The Republican Long Game

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know but I would say the long game of the RNC would be to try and convince everyone they are some how Moderate Conservative [/quote]

All that does is allow the center to get pulled further left.

The long game needs to include the opposite of what you are implying. We need (both parties) to bring the center back to the actual center. Right now “center” is a solid democrat a couple decades ago.

“Moderate conservatives” have brought us such wonders as the Patriot Act. They need to go away with the progressives. [/quote]

You have to look at reality . the left is were center used to be and the right is out in the boonies[/quote]

What the hell part of Arizona do you live in? That state is as red as it can get. Is there like a gay, liberal red light district in Phoenix?[/quote]

I think you underestimate how many non natives live there now. Lots of snowbirds from northern states.

Out of 1.6 million votes the split was less than 200k. Huge as far as getting electoral votes, but not in the overall assessment of demographics.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This thread is moot if Obama wins tonight, and that looks to be certain.

If you can’t beat Obama, just give up. Blow up the party and give the fuck up.

All hail comrade O-Bam[/quote]

I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. [/quote]

How does this differ from what most libertarians are espousing?

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Yes but this is not a thread about the Dems long game. I would love to see the reps win over California but it’s a tough road.

James[/quote]

lol dude, you guys passed prop 30 right?

Never happening. The neo-progressive mindset has set in strong there. (Not that mass is much different, but we do just fine with 5.3 flat income tax and 6.25 sales tax)

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This thread is moot if Obama wins tonight, and that looks to be certain.

If you can’t beat Obama, just give up. Blow up the party and give the fuck up.

All hail comrade O-Bam[/quote]

I think that the big reason that Obama is beating Romney is because of social issues. More and more people, especially young people, are socially liberal, and younger people are just going to continue to replace older voters. I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. The problem with this is that I believe that many Republicans and conservatives in general care more about social issues as well and will not compromise on this.[/quote]

I don’t give people that much credit. Obama won because he’s more dynamic and appealing. The people who decide elections scarcely pay attention between them, they’re watching American Idol and trying to get laid on face book.
The people who are into politics already knew who they were voting for long before this election. It’s why the midterms often fare so differently, these so-called independents, who I call people who don’t pay attention in between, turn up for the presidential races.

Romney did an admirable job, but he couldn’t get people fired up. He fared way better than I thought he would actually.

This is why I thought Santorum was a better choice. He’s a good speaker, he’s passionate and he can get people fired up. Romney is gracious and polite and seemingly kind, but against an incumbent fire breather like obama, he needed more.

It’s scary how much people pay attention to personality. In the early days, Jefferson would have never won a popular election. It’s not that he wasn’t brilliant, it’s that he was quite and reserved. Spent most his time in the Continental Congress just hanging back and taking notes saying very little.

4 years ago, I was at this party, it was an older people party, I was the youngest there. You’d think they’d have a brain, but I over heard this conversation and I am not lying when I quote it the lady said:
‘Have you heard the way obama speaks? He just talks so nice! I am going to vote for him, I just like the way he speaks.’
Me? I walked away. I rarely talk politics outside the forum, and I sure couldn’t take that stupidity. At least agree with him or take his side on the issues.
The other lady’s take was:
‘We’re from Boston, and we vote democrat. That’s what Bostonians do. My parents vote democrat, I vote democrat.’

If you don’t think the above isn’t prevalent in the north east, you have no idea. I am not going to say they are all like that, but there is a lot of that traditionalism attitude. You root for the Red Sox and you vote democrat, and you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

A total absence of thought.

[quote]pat wrote:

The other lady’s take was:
‘We’re from Boston, and we vote democrat. That’s what Bostonians do. My parents vote democrat, I vote democrat.’

If you don’t think the above isn’t prevalent in the north east, you have no idea. I am not going to say they are all like that, but there is a lot of that traditionalism attitude. You root for the Red Sox and you vote democrat, and you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

A total absence of thought.[/quote]

This is very true, lol. Good lord, haha

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The other lady’s take was:
‘We’re from Boston, and we vote democrat. That’s what Bostonians do. My parents vote democrat, I vote democrat.’

If you don’t think the above isn’t prevalent in the north east, you have no idea. I am not going to say they are all like that, but there is a lot of that traditionalism attitude. You root for the Red Sox and you vote democrat, and you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

A total absence of thought.[/quote]

This is very true, lol. Good lord, haha[/quote]

I will third this. Only 3hrs north of Boston I’ve heard those same exact words this cycle, last cycle, and the cycle before.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This thread is moot if Obama wins tonight, and that looks to be certain.

If you can’t beat Obama, just give up. Blow up the party and give the fuck up.

All hail comrade O-Bam[/quote]

I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. [/quote]

How does this differ from what most libertarians are espousing?
[/quote]

Interestingly the libertarian party has no chance of winning but the Republican party has a high chance of winning by taking their ideas. With how close the election was last night all it takes is stealing a few percentage points from the other side. Most younger people are uneducated on economic and foreign views so imagine how much of a difference it would make it both parties were equal on social views and democrat was not the default choice.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This thread is moot if Obama wins tonight, and that looks to be certain.

If you can’t beat Obama, just give up. Blow up the party and give the fuck up.

All hail comrade O-Bam[/quote]

I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. [/quote]

How does this differ from what most libertarians are espousing?
[/quote]

Interestingly the libertarian party has no chance of winning but the Republican party has a high chance of winning by taking their ideas. With how close the election was last night all it takes is stealing a few percentage points from the other side. Most younger people are uneducated on economic and foreign views so imagine how much of a difference it would make it both parties were equal on social views and democrat was not the default choice.[/quote]

Then there would be no need for two parties. You have a party that supports abominable practices and detests morality. So just be a demcrate and problem solved.

Well, as for the long Democrat’s long game, it’s going to be interesting.

As I’ve said, everyone knows we’re quickly approaching a financial cliff.

“Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That?s it. Every other national priority ? education, transportation, even national security ? will have to be paid for with borrowed money.”

–Obama, George Washington University speech

I’m one Conservative who has questioned our defense spending. Still, any cuts would be largely symbolic. Tax the rich more? Fine, but it won’t make a dent. Again, completely symbolic. Middle income earners will be called to pay their ‘fair’ share, eventually. Yet, it won’t be enough. Not by a long shot. It’s entitlement spending. The Republicans have been successfully vilified on this issue by a party that hasn’t even presented cuts and reforms. People understand something isn’t right. Unfortunately a lot of them believe the problem is fraud and waste. Fraud and waste is a fraction of the problem. Structural problems combined with an aging demographic, a shrinking tax base, and the gutting of the most basic traditional local institutions (the traditional family primarily) is the problem.

So, now that the Democratic party governs–and, I think they will govern for some time–they will most likely be sitting at the head of power when the entittlement state’s accountants, trustees, and actuaries say, “No more. Finished. Done. No more road to kick the can down.” They’ve been warning us for some time now.

That will be an interesting time.

On the tax side, they will have to tell the American people that the rich alone can’t put more skin into the game, instead everyone is going to have to pony up. Middle income earners especially. Tax base will have to expand. There’s going to be a lot people wondering how they got ensnared along with the rich. And still, it won’t be enough. So, on the entitlement side the Democrats will have to turn to the American people and inform them that reforms are going to happen, and that in many cases benefits will be markedly cut/phased out/restricted. That some functions have to go back to the states (who’ll be going bankrupt themselves in a lot of cases), or even privatized.

There isn’t enough wealth in this country to tax. There isn’t enough money to be saved from military spending and ‘waste and fraud.’ Eventually the fix, if there is a fix, will be heavy on spending cuts. And it’s going to be interesting to see the Democrats telling the American people that they will have to do considerably more. That they will need to be more self-reliant, depend more on themselves, and pay considerably more. All the while the government does considerably less with what it offers. And they will have to sell this message to people whose traditional private safety net, the intact family, has been largely abandoned. They will have to sell this message to those folks. Less for more. Good luck.

And they will have to do this because very soon there will be no more road left to kick the can down.

Or, they could just argue that the reason government is failing is because it doesn’t have enough power.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
that has pushed me FURTHER to the left in recent years, so much to the point I finally decided to become politcally active.

I just don’t see this as a good strategy.
[/quote]

Based on the depth of your arguments, love for stale talking points and inability to apparently do math; you weren’t pushed, you fit perfectly with the statists.

But anyway, this thread isn’t about you.[/quote]

Stale talking points? LOL I was offering my thoughts on why I have such a distaste for the modern Republican party. Are you denying that Republicans are imeding the conversation on global warming solutions? You can’t have solutions unless you acknowledge that something even exists!!!

Birtherism is a talking point? 51% of republicans interviewed in primary exit polls subscribed to the idea. Does that not warrant consideration?

Inability to do math? That would be very determinental to my career seeing as how I am an engineer and all. What “math” did I even bring up in my posting that is debatable? The fact that contractors take a far bigger slice of the budget pie than civil servants ever will? I would love to debate you on that, but you are likely unarmed to have that conversation with me.

This isn’t about me? LOL well the thread is about how the Republicans can regroup and actually be relevant in a national election again. That old white man vote is dwindling and minorities are rising. If the Republicans want to have a shot in the next election, they are going to have to make some dramatic overhauls to pull more people into their party or get their base excited to vote.

Its good that you have no interest in actually discussing the things I brought up though man. Typical T-Nation PWI shit. Not that I’m surprised its coming from you.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I was offering my thoughts on why I have such a distaste for the modern Republican party. [/quote]

Correct, which is why your talking points are stale. The thread isn’t “why republicans suck”.

Your tone makes your post just… well talking points.

Climate change is an issue, sure. Is it man made? Can we prove that? Can we change it?

Is there anything we, America, can really do about it? 300 million out of what 7 billion people? I don’t know.

Will “solutions” pushed by the government be as effective as those developed by the market? I don’t know.

Is it possible to make your point without blame and vitrol tone in your posts? (This is where your comments become talking points.)

Exit polls are by and large unreliable. Trying to claim these people make up a large portion of the party is like saying the open communists and socialist make up a large part of the Democratic party.

Also, no it doesn’t warrent consideration anyway. It is irrelevant. Obama is an American. This is trival nonsense that will only live on because the left won’t let it go. This has no bearing on the long game at all.

It is more the math you left out.

Your assuming here. Enjoy that.

I sure would like to discuss them, just not given the tone of your posts between last night and today.

I like your gloating edit from last night. :wink:

Prefering to have a discussion?

[quote] Not that I’m surprised its coming from you.

[/quote]

right, anywho…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This thread is moot if Obama wins tonight, and that looks to be certain.

If you can’t beat Obama, just give up. Blow up the party and give the fuck up.

All hail comrade O-Bam[/quote]

I think that the big reason that Obama is beating Romney is because of social issues. More and more people, especially young people, are socially liberal, and younger people are just going to continue to replace older voters. I think that if the Republicans can produce a candidate that supports social issues that are important to young people and keeps religious views to a minimum, while staying with conservative views on economic and foreign policy as well as the idea of smaller government, then they could win 2016 in a massive landslide. The problem with this is that I believe that many Republicans and conservatives in general care more about social issues as well and will not compromise on this.[/quote]

I don’t give people that much credit. Obama won because he’s more dynamic and appealing. The people who decide elections scarcely pay attention between them, they’re watching American Idol and trying to get laid on face book.
The people who are into politics already knew who they were voting for long before this election. It’s why the midterms often fare so differently, these so-called independents, who I call people who don’t pay attention in between, turn up for the presidential races.

Romney did an admirable job, but he couldn’t get people fired up. He fared way better than I thought he would actually.

This is why I thought Santorum was a better choice. He’s a good speaker, he’s passionate and he can get people fired up. Romney is gracious and polite and seemingly kind, but against an incumbent fire breather like obama, he needed more.

It’s scary how much people pay attention to personality. In the early days, Jefferson would have never won a popular election. It’s not that he wasn’t brilliant, it’s that he was quite and reserved. Spent most his time in the Continental Congress just hanging back and taking notes saying very little.

4 years ago, I was at this party, it was an older people party, I was the youngest there. You’d think they’d have a brain, but I over heard this conversation and I am not lying when I quote it the lady said:
‘Have you heard the way obama speaks? He just talks so nice! I am going to vote for him, I just like the way he speaks.’
Me? I walked away. I rarely talk politics outside the forum, and I sure couldn’t take that stupidity. At least agree with him or take his side on the issues.
The other lady’s take was:
‘We’re from Boston, and we vote democrat. That’s what Bostonians do. My parents vote democrat, I vote democrat.’

If you don’t think the above isn’t prevalent in the north east, you have no idea. I am not going to say they are all like that, but there is a lot of that traditionalism attitude. You root for the Red Sox and you vote democrat, and you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

A total absence of thought.[/quote]

Good post and solid analysis. Though, I think Santorum would have gotten positively trounced.

I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.

Also there should be a big review of how all that super pac money was spent -more should have been done to save Romney’s back when he was being attacked and lessons should be learned from how well the kenyan’s team got democrat voters so well mobilised

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.
[/quote]

The stupidest post of the week and one of the most un-American I’ve ever seen on this website. “My people lost so I think we should fuck the country?” This kind of bitter idiocy is a disgrace to democracy. If you can’t take losses at the polls, move to China.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.
[/quote]

The stupidest post of the week and one of the most un-American I’ve ever seen on this website. “My people lost so I think we should fuck the country?” This kind of bitter idiocy is a disgrace to democracy. If you can’t take losses at the polls, move to China.
[/quote]

So you’re suggesting the House which is obligated by the Constitution to initiate all federal spending bills MUST sacrifice its conservative principles and give Bam what he wants, i.e., more spending and more taxes?[/quote]

Come on Push you know he didn’t say that. I’m quite certain taht you can infer that he means everyone needs to compromise.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.
[/quote]

The stupidest post of the week and one of the most un-American I’ve ever seen on this website. “My people lost so I think we should fuck the country?” This kind of bitter idiocy is a disgrace to democracy. If you can’t take losses at the polls, move to China.
[/quote]

So you’re suggesting the House which is obligated by the Constitution to initiate all federal spending bills MUST sacrifice its conservative principles and give Bam what he wants, i.e., more spending and more taxes?[/quote]

Come on Push you know he didn’t say that. I’m quite certain taht you can infer that he means everyone needs to compromise.
[/quote]

Because AHA was some great compromise?

Why should the house compromise when Democrats would not on arguably the most important legislation passed in the last decade?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.
[/quote]

The stupidest post of the week and one of the most un-American I’ve ever seen on this website. “My people lost so I think we should fuck the country?” This kind of bitter idiocy is a disgrace to democracy. If you can’t take losses at the polls, move to China.
[/quote]

Nope, our deficit is getting ridiculous. The markets tumbled today, something drastic has to be done.

I was even pleasantly suprised to hear Howard Dean say this yesterday… “the fiscal cliff is the responsible thing to do…it’s the best of a bunch of very bad alternatives”

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Why should the house compromise
[/quote]

Because the alternative will likely be another recession.