If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[North California]

Actually, it's more like this:

Neo-conservatives loose all power, and the libertarians who have been infiltrating the GOP for the last six years take over.


or

Neo-conservatives, while holding on to their last bits of power, go even more extreme, pretty much banning libertarians like they did during the primary. We see a rise in the Libertarian Party and independent voters. GOP withers away, and Democrats win the next 5 or elections.

Win-win for the Democrats! Rejoice!

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

[Neo Art]

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

So in your reality, a group of people who only managed to security a minority share of the minority party by lying about their core beliefs somehow beats the majority?

You live in a strange world.

One that apparently doesn't consider the question of "if the majority of americans would prefer a libertarian government, why don't we have one?"

[Esternial]

Win-win for the Democrats! Rejoice!

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

-_-

[North California]

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

So in your reality, a group of people who only managed to security a minority share of the minority party by lying about their core beliefs somehow beats the majority?

You live in a strange world.

One that apparently doesn't consider the question of "if the majority of americans would prefer a libertarian government, why don't we have one?"

Because whenever libertarians start getting popular, the bosses at the GOP and the media corporations shut them down, knowing that if libertarians got power, they'd loose it.

[North California]

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

-_-

Ouch.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

The thing is that it's really just pathetically easy for the Republicans to stay a powerful force- just stay off religious issues and be less of an angry white guy party.

Seriously, if they did that, they'd get virtually all of the Indian votes. Most Indian Americans are affluent social conservatives, and most other Asian Americans I've met are in the same boat.

[Neo Art]

So in your reality, a group of people who only managed to security a minority share of the minority party by lying about their core beliefs somehow beats the majority?

You live in a strange world.

One that apparently doesn't consider the question of "if the majority of americans would prefer a libertarian government, why don't we have one?"

Because whenever libertarians start getting popular, the bosses at the GOP and the media corporations shut them down, knowing that if libertarians got power, they'd loose it.

Oh of course, the standard libertarian response to everything. If you don't win, CONSPIRACY.

Not the fact that you're a fringe minority that almost nobody likes.

[North California]

Because whenever libertarians start getting popular, the bosses at the GOP and the media corporations shut them down, knowing that if libertarians got power, they'd loose it.

Oh of course, the standard libertarian response to everything. If you don't win, CONSPIRACY.

Not the fact that you're a fringe minority that almost nobody likes.

Well, there was the blackout of Ron Paul, and in one debate, Ron Paul only got 90 or seconds of speaking time.

It's not the fact that Republicans are fringe and nobody likes them either, huh?

Standard response of a statist. When someone doesn't fit the mainstream, they are conspiracy theorists.

[SaintB]

Win-win for the Democrats! Rejoice!

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

Very few people in the USA posing as a libertarians are socially liberal; and as opposed to being financially conservative I'd say most of them are simply financially insane.

[Farnhamia]

Oh of course, the standard libertarian response to everything. If you don't win, CONSPIRACY.

Not the fact that you're a fringe minority that almost nobody likes.

Well, there was the blackout of Ron Paul, and in one debate, Ron Paul only got 90 or seconds of speaking time.

It's not the fact that Republicans are fringe and nobody likes them either, huh?

Standard response of a statist. When someone doesn't fit the mainstream, they are conspiracy theorists.

Standard response of the fringe: when we don't get coverage, it's a conspiracy by the media.

[Ngelmish]

Win-win for the Democrats! Rejoice!

With the first option, the Democrats would get their asses handed to them. If the Republicans became more libertarian, they'd win. Most Americans are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.

Most Americans support programs like Social Security and Medicare regardless of what they say about fiscal conservatism. For decades universal healthcare has been popular in polls that more than the voting population takes part in. Fiscal conservatism, in the Austrian sense of the phrase, is venerated only by a small minority of people who have an intellectual attachment to it.

Americans vote for the welfare state regardless of their stated positions and are functionally welfare statists.

[North California]

Well, there was the blackout of Ron Paul, and in one debate, Ron Paul only got 90 or seconds of speaking time.

It's not the fact that Republicans are fringe and nobody likes them either, huh?

Standard response of a statist. When someone doesn't fit the mainstream, they are conspiracy theorists.

Standard response of the fringe: when we don't get coverage, it's a conspiracy by the media.

Think about it. Is someone like Sarah Palin really more newsworthy than Gary Johnson?

[Alien Space Bats]

Well, that should be obvious enough - but if we broke it down to elderly women and young women, wouldn't you say that they would still follow the demographics of their male counterparts?

Not really:

Year	Democrat	Republican	Demographic Spread	National Spread	Difference
1980	38%	48%	R+10	R+10	Even
1984	38%	62%	R+24	R+19	R+5
1988	43%	56%	R+13	R+8	R+5
1992	41%	41%	Even	D+5	R+5
1996	48%	43%	D+5	D+8	R+3
2000	49%	48%	D+1	Even	D+1
2004	44%	55%	R+11	R+3	R+8
2008	46%	53%	R+7	D+7	R+14

From 1984 to 1996, the white female vote was very predictable; indeed, for three elections in a row, white women reliably voted 5 points more Republican than the Nation as a whole. Since 2000, however, the white female vote has been the most unpredictable demographic element within the American electoral system, voting to the left of the electorate in 2000, then swinging to the right of its historical position in 2004, and then moving strongly in the opposite direction of almost the entire electorate in 2008 (the PUMA vote, maybe?).

And this year, just to complete the puzzle, Gallup has the white female vote currently running only 2 points to the right of the overall electorate, a 12-point swing from four years ago.

No other demographic group in America moves around like this.

[Caninope]

I say that starting with this election and culminating in or by 2020, we'll see the turn around for Republican. It will be the "Old Republicans" type deal, similar to Blair "New Labour" move to the center.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I say that starting with this election and culminating in or by 2020, we'll see the turn around for Republican. It will be the "Old Republicans" type deal, similar to Blair "New Labour" move to the center.

So, what will stay and what will go for the Republican party platform if this happens?

[Ostroeuropa]

snip.

I dunno, It seems like 2000 is an outlier and that women predictably vote more republican than the rest of the population

[Farnhamia]

Standard response of the fringe: when we don't get coverage, it's a conspiracy by the media.

Think about it. Is someone like Sarah Palin really more newsworthy than Gary Johnson?

I haven't noticed Palin getting much air time lately, frankly. She, having been the Vice-Presidential nominee of a party that can some rather more registered adherents than the Libertarians, was more appealing to the moguls at Fox News than Gary Johnson, who is the former Republican Governor of New Mexico and the nominee of a party with some 282,000 registered adherents. Conspiracy, definitely.

[Alien Space Bats]

And this year, just to complete the puzzle, Gallup has the white female vote currently running only 2 points to the right of the overall electorate, A 12-point swing from four years ago.

No other demographic group in America moves around like this.

I dunno, It seems like 2000 is an outlier and that women predictably vote republican.

They do. The unpredictable factor is the extent to which they do.

In contrast, here's the white male vote - the most predictable demographic in America - by comparison:

Year	Democrat	Republican	Demographic Spread	National Spread	Difference
1980	32%	59%	R+27	R+10	R+17
1984	32%	67%	R+35	R+19	R+16
1988	36%	63%	R+27	R+8	R+19
1992	37%	40%	R+3	D+5	R+8
1996	38%	49%	R+11	D+8	R+19
2000	36%	60%	R+24	Even	R+24
2004	37%	62%	R+25	R+3	R+22
2008	41%	57%	R+16	D+7	R+23

The key number to look at here is the percentage of white men who vote Democratic: Since 1988, it's reliably been between 36-38%, except for 2008 when it rose to 41%. This year it appears to be heading for the old 36-38% range again, with Romney leading by 22 points, 36-58 (with 6% still undecided; interestingly, white men remain the most undecided voting group in this race, which is probably a relic of the fact that a greater than expected number broke Democratic four years ago; it very much looks as though these mavericks are agitating over whether to stick with Obama or come home to a decidedly lame Mitt Romney).

Other demographic groups are almost as predictable as the white male vote - which leaves white women as the wild card.

---

EDIT: Going back to my thesis in the OP, this is part of the reason the GOP is facing a crisis: They can't crack 65% among white men, or 55% among white women; that leaves them below 60% among whites overall. Since non-whites represent 25% of the electorate and it's looking harder and harder for the GOP to manage more than 20% of the non-white vote, the numbers just don't work:

75% × 60% + 25% × 20% = 50%

If the most the GOP can expect of the white vote is 60%, and they're having problems getting more than 20% of the non-white vote, then getting past 50% becomes next to impossible; essentially, they're left with no room for error. And as the white vote declines and the non-white vote increases, the ceiling on GOP expectations will invariably fall below 50%, meaning that they won't be able to win any national elections at all.

[Greed and Death]

A bit off to predict them withering, when they are all but guaranteed the House.

My prediction, if they lose the Presidency, they will refuse to pass a budget and this discussion will become moot because the federal govnerment has withered away.

Not ideal, but there are lesser degrees of society I can live with.

Sure, shutting down the Federal government is going to play really well with the voters in 2014. All but guaranteed to lose the House then.

Well if they shut down the govnerment for 2 years there wont be a federal govnerment to be elected to in 2014.

[Caninope]

I say that starting with this election and culminating in or by 2020, we'll see the turn around for Republican. It will be the "Old Republicans" type deal, similar to Blair "New Labour" move to the center.

So, what will stay and what will go for the Republican party platform if this happens?

A lot of things will stay and a lot of things will go. There's nothing I can particularly say will stay or go, but I predict a movement away from supply side economics to demand side economics (i.e. Keynesianism) or monetarism. Perhaps they'll go with the market monetarism school, which has garnered some support from the recent crises. Foreign policy, I feel as if it will stay roughly the same, but with a larger emphasis on realism. Nonetheless, the Wilsonian ideals of neoconservatism will stay in place. That roughly fits American foreign policy, which has generally only changed gradually. Socially, I feel as if the neoconservatives (true neoconservatives, not the buzzword thrown about) will win out. That means a great emphasis of the welfare state, and less of a hatred towards anything that's not paleoconservative.

In short, it will result in a realignment that will move the Republicans closer to the center. Paleoconservatives and social conservatives (which is what the Tea Party seems to draw its strength from) will find themselves out of the loop; the one thing that will probably be retained by the paleoconservatives will be the philosophical idea of tradition. Neoconservatives (once again, the true kind, not just your average "LET'S INVADE EVERYONE" kind) will be in power, and form alliances with the Rockefeller Republicans (as happened in Bush I's administration). So I see a Republican party reminiscent of Bush I.

[PapaJacky]

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

Debunked myth. Predicted spending for the Budget for 2013 is 3,803,364 million dollars (3.8 trillion). Allocated spending for the Budget for 2009 was 3,517,677 million dollars (3.5 trillion). Subtraction of the outlays for 2009 from the predicted outlays for 2013 equates to an increase of spending of 285,687 millions (285 billion). Division of this difference from the outlays for 2009 equates to 0.081, or, 8.1%. Thus, the outlays between the predicted budget that will be enacted by Congress for the year 2013 has only grown a total of 8.1% since the budget Bush left Obama with.

Spending for the Budget of 2009, as noted above, was 3.5 trillion. Spending for the Budget of 2001 was 1,862,846 million dollars (1.8 trillion). The difference between the two, using the same as above, is 1,654,831 million dollars (1.6 trillion). Using the same method as above (dividing the difference from the Budget for 2001) equates to a total spending increase of 0.888, or, 88.8%. Thus, the outlays between the last budget of the Bush administration and the budget Clinton left for him has grown by a total of 88.8%.

Spending for the Budget of 2001, as noted above, was 1.8 trillion. Spending for the budget of 1993 was 1,409,386 million dollars (1.4 trillion). Using the same method as above (finding the difference between the last budget enacted by congress under the administration in question and the budget left to the President in question by the previous President), we find that between the budgets for 2001 and 1993, total outlays increased by 453,460 million dollars (453 billion), or a percentage increase of 32.1%.

The spending for 1993, as noted above, was 1.4 trillion dollars. The spending for 1989 was 1,143,744 million dollars (1.1 trillion). Apply the same method, the difference was 265,642 million dollars (265 billion) or a percentage increase of 23.2%.

The spending for 1989, as noted above, was 1.1 trillion dollars. The spending for 1981 was 678,241 million dollars (0.68 trillion). The difference between these two was 465,503 million dollars (465 billion), or a percentage increase of 68.6%.

The spending for 1981, as noted above, was 0.68 trillion dollars. The spending for 1977 was 409,218 millions or (0.41 trillion). The difference between these two was 269,023 million dollars (269 billion), or a percentage increase of 65.7%.

The spending for 1977, as noted above, was 0.41 trillion dollars. The spending for 1974 was 269,359 million dollars (0.27 trillion). The difference between the two was 139,859 million dollars (140 billion), or a percentage increase of 51.9%.

The spending for 1974, as noted above, was 0.27 trillion dollars. The spending for 1969 was 183,640 million dollars (0.18 trillion). The difference between the two was 85,719 million dollars (85 billion), or a percentage increase of 46.7%.

The spending for 1969, as noted above, was 0.18 trillion dollars. The spending for 1964 was 118,528 million dollars (0.12 trillion). The difference between the two was 65,112 million dollars (65 billion), or a percentage increase of 54.9%.

The spending for 1964, as noted above, was 0.12 trillion dollars. The spending for 1961 was 97,723 million dollars (0.09 trillion). The difference between the two was 20,805 million dollars (21 billion), or a percentage increase of 21.2%.

This ends the 50 year comparison between Presidential spending. 5 Presidents from each side were compared. Since I'm bored, I'll compare all the way to Hoover, for a grand total of 14 presidential fiscal histories compared, equally split numerically. I will keep converting budget numbers to trillions to maintain comparability.

The spending for 1961, as noted above, was 0.09 trillion dollars. The spending for 1953 was 76,101 million dollars (0.07 trillion). The difference between the two was 21,622 million dollars (21 billion), or a percentage increase of 28.4%.

The spending for 1953, as stated above, was 0.07 trillion dollars. The spending for 1945 was 92,712 million dollars (0.09 trillion). The difference between the two was 16,611 million dollars (16 billion), or a percentage (decrease) of 17.9%.

The spending for 1945, as stated above, was 0.09 trillion dollars. The spending for 1933 was 4,598 million dollars (0.004 trillion). The difference between the two was 88,114 million dollars (88 billion), or a percentage increase of 1916%.

The spending for 1933, as noted above, was 0.004 trillion dollars. The spending for 1929 was 3,127 million dollars (0.003 trillion). The difference between the two was 1,417 million dollars (1 billion), or a percentage increase of 47%.

In the years between Hoover and Teddy were 5 Presidents, only 1 of which was a Democrat, so I didn't bother doing their spending increases. However, as a note, Woodrow Wilson though a Democrat, was fiscally conservative, and the Federal outlays the year after World War 1 (18,493 million dollars for 1919) was 23.7 times larger than the budget enacted on the start of World War 1 (746 million dollars for 1915). More reason war sucks.

Averaging the overall spending increases, Republican affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 50.6%. Democrat affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 297.2%. The median of overall spending increases are different, however. The median overall spending increases for Republican affiliated Presidents was 47%. The median overall spending increases for Democrat affiliated Presidents was 32.1%.

Here's a list of the Presidents in office sorted by the overall budget outlays increase in their term, sorted from highest to lowest.

(Republican)
1. George W. Bush's terms (88.8% increase)
2. Ronald Reagan's terms (68.6% increase)
3. Gerald Ford's terms (51.9% increase)
4. Herbert Hoover's terms (47% increase) - Median
5. Richard Nixon's terms (46.7% increase)
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower's terms (28.4.% increase)
7. George H.W. Bush's terms (23.2% increase)

(Democrat)
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms (1916% increase)
2. Jimmy Carter's terms (65.7% increase)
3. Lyndon B. Johnson's terms (54.9% increase)
4. Bill Clinton's terms (32.1% increase) - Median
5. John F. Kennedy's terms (21.2% increase)
6. Barack Obama's term (8.1% increase)
7. Harry S. Truman's term (-17.9% increase)

Notes:
1. Mistakes could have been made for Presidents that did not serve out their full terms. Such Presidents include FDR, JFK, and Nixon.
2. I did not crunch the numbers for average increases by year. This should be an easy task.
3. All data is adjusted for inflation.
4. All day is derived from here


Yes, I accidentally turned a "big spending" retort into a comparative history of federal spending increases by Presidential terms. Besides, the EU weren't big spenders. AFAIK, their entirety only enacted a 200 billion euro stimulus back in 2008, while Bush's/Barack Obama's combined stimulus plans were worth $939 billion. China's stimulus plan was worth $586 billion. Other countries that passed stimulus plans were Japan, which spent about $400 billion in two stimulus plans and Australia which have passed 2 stimulus plans worth $52 billion Australian dollars total. Why did I mention these stimulus plans? Because the U.S.'s, China's, Japan's, and Australia's stimulus plans all cost over 5% of their respective GDPs. Germany and the EU's were tiny as a percentage of their respective GDPs and in nominal terms, with Germany's plan coming in at a mere 2.1% of their GDP.

Why does this matter? The biggest spenders were the biggest growers. China's GDP grew $4.5 trillion between 2007 and 2012. Japan, $1.6 trillion, the U.S., $1.6 trillion, Australia, $640 billion. Compare that to Germany, the only country in the EU that was in the Top 20 countries in GDP growth between 2007 and 2012, coming in at 17th place with a GDP growth of a mere $150 billion. There's obviously a lot of room for "false equivalency" as many countries didn't have a stimulus plan yet was in that same group. And obviously, China being China will always grow even in a Recession. But the correlation is still there, the biggest spenders recovered GDP faster. This concludes my post and starts my breakfast.

[North California]

Think about it. Is someone like Sarah Palin really more newsworthy than Gary Johnson?

I haven't noticed Palin getting much air time lately, frankly. She, having been the Vice-Presidential nominee of a party that can some rather more registered adherents than the Libertarians, was more appealing to the moguls at Fox News than Gary Johnson, who is the former Republican Governor of New Mexico and the nominee of a party with some 282,000 registered adherents. Conspiracy, definitely.

Jon Stewart puts it quite elegantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw

[Farnhamia]

I haven't noticed Palin getting much air time lately, frankly. She, having been the Vice-Presidential nominee of a party that can some rather more registered adherents than the Libertarians, was more appealing to the moguls at Fox News than Gary Johnson, who is the former Republican Governor of New Mexico and the nominee of a party with some 282,000 registered adherents. Conspiracy, definitely.

Jon Stewart puts it quite elegantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw

Just tell me. I fucking hate it when people answer with a video.

[North California]

Jon Stewart puts it quite elegantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw

Just tell me. I fucking hate it when people answer with a video.

Towards the end, there is a clip where a FOX News guy says tells his field reporter to ignore footage of Ron Paul, and instead broadcast footage of Sarah Palin, who isn't even running!

[Caninope]

Averaging the overall spending increases, Republican affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 50.6%. Democrat affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 297.2%. The median of overall spending increases are different, however. The median overall spending increases for Republican affiliated Presidents was 47%. The median overall spending increases for Democrat affiliated Presidents was 32.1%.

Here's a list of the Presidents in office sorted by the overall budget outlays increase in their term, sorted from highest to lowest.

(Republican)
1. George W. Bush's terms (88.8% increase)
2. Ronald Reagan's terms (68.6% increase)
3. Gerald Ford's terms (51.9% increase)
4. Herbert Hoover's terms (47% increase) - Median
5. Richard Nixon's terms (46.7% increase)
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower's terms (28.4.% increase)
7. George H.W. Bush's terms (23.2% increase)

(Democrat)
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms (1916% increase)
2. Jimmy Carter's terms (65.7% increase)
3. Lyndon B. Johnson's terms (54.9% increase)
4. Bill Clinton's terms (32.1% increase) - Median
5. John F. Kennedy's terms (21.2% increase)
6. Barack Obama's term (8.1% increase)
7. Harry S. Truman's term (-17.9% increase)

Notes:
1. Mistakes could have been made for Presidents that did not serve out their full terms. Such Presidents include FDR, JFK, and Nixon.
2. I did not crunch the numbers for average increases by year. This should be an easy task.
3. All data is adjusted for inflation.

It's all adjusted for inflation?