So what's next for the GOP?

myp · Nov 8, 2012

The party's base seems to be too small. It needs to do a better job at getting the Hispanic vote in particular (those numbers have worsened in both elections since Bush in 2004). What do you think it should do or what do you predict will happen?

I think the younger guys are now going to step up more- the new generation, if you will. People like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan (I know he ran this time), Christie (not as young, but I group him in another category than the Romneys and McCains), Jindal maybe, etc.

I think an easy boost to the base is being more flexible on social issues (gay marriage in particular) and accepting science more (climate change, evolution- be more scientific and definitely don't deny the latter). Immigration is also a very important issue for their future.

I think a party that was more open to gay marriage, less clingy to religion, and portrayed a more scientific view would be a lot more attractive to my generation. I tend to be a fiscal conservative but the social issues and science issues really hold me back with the GOP- I think there are a lot of people in that boat with me.

myp · Nov 8, 2012

And maybe I am completely off here. An interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/is-demography-destiny.html

tecoyah · Nov 8, 2012

In my opinion, the Republican Party will either grow up and change (conservatism does not mean stagnation)...or fail.

We are not he same people we were 20 yrs. ago.....yet it seems they are.

=Zoomer= · Nov 8, 2012

tecoyah said:
In my opinion, the Republican Party will either grow up and change (conservatism does not mean stagnation)...or fail.

We are not he same people we were 20 yrs. ago.....yet it seems they are.

Very true...It will be a huge obstacle for them though...Conservatism by it's very nature is the embracing of the past (or more accurately, their "perception" of the past). I'm already hearing blame-game reports that Romney/Ryan weren't conservative enough.

The post-war years (1950's and 60's) are where the middle class we think of today came into it's own. Yes, I realize Henry Ford and industrialization had a major part in it, but it was during mid-century years that labor unions were strong, and workers could (more) comfortably expect some security in their futures. My father worked for 2 companies his entire career, and retired with a pension. Try that today.... So much of what the right is being spoon-fed by entertainer/pundits is a false understanding of how and why the middle class was created.

The truth is, today's conservative doesn't understand the delicate balance between production and consumption in this country. They no longer honor or value labor as more than a "human resource". If you're not an entrepreneur, your value to society is drastically diminished.

Sorry, rambling!......
=Z=

clax · Nov 8, 2012

What seems to be my concern is that the candidates are not received well, the republican party is splintering. On one hand you have very left republicans like McCain, then you have the tea party, then you have the evangelical right, and a various number of different ideologies that sere unwilling to compromise. The democrat party seems to stand pretty solid behind their candidates.

Iolo · Nov 9, 2012

tecoyah said:
In my opinion, the Republican Party will either grow up and change (conservatism does not mean stagnation)...or fail.

We are not he same people we were 20 yrs. ago.....yet it seems they are.

It seems to me that they date back to pre-Roosevelt. They must have time machines.

Wendy · Nov 11, 2012

I haven't come to catering to any certain group, I just can't do that....literally. My family looks like the UN, Japanese, Hispanic, AI, black, & white.
Even if my family wasn't so "international" I still wouldn't/could not cater to any one group of Americans. I take "equal" as just that, "equal".
Maybe the politicians should try that, treating all equally, it would at least be novel.

Elmer Gantry · Nov 15, 2012

Change is inevitable,Jindal and a few others can now see the big picture. Harsh rhetoric and extremism is not working. There will be fewer calls for deportation and a new emphasis on immigration reform. Some in the party will balk but most will come around to change. This will not happen overnight,they are now in anger mode but I look for more change in the summer of 2013.

=Zoomer= · Nov 15, 2012

Elmer Gantry said:
Change is inevitable,Jindal and a few others can now see the big picture. Harsh rhetoric and extremism is not working. There will be fewer calls for deportation and a new emphasis on immigration reform. Some in the party will balk but most will come around to change. This will not happen overnight,they are now in anger mode but I look for more change in the summer of 2013.

I think (and hope) you're right. The country needs more than 1 "viable" party. Both extremes are wrong (mo).

Hammer · Nov 15, 2012

myp said:
The party's base seems to be too small...
I think a party that was more open to gay marriage,

If the GOP went any more liberal on homosexual marriage, it would come out supporting it, which would cost them more votes than they would gain.

The GOP needs to put more of a hispanic and libertarian face on itself. Hispanic votes are more attainable than black votes. And, libertarianism would energize the Ron Paul faction plus gain more moderate voters. And, the GOP needs to get Israel's hand out of its bunghole, this pushes away all voters who aren't gaga for Israel.

Wendy · Nov 15, 2012

Mitt Romney was not "severly conservative", as he claimed, he could not have been & been elected & served as gov of Mass. Gawd knows that Mccain isn't a conservative & both of them lost their bid for the WH.
Could it be then that if a real conservative ran for POTUS that they might actually win? Why is it that conservatives should change since we haven't had a conservative run for POTUS the last 3 campaigns/elections? How do we know a conservative couldn't win?
How can a person be true to their core/beliefs/values & run as something else? I don't want a fake governing/making laws for me. Why is it that there's 30 GOP governors, more state legistaors that are Republican? Why did the US House of Reps stay Republican? Checks & balances?
If Obama has a mandate, as he claims, does the US House of Reps have a mandate as well?

Iolo · Nov 16, 2012

=Zoomer= said:
I think (and hope) you're right. The country needs more than 1 "viable" party. Both extremes are wrong (mo).

Yes - to have an extreme right party and an even more extreme right party doesn't seem sensible, does it?

Iolo · Nov 16, 2012

Wendy said:
Mitt Romney was not "severly conservative", as he claimed, he could not have been & been elected & served as gov of Mass. Gawd knows that Mccain isn't a conservative & both of them lost their bid for the WH.
Could it be then that if a real conservative ran for POTUS that they might actually win? Why is it that conservatives should change since we haven't had a conservative run for POTUS the last 3 campaigns/elections? How do we know a conservative couldn't win?
How can a person be true to their core/beliefs/values & run as something else? I don't want a fake governing/making laws for me. Why is it that there's 30 GOP governors, more state legistaors that are Republican? Why did the US House of Reps stay Republican? Checks & balances?
If Obama has a mandate, as he claims, does the US House of Reps have a mandate as well?

The only reason he was able to get any votes beyone Republican party members is that he was plainly lying when he pretended to believe their insane rants. Other than the governors, American political positions are held mainly as the results of gerrymandering (and in all cases of vote-buying by the rich), surely?

Wendy · Nov 16, 2012

Iolo said:
The only reason he was able to get any votes beyone Republican party members is that he was plainly lying when he pretended to believe their insane rants. Other than the governors, American political positions are held mainly as the results of gerrymandering (and in all cases of vote-buying by the rich), surely?

I'm sorry, I'm not following.

David · Nov 16, 2012

Iolo said:
Yes - to have an extreme right party and an even more extreme right party doesn't seem sensible, does it?

More like a center-right party and a so far to the right they think Hitler was a leftist party.

Hammer · Nov 16, 2012

Wendy said:
Mitt Romney was not "severly conservative", as he claimed, he could not have been & been elected & served as gov of Mass. Gawd knows that Mccain isn't a conservative & both of them lost their bid for the WH.
Could it be then that if a real conservative ran for POTUS that they might actually win?

A lot of Obama voters actually wanted to vote for Obama. But, conservatives held their nose to vote for either McCain or Romney. It's hard to win elections when there's no excitement around a candidate. But, I don't see the GOP leadership ever backing a conservative.

tecoyah · Nov 16, 2012

David said:
More like a center-right party and a so far to the right they think Hitler was a leftist party.

Seems the center is shifting...as it has always done.

In the long term, I see this society moving left of what we see as center today, forcing the moderate to be a bit more liberal.

It is a logical shift as the society moves away from a Me-Me mentality.

Iolo · Nov 16, 2012

David said:
More like a center-right party and a so far to the right they think Hitler was a leftist party.

Well..... okay

Iolo · Nov 16, 2012

Wendy said:
I'm sorry, I'm not following.

Your politicians fix the House of Representative districts so that the majority party is bound to win. In other countries they have electoral commisssions and the like to establish electoral districts. The Supreme Court allows the extremely rich to spend what they want on - in effect - supporting their candidates against those of ordinary people. This is 'free speech' apparently. In other countries there is at least an attempt to control spending to a level where it is at least relatively fair.

=Zoomer= · Nov 16, 2012

Wendy said:
I'm sorry, I'm not following.

He's talking about Gerrymandering Wendy. As he says, the re-drawing of voting districts by the majority party in order to favor their candidate. You can look that word up to get an exact definition.

So what's next for the GOP?

Similar threads