should/could do to become viable again?

That would take way too long for me to get into. I could solve world hunger and the mysteries of the universe in less time.








"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."

Benjamin Franklin

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 26, 2012 6:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Double ouch. Do you think it could ever break up into one party focused on fiscal conservatism and uninterested in social issues? Seems to me the "social issues" conservatives would eventually move over there as the only alternative to progressives. To me, if it did, tho' it would take an awfully long time, it would make for a viable party and one which could work to make our government/country better. Or is that just wishful thinking?

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 26, 2012 6:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW


The Democrats have the majority position on just about everything now. They have successfully tapped into popular culture, the new morality, and the progressive press; as well as the rise of political power of minority groups. On a national level the Republican Party is dead. The RNC Platform is dead. It's no longer relevant or sellable in America. Once they accept those painful facts, there's a chance that some of the big money boys might urge the reforms necessary to clean up the rotting carcass mess, but I really don't foresee that future. I see more of the same, leading to the inevitable loss of the House, and Presidential losses at least through 2024.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 26, 2012 7:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Triple ouch! Well, I hope you're wrong and "the big money boys [DO] urge the reforms necessary to clean up the rotting carcass mess". I don't like to think of any one party having that much power for that long. Of course, with GOP power in the House or Senate, maybe it can be kept under control. Dunno, we'll have to see...

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Tue, November 5, 2024 18:54 - 4521 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Tue, November 5, 2024 18:25 - 68 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:35 - 4677 posts
Election fraud.
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:19 - 39 posts
Multiculturalism
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:16 - 53 posts
Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
Tue, November 5, 2024 17:12 - 248 posts
Elon Musk
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:57 - 32 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:55 - 40 posts
What kind of superpower could China be?
Tue, November 5, 2024 16:02 - 54 posts
End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)
Tue, November 5, 2024 14:18 - 56 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:53 - 76 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Tue, November 5, 2024 13:47 - 639 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL