Various ridiculus posts in the thread aside, I guess I can still say something here. Who knows, maybe this post and the other few good ones would help the thread be just a little more decent.
The Republicans do have a problem... a problem one major branch of the party denies and the other clearly sees. When Palin was picked, certain fiscal conservs wanted her to talk about energy, the economy, the budget, and anti-corruption. That would have been a huge addition in the Republican ticket. Coupled with the economic problems, making the election about social conservatism was an automatic loss for the Republicans. Both candiates on the Republican side looked much more conservative than either actually was. The only group not to think so was the conservatives.
The alliance within the party is slowly coming apart. If Dems start picking up social conservatives who are turning away from more capitalistic measures and the Republicans do not expand their base in any direction, than the Dems will have control for years to come.
Hispanics. Mexican-Americans are the swing group (largest
documented group of immigrants are young, male Mexicans). They are more conservative and slightly to the left than the average person. The key issue to bring Mexican Americans over to Republicans is immigration reform. It couldn't be more obvious. I bet even Holy King knows this.
The Southwest hangs in the balance, here. Cuban-Americans are generally capitalistic. There is a notable difference in social beliefs between older and younger Cubans. If the Republicans want to keep the Cubans with them, they will need to shift in social policy (no embargo... before the Dems start doing things like that) and learn how to balance a budget. Florida hangs in the balance. Puerto Ricans are just not very suitable for Republicans, only unforseeable trends of either group would change it. New York isn't exactly hanging... at all.
Every demographic increase through immigration into this country should be heavily considered by the Republicans, especially if the immigrants are the "Land of opportunity" types looking for a right-wing society that would gave them a fair shake to play the game.
Here is another way to look at it. The social conservatives are like that player that causes a lot of disruption in the locker room of a team. The team would not want to bring in free agents, who would probably not work so well with him. The team keeps him, because he has a huge following, and the team needs the support to win the game. Unfortunately, he thinks he is the team and is the highest paid player on the team (platform hoggers). If things continue to go bad, the negativity must be stopped, and that means striking the contract. It is actually not inherantly bad for the fiscals, if there is a break up. They can make other deals with FAs or actually draft rookies (immigrants). It is bad for the one about to lose his contract with the team, who would have to depend upon his former rival team for scraps. Yes, I know the fiscals would suffer from an initial sting from the break of contract. That's why it has not been done, already.
