A theory- Why the GOP is doomed in the short term but not in the long.

[Leoreth]

Historically speaking, the US has always been a "split" country. If people want a third party, then now is the time. I doubt there will ever be a single minded country though, no matter how nebulous a democratic society thinks they can be.

Being "split" is just the way of things ... there are millions of people with different perspectives and interests, and parties will always change their platforms to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So, R's, keep fighting gays, immigrants, and women's individual freedom and let me know how that works out for you all in the future. Modern society is nowhere near you, and your minor appeal fiscally is being drowned out.

It's like you don't want me to hate you or something. j/k

But this paragraph about sums it up from me as well.

The things is that even I, as a liberal, don't want Republicans to just roll over and become liberal. We need a conservative party with strong ideals as a proper balance in our politics.

The problem they face is that when they start from the position:
*No abortion even for rape victims*
You get candidates who wind up talking about legitimate rape and blow their chances.

First off, that position is not where the vast majority of Americans are at. Secondly, just having that position as your starting point in the conversation inevitably attracts the kind of nutso right wing old white guys who are going to come out and say 'some women rape so easy' or 'in my day you just put an aspirin between your knees'.

That position is doomed to fail from the outset, and it wasn't even the official Republican platform until the 2012 convention.

The same can be said over the basic economic premise of the Republican party, which can be summed up neatly in a few blurbs:
*Make Obama a one term president by refusing any deals on taxes, entitlements or jobs*
*Let's cut taxes more*
*Let's claim we can cut taxes and balance the budget without giving evidence*

Again, when these are the starting positions of the party, you are doomed to self-destruct. Then throw in other minority issues (*let's keep em from voting/immigrating/marrying*) and it's over even in the long term.

It is going to take some major reforms from the GOP to stay relevant. The only thing they have going from them (barring unforseen circumstances, I'm just going on the assumption that things are relatively stable for a while) is that the mid-term electorate is smaller, older and whiter than general elections.

 

[LamaGT]

It's the same ol' "spat on immigrants/minorities" all over again. You are too conservative even by American standards? Whine about how there are too many immigrants. You lost a huge war and are now piss poor? Accuse the jews of being evil guys plotting against the state. You are in a recession with high unemployment rates? Accuse the Africans of stealing jobs and being dirty (present-day Italy)

@kochman: Weren't you the one defending Reps before? How come this change of opinion?

 

[kochman]

It's like you don't want me to hate you or something. j/k

I think it is more like, you assumed because I was anti-Obama, I was a staunch R...
I hate all the politicians... I'm a solid "I".

The things is that even I, as a liberal, don't want Republicans to just roll over and become liberal. We need a conservative party with strong ideals as a proper balance in our politics.

Agreed, 100%... however, they don't need to be against EVERY idea just to present a choice... they are choosing that path which is isolating them more and more.

The problem they face is that when they start from the position:
*No abortion even for rape victims*
You get candidates who wind up talking about legitimate rape and blow their chances.

He also hurt Romney/GOP with that statement more than anything else that happened in the election.

*Let's cut taxes more*
*Let's claim we can cut taxes and balance the budget without giving evidence*

I actually think that is where the bulk of their non-psycho supporters get on board. They overlook the social conservatism because they want more money in their pockets.

It is going to take some major reforms from the GOP to stay relevant.

Agreed

The only thing they have going from them (barring unforseen circumstances, I'm just going on the assumption that things are relatively stable for a while) is that the mid-term electorate is smaller, older and whiter than general elections.

And, if that is a party's saving grace, they are doomed, and should be.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I actually think that is where the bulk of their non-psycho supporters get on board. They overlook the social conservatism because they want more money in their pockets.

And who doesn't want more money?

The problem is that most people are smart enough to realize that tax cuts won't help the deficit, which is a bigger issue than 'less taxes now!'. A solid majority of Americans favor an increase in taxes (combining the options of tax the rich and tax us all together) not because they want more money, but because along with spending cuts (which should make up the bigger share of any tax/spending deal) it's the right thing to do and the only realistic solution.

Unfortunately, the GOP keeps clinging to tax cuts that disproporitionally help the rich and refuse to compromise. Their presidential candidate also refused to go into detail on his budget plan even though this vagueness was the primary attack against it.

Worse, they are ready to drive us all over a fiscal cliff to get what they want. McConnell is already saying Obama needs to 'meet him halfway' and Boehner has hinted the only taxes he'd accept was to cut loopholes. Neither of those positions will suffice to solve the problem, but we'll have to see if Obama has the stones this time to grill them and make them compromise.

 

[kochman]

Boenher is actually somewhat reasonable.
Start with closing the loopholes and spending cuts to see where that gets us.

It's better than, just raise the taxes and keep all these ridiculous expenditures going that we could clearly cut, as listed in the 2012 edition of "Wastebook", where we are giving Russia millions each year... Russia? A top economy... we are probably borrowing from them in the meanwhile.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Boenher is actually somewhat reasonable.
Start with closing the loopholes and spending cuts to see where that gets us.

If he's is so reasonable, why did the 'grand bargain' fall apart? Why are we even faced with a fiscal cliff? Oh you did say somewhat, nvm.

It's better than, just raise the taxes and keep all these ridiculous expenditures going that we could clearly cut, as listed in the 2012 edition of "Wastebook", where we are giving Russia millions each year... Russia? A top economy... we are probably borrowing from them in the meanwhile.

The bolded part is not a democratic or Obama goal. He/they are willing to trim spending, close loopholes and also raise taxes by a small percentage on the wealthy. Taken together (and I emphasize that spending cuts will be the bulk of any deal) that will help put us on a better track.

 

[kochman]

The bolded part is not a democratic or Obama goal. He/they are willing to trim spending, close loopholes and also raise taxes by a small percentage on the wealthy. Taken together (and I emphasize that spending cuts will be the bulk of any deal) that will help put us on a better track.

I would argue it seems to be the goal...
The Repubs certainly wouldn't argue, in force, against cutting all that stuff... so, it would have bipartisan support.

Why hasn't it happened?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I would argue it seems to be the goal...
The Repubs certainly wouldn't argue, in force, against cutting all that stuff... so, it would have bipartisan support.

Why hasn't it happened?

Because they're goal was to stop Obama. Doing a grand bargain would've made him look good, the same with passing pretty much any and every law he supported. They won't even confirm all his appointments after 4 frakkin years. That's really all they have done in Congress, stick it to Obama.

It failed them and the country and cost them an election.

Again, not that they should roll over and give him what he wants. But 4 years of complete disfunction hurts us all more than it hurt Obama.

Edit: Oh and Republicans (per the words of Boehner and McConnell this morning - will not support any tax hikes on anyone except for loophole closures. If that were enough to close the deficit along with spending cuts, it'd be awesome. But it's not, unfortunately.)

 

[BvBPL]

The R's need to get their heads out of their wazzoos...

No way I could have predicted I would be describing the wins of the Republicans and you their flaws a few days after the election.

 

[Ajidica]

It's better than, just raise the taxes and keep all these ridiculous expenditures going that we could clearly cut, as listed in the 2012 edition of "Wastebook", where we are giving Russia millions each year... Russia? A top economy... we are probably borrowing from them in the meanwhile.

A few million to ensure that the former Soviet nuclear scientists stay employed (ie: don't decide to take an extended vacation to Iran) and that former Soviet nuclear warheads stay secure (ie: avoid a Bond movie where a Russian plutocrat decides to hold the world hostage with a stolen nuclear warhead) is a very good idea.

 

[LamaGT]

A few million to ensure that the former Soviet nuclear scientists stay employed (ie: don't decide to take an extended vacation to Iran) and that former Soviet nuclear warheads stay secure (ie: avoid a Bond movie where a Russian plutocrat decides to hold the world hostage with a stolen nuclear warhead) is a very good idea.

Not to mention that a few millions for any government are proportionally much less than a cent for us.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The things is that even I, as a liberal, don't want Republicans to just roll over and become liberal. We need a conservative party with strong ideals as a proper balance in our politics.

Honestly, we need both parties to do that. The Democrats aren't really willing to compromise either. They're more willing to just keep spending than to really work with the Republicans on cutting spending.

The problem they face is that when they start from the position:
*No abortion even for rape victims*
You get candidates who wind up talking about legitimate rape and blow their chances.

I actually agree with this, to me the young life in the mother's womb cannot be reduced in value because of an action of the father. However, if you don't hold this position (The vast majority don't) trying to weasle around it by "Legitimate rape" isn't going to pass. Either you think rape is a legitimate exception, or you don't (Or you're just pro-choice whether its rape or not.)

First off, that position is not where the vast majority of Americans are at. Secondly, just having that position as your starting point in the conversation inevitably attracts the kind of nutso right wing old white guys who are going to come out and say 'some women rape so easy' or 'in my day you just put an aspirin between your knees'.

That's true and its not what I'm looking to propegate either.

The same can be said over the basic economic premise of the Republican party, which can be summed up neatly in a few blurbs:
*Make Obama a one term president by refusing any deals on taxes, entitlements or jobs*

Has Obama ever bothered to offer spending cuts or has he just said "Tax the rich more"?

Unfortunately, the GOP is unwilling to compromise either on the taxes OR on what spending was cut. If they were willing to trim the defense budget, or if the more moderate guys would actually work to reform social security rather than saying "Oh, we can't touch this" then maybe we'd get somewhere.

But really, the Republicans aren't trying to cut ALL spending. If they were, I'd be on their side. But they want to keep the high amounts of aid to foreign countries (This includes Israel but is not limited to Israel) the high "Defense" budget, the war on drugs, exc. basically the only thing they are willing to cut is welfare to the poor which, while I don't agree with the amount we have, If we can cut this insane spending another way I personally would be willing to compromise on.

My problem comes in when they talk about increasing taxes though. I don't agree with that. In my view the government has enough of the GDP. I understand why liberals want it, but I don't and I hope my representatives wouldn't agree to taking more from me or anyone else.

*Let's cut taxes more*

Fine with me.

*Let's claim we can cut taxes and balance the budget without giving evidence*

Its not that it can't be done, its that we don't want to do it.

You might say "Woah woah woah, if you do that the poor will have to do without, or the defense budget will be cut, or some other response." That's not an invalid concern. But the reality is, we CAN do it. The problem is, too many Republicans want the best of both worlds. I just want to cut the spending.

Honestly, whatever you may think of my other views, this makes me more reasonable than them.

Again, when these are the starting positions of the party, you are doomed to self-destruct. Then throw in other minority issues (*let's keep em from voting/immigrating/marrying*) and it's over even in the long term.

This is almost certainly going to change.

The problem is that most people are smart enough to realize that tax cuts won't help the deficit, which is a bigger issue than 'less taxes now!'. A solid majority of Americans favor an increase in taxes (combining the options of tax the rich and tax us all together) not because they want more money, but because along with spending cuts (which should make up the bigger share of any tax/spending deal) it's the right thing to do and the only realistic solution.

Unfortunately, the GOP keeps clinging to tax cuts that disproporitionally help the rich and refuse to compromise. Their presidential candidate also refused to go into detail on his budget plan even though this vagueness was the primary attack against it.

Worse, they are ready to drive us all over a fiscal cliff to get what they want. McConnell is already saying Obama needs to 'meet him halfway' and Boehner has hinted the only taxes he'd accept was to cut loopholes. Neither of those positions will suffice to solve the problem, but we'll have to see if Obama has the stones this time to grill them and make them compromise.

Just so you know, I agree with you. Tax cuts don't help the problem, at least not the problem of debt. Tax hikes would raise revenue. As would spending cuts.

I just don't think disproportionally taxing the people is the solution.

A few million to ensure that the former Soviet nuclear scientists stay employed (ie: don't decide to take an extended vacation to Iran) and that former Soviet nuclear warheads stay secure (ie: avoid a Bond movie where a Russian plutocrat decides to hold the world hostage with a stolen nuclear warhead) is a very good idea.

A few million everywhere adds up. Not to mention a poor person wouldn't consider it insignificant

 

[Crezth]

Has Obama ever bothered to offer spending cuts

Yes. Many times.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes. Many times.

If he did and Republicans said no, I'll blame them for that decision (I'm guessing it did happen with defense.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Maybe you should print this on your t-shirt so more people also know your objection.

 

[kochman]

A few million to ensure that the former Soviet nuclear scientists stay employed (ie: don't decide to take an extended vacation to Iran) and that former Soviet nuclear warheads stay secure (ie: avoid a Bond movie where a Russian plutocrat decides to hold the world hostage with a stolen nuclear warhead) is a very good idea.

Because Russia would collapse if they paid that $15M/year themselves? It would just be too much?
I'm all for them paying the scientists... I'm 100% against the USA paying them, unless, of course, we are employing them to OUR benefit... as in, now you work for the US Gubbamint.

No way I could have predicted I would be describing the wins of the Republicans and you their flaws a few days after the election.

Well, I have been critical of them for a long time... it's just next to the scathing hatred for them here at this site I come out as some kind of die hard Repub to many, which is ridiculous.

I vote split ticket... I've voted for Rs, and Ds, and Is... I'm a "swing voter".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Honestly, we need both parties to do that. The Democrats aren't really willing to compromise either. They're more willing to just keep spending than to really work with the Republicans on cutting spending.

Are you trying to say Democrats should be conservative? Don't try and blame them for 'not compromising' when that is simply not the case. When the Republicans confirm all of Obama's nominees, we can revisit this.

I actually agree with this, to me the young life in the mother's womb cannot be reduced in value because of an action of the father. However, if you don't hold this position (The vast majority don't) trying to weasle around it by "Legitimate rape" isn't going to pass. Either you think rape is a legitimate exception, or you don't (Or you're just pro-choice whether its rape or not.)

He wasn't trying to weasle around it with legitimate rape. That was just some random nonsense that came out of his mouth. Bottom line, he supports no rape/incest exceptions and that is the official party line.

Most people do not like that, so why push it? Why not start with the position:
*abortion should be outlawed with an exception for rape and incest (reasonable enough) while focusing on working with democrats to reduce abortions overall* Or is that too much compromise for you?

Has Obama ever bothered to offer spending cuts or has he just said "Tax the rich more"?

Government spending has been cut multiple times during his presidency, as have taxes.

But really, the Republicans aren't trying to cut ALL spending.

Yes they are and it's a pretty extreme, no-compromise position.

My problem comes in when they talk about increasing taxes though.

Too bad? You fail to see you're basically the problem with the Republican party, or would be if you could vote.

Tax increases are unavoidable if we don't want a catastrophe. You can cut loopholes (not enough on their own) raise taxes for everyone (hurt the recovery) or raise taxes on the rich. What Obama wants, and a majority of the people as well, is a mix of the 1st and 3rd option, along with heavy spending cuts and entitlement reform. If you don't see how you can avoid tax hikes by just cutting spending, then you aren't taking into account all of the jobs that the spending supports and to cut it enough to balance the budget only through cuts would cause immediate, deep recession.

Its not that it can't be done, its that we don't want to do it.

It cannot be done without causing another recession immediately. Ask the UK how well austerity worked out for them at first.

I just don't think disproportionally taxing the people is the solution.

No one is saying they want this. You add a bit of tax at the top, close some loopholes, but the majority of the savings comes from shrinking spending. I've said that like 5 times on this thread alone. It's Obama's offical stance on reform.

If he did and Republicans said no, I'll blame them for that decision (I'm guessing it did happen with defense.)

It happened, and not just with defense.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, I have been critical of them for a long time... it's just next to the scathing hatred for them here at this site I come out as some kind of die hard Repub to many, which is ridiculous.

I vote split ticket... I've voted for Rs, and Ds, and Is... I'm a "swing voter".

That might be where I end up. Although I'm unlikely (Note: Not impossible, I'd vote for one that I liked) to ever vote "D". The combination of disagreement with their economic policies and pro-choice views is just too big, unless the other guy was really bad (I'd seriously think about voting for a Dennis Kucinich over a George W. Bush [I know he can't run again, I'm making a point] on foreign policy alone if I lived in a swing state, but if not I'd almost certainly vote "L" if there were a competent Libertarian on the ballot.)

But the "R"s will definitely have to earn my vote, doubly so if there's a Libertarian option on the ticket for a given ticket. I'm not afraid to play spoiler

 

[Formaldehyde]

The generally under-educated poor are typically extremely conservative in their views in this country. If the Republican Party ever learns to stop pandering to the racists and bigots in their party, minorities would likely vote for their candidates instead of Democrats.

Or as a Republican pundit recently stated on Fox News:

This is the new America. This isn't your father's America. We are now in a turnout model that is totally different than we ever had. Blacks are now 13% of the vote instead of 11. Latinos are 10, not 8. The previous numbers were the '04 model, and I thought things would return to that. They didn't.

I thought the minorities who voted in 2008 would have disappeared by now. I thought maybe they would return to their home planet, or reach their expiration date and dissolve into whatever minorities are made of. It turns out they still exist in human form.