According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/
Interesting read, normally Pat Buchanan is so blinded by his conservative ideals he misses the point. This time he does hit it though, the republican party continues to roll out 60yr hardcore conservatives in front of the nation and frankly these don’t appeal to alot of younger voters anymore.
hopefully die and never return.
then a true conservative and libertarian group can emerge.
and then maybe,just maybe we can rid ourselves from this 1 party system.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/ [/quote]
Um… change their redneck politics a little? You can still be a free-market, laissez-faire person without being an ignorant, uneducated religious freak. If Ron Paul was for real and had a little more support from the GOP, he could have won those elections.
[quote]Isis. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/
Um… change their redneck politics a little? You can still be a free-market, laissez-faire person without being an ignorant, uneducated religious freak. If Ron Paul was for real and had a little more support from the GOP, he could have won those elections. [/quote]
I don’t see the blue pool getting excited about free-market principles. Why would I vote for a tax, and governemnt program, cutting free market type, when I don’t pay taxes and still get government services? Which is one of his points.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Interesting read, normally Pat Buchanan is so blinded by his conservative ideals he misses the point. This time he does hit it though, the republican party continues to roll out 60yr hardcore conservatives in front of the nation and frankly these don’t appeal to alot of younger voters anymore.[/quote]
I don’t know, I’d rather see the party die while holding to actual conservative principles. It’s more important to me than winning elections, at least.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isis. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/
Um… change their redneck politics a little? You can still be a free-market, laissez-faire person without being an ignorant, uneducated religious freak. If Ron Paul was for real and had a little more support from the GOP, he could have won those elections.
I don’t see the blue pool getting excited about free-market principles. Why would I vote for a tax, and governemnt program, cutting free market type, when I don’t pay taxes and still get government services? Which is one of his points. [/quote]
Most of the nation did not get excited about the economic situation and the pointless war for oil. That was mainly the reason why many GOP supporters switched to the Dems too. This, coupled with the ‘coservativism’ of Bush, that’s what you get.
There is also a golden rule: anytime, the economy goes bad, the population (regardless of color or gender), swings to the left. People need jobs in order to pay taxes.
[quote]Isis. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Isis. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/
Um… change their redneck politics a little? You can still be a free-market, laissez-faire person without being an ignorant, uneducated religious freak. If Ron Paul was for real and had a little more support from the GOP, he could have won those elections.
I don’t see the blue pool getting excited about free-market principles. Why would I vote for a tax, and governemnt program, cutting free market type, when I don’t pay taxes and still get government services? Which is one of his points.
Most of the nation did not get excited about the economic situation and the pointless war for oil. That was mainly the reason why many GOP supporters switched to the Dems too. This, coupled with the ‘coservativism’ of Bush, that’s what you get.
There is also a golden rule: anytime, the economy goes bad, the population (regardless of color or gender), swings to the left. People need jobs in order to pay taxes.
[/quote]
Ok. What I’m trying to point out is the writer is arguing that it isn’t so much republican voters jumping ship, as it is traditionally Democrat voting demographics outpacing the opposition in growth.
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.[/quote]
I agree with you that their social conservatism is a real turn off. They need to focus on economics and more efficient policy while respecting individual liberties. That said, there is no way that Giuliani was mainstream. That guy was as fanatical and oppressive as any religious nut.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.[/quote]
Do you think Huckabee would have had a chance of winning if he’d won the primaries?
-appeals to religious
-plays bass (appeals to youngsters)
-probably the only one in the entire primaries able to speak as well as, or better than barry
-can connect with people of all classes, and has worked with them
he seems like the perfect canidate for a reaganesque landslide. Not that I agree with him on all the issues though.
I’m lassez-faire, and I think that if I was running for office, I would run as a Democrat instead of a Republican. It is no longer even safe to associate with this group.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.
Do you think Huckabee would have had a chance of winning if he’d won the primaries?
-appeals to religious
-plays bass (appeals to youngsters)
-probably the only one in the entire primaries able to speak as well as, or better than barry
-can connect with people of all classes, and has worked with them
he seems like the perfect canidate for a reaganesque landslide. Not that I agree with him on all the issues though.[/quote]
He would have had a better shot than McCain. Would not be beating Obama post-banking collapse though.
[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.
I agree with you that their social conservatism is a real turn off. They need to focus on economics and more efficient policy while respecting individual liberties. That said, there is no way that Giuliani was mainstream. That guy was as fanatical and oppressive as any religious nut.[/quote]
I don’t mean to say that he was the greatest choice, but Giuliani was a lot closer to the center than Palin was. Consider what happened at the debates. After McCain’s first debate with Obama when they had the follow up it was Giuliani who spoke for the Republican side and did a competent job. If Palin was such a firecracker choice why didn’t she do it? Biden stood up for Obama. It looked really bad that McCains VP wasn’t able to go toe to toe with Obama’s.
Palin was chosen because she could pass the religious test. Otherwise she was not ready for prime time. She was better than Dan Quayle and her balls were bigger than Hillary’s but she wasn’t the greatest choice.
Was McCain leading or something before Palin was chosen?
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.
They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.
The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.
I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.
The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The religious fanaticism of the Republicans creates a situation where there is an entire demographic of voters that cannot identify with them.
The Republicans need to stop being the party of god. They need to instead focus solely on issues that matter to mortal human beings.
Just look at what happened to John McCain. What was good about McCain is he is a centrist, but he had to pick Palin in order to appeal to all the religious nutjobs instead of someone more mainstream like Rudy Giuliani.
Do you think Huckabee would have had a chance of winning if he’d won the primaries?
-appeals to religious
-plays bass (appeals to youngsters)
-probably the only one in the entire primaries able to speak as well as, or better than barry
-can connect with people of all classes, and has worked with them
he seems like the perfect canidate for a reaganesque landslide. Not that I agree with him on all the issues though.[/quote]
In a lot of ways I do like Huckabee, he seems a real decent fellow. One thing that I found delightful about him is that although he is a minister and a Republican he isn’t an insecure Christian who is always trying to increase his god quotient like other Republicans. ie George Bush.
Then again that was his undoing. Because he is a minister and a Republican he is pigeon holed before he has even opened his mouth. There is a whole demographic of people who will just assume that an ordained minister from the party of god is going to be a complete religious nutjob no matter what he says.
That demographic by the way happens to start somewhere around the center, so he loses all the swing voters.
Then there is the side of the Republican party who want an Iranian style electoral system where people are not allowed onto a voting ballot if they have not been approved by the Ayatollahs.
The problem with them is Huckabee wasn’t out there frantically stoking his god quotient with fire and brimstone. Huckabee just wasn’t bringing the competitive piety like a man with his credentials could have.
Competitive piety is the only issue that matters to a lot of Republicans. All Huckabee needed to do to motivate the party faithful is really put it in everyone’s face that his god quotient is higher than anyone elses. He needed to talk from the heart about his god quotient.
But there wasn’t one time that Huckabee came out with a possessed look in his eye, foam coming out of his mouth, screaming at a crowd, “I have more god than anyone!”, “I have so much god that there is none left for anyone else!” “I have so much god that if you don’t put me in the white house god will cast America into the fiery pit of HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!”.
Sadly he never did that. We never really got that sense of possession about him that so many would find reassuring in a man who is in control of the launch codes for Armageddon.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.
They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.
The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.
I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.
The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.[/quote]
Completely agree. Seems to me that power is just cyclical, in that one party will gain a lot of power, get drunk off that power, and then when they’ve gone too far the other side picks up momentum, whether it be Democrat or Republican.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.
They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.
The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.
I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.
The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.[/quote]
You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.
They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.
The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.
I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.
The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.
You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.[/quote]
I’m not ignoring it I’m discounting it as being relevant to the conclusions people are making.
After living through enough election cycles you realize the rhetoric is always the same and so are the predictions.