What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Goral]

The Republicans rule the House of Rep. While Democrats rule the Senate.So it will make sense for budgets,proposals,and acts to be bipartisan for the federal government to be effective.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The republicans rule the house of rep. While Democrats rule the Senate.So it will make sense for bipartisan budgets,proposals,and acts in the federal government

It would, but it doesn't happen thanks to House cockblocks.

[Welsh Cowboy]

The republicans rule the house of rep. While Democrats rule the Senate.So it will make sense for bipartisan budgets,proposals,and acts in the federal government

It would, but it doesn't happen thanks to House cockblocks.

The Dems didn't concede much in the shutdown debate either. Now perhaps they have the right to be intransigent, but they didn't compromise.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It would, but it doesn't happen thanks to House cockblocks.

The Dems didn't concede much in the shutdown debate either. Now perhaps they have the right to be intransigent, but they didn't compromise.

The House wanted concessions on Obmacare

Which was already a concession from single payer

which had the public option stripped later

and then went through the house for watering down

and then they had the nerve to threaten economic collapse over a LAW that was already passed and upheld just because THEY (a minority of the country) don't want it in action.

Damn right the democrats gave nothing, they had nothing to give.

[Welsh Cowboy]

The Dems didn't concede much in the shutdown debate either. Now perhaps they have the right to be intransigent, but they didn't compromise.

The House wanted concessions on Obmacare

Which was already a concession from single payer

which had the public option stripped later

and then went through the house for watering down

and then they had the nerve to threaten economic collapse over a LAW that was already passed and upheld just because THEY (a minority of the country) don't want it in action.

Damn right the democrats gave nothing, they had nothing to give.

They could have removed the medical device tax, they could have delayed the individual mandate for a year, they could have defunded it.

Sure, no one expects them to do that, and maybe they were right not to compromise in your mind, but neither side compromised during the debate.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The House wanted concessions on Obmacare

Which was already a concession from single payer

which had the public option stripped later

and then went through the house for watering down

and then they had the nerve to threaten economic collapse over a LAW that was already passed and upheld just because THEY (a minority of the country) don't want it in action.

Damn right the democrats gave nothing, they had nothing to give.

They could have removed the medical device tax, they could have delayed the individual mandate for a year, they could have defunded it.

Sure, no one expects them to do that, and maybe they were right not to compromise in your mind, but neither side compromised during the debate.

They were fine with that, but the GOP had to run the clock so they'd look like they "kept up the good fight" and not get primaried.

The same as killing it, you don't just deny people promised health care out of the blue.

Actually killing it, even worse than the above

Its hard to compromise when you have NOTHING TO GIVE, and sometimes the GOP didn't even have a fucking demand in the first place.

You can't demand someone chop an arm off their baby that they've tried to get for half a century and then get mad when they won't toss over a bicep.

[Welsh Cowboy]

They could have removed the medical device tax, they could have delayed the individual mandate for a year, they could have defunded it.

Sure, no one expects them to do that, and maybe they were right not to compromise in your mind, but neither side compromised during the debate.

They were fine with that, but the GOP had to run the clock so they'd look like they "kept up the good fight" and not get primaried.

The same as killing it, you don't just deny people promised health care out of the blue.

Actually killing it, even worse than the above

Its hard to compromise when you have NOTHING TO GIVE, and sometimes the GOP didn't even have a fucking demand in the first place.

You can't demand someone chop an arm off their baby that they've tried to get for half a century and then get mad when they won't toss over a bicep.

I will agree with you that it was probably naive if any Republicans thought they could get much of anything out of the Democrats... Although I don't know how many thought they would, and how many, as you say, were "fighting the good fight."

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

They were fine with that, but the GOP had to run the clock so they'd look like they "kept up the good fight" and not get primaried.

The same as killing it, you don't just deny people promised health care out of the blue.

Actually killing it, even worse than the above

Its hard to compromise when you have NOTHING TO GIVE, and sometimes the GOP didn't even have a fucking demand in the first place.

You can't demand someone chop an arm off their baby that they've tried to get for half a century and then get mad when they won't toss over a bicep.

I will agree with you that it was probably naive if any Republicans thought they could get much of anything out of the Democrats... Although I don't know how many thought they would, and how many, as you say, were "fighting the good fight."

Every single republican right now has to keep up the image of extremism or risk getting a primary from a Tea Party challenger, which often win. Even if they have to send the country to the brink of hell, they'll do so just to act like they fought (when they knew they couldn't within the first few days at the latest) and keep their seats semi-secure.

Notice how no deal at any of these extreme events happens until the last few hours, and usually gets kicked to the Senate. That's them keeping up appearances.

[New Chalcedon]

New York Times columnist David Brooks not only believes that there will be a Civil War in the GOP, but that as things stand now, the Tea Party has a better chance of winning. And it's a compelling argument.

And what exactly would happen in the Tea Partiers win?

Will the TP become even more right-wing?

It's what Republicans do. They won the election? Clearly, 'Murica wants conservatism - move to the right! They lost the election? Clearly, the candidate wasn't conservative enough - move to the right!

Which, in a nutshell, is why the GOP's in trouble. About all that's saved them thus far is brand loyalty and the successful (if untruthful) smear campaigns routinely run by Republicans against $Democrat smearing them as "socialist", etc. etc.

On the issues? Americans agree with Democrats - whether it's on immigration, fiscal policy or marriage equality (not to mention abortion, foreign policy or the post-2008 regulatory reform etc.), majorities of Americans support the "liberal" positions when the "liberal" label is removed from them.

And when the GOP finally starts getting called on their bullshit identity politics and dog-whistling, people will actually start realising it.

[Frisivisia]

And what exactly would happen in the Tea Partiers win?

Will the TP become even more right-wing?

It's what Republicans do. They won the election? Clearly, 'Murica wants conservatism - move to the right! They lost the election? Clearly, the candidate wasn't conservative enough - move to the right!

Which, in a nutshell, is why the GOP's in trouble. About all that's saved them thus far is brand loyalty and the successful (if untruthful) smear campaigns routinely run by Republicans against $Democrat smearing them as "socialist", etc. etc.

On the issues? Americans agree with Democrats - whether it's on immigration, fiscal policy or marriage equality (not to mention abortion, foreign policy or the post-2008 regulatory reform etc.), majorities of Americans support the "liberal" positions when the "liberal" label is removed from them.

And when the GOP finally starts getting called on their bullshit identity politics and dog-whistling, people will actually start realising it.

To be fair, the Democrat guy is pretty black.

[The Godly Nations]

They should have adopted less clear policies and more vague rhetoric to please everyone of their constituents.

Which would get them labeled as cowards.

By their own constituents.

Who demand devotion to the cause and purity of position.

With enough rhetoric, vacuity can be disguised to even the most perceptive of minds...something their constituents, and most voters, aren't.

[The Godly Nations]

Easy, take advantage of FPTP State by State system we have, attract the crazy Jesus right in the south, the more moderate, middle class, respectable right in the North, fight out the mid-west with the All-American corn and wheat image, and put up centre-right, to centrist candidate in more blue states.

Um... the Internet?

How is this relevant?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Which would get them labeled as cowards.

By their own constituents.

Who demand devotion to the cause and purity of position.

With enough rhetoric, vacuity can be disguised to even the most perceptive of minds...something their constituents, and most voters, aren't.

If that was true, McConnell would have the safest seat in history.

EDIT: substitute vacuous for purity.

[Mkuki]

With enough rhetoric, vacuity can be disguised to even the most perceptive of minds...something their constituents, and most voters, aren't.

If that was true, McConnell would have the safest seat in history.

EDIT: substitute vacuous for purity.

He very well may. I wouldn't doubt it, to be honest.

[The Godly Nations]

With enough rhetoric, vacuity can be disguised to even the most perceptive of minds...something their constituents, and most voters, aren't.

If that was true, McConnell would have the safest seat in history.

A Republican in Kentucky...the only way for him to lose that seat is if he massively fucks up, provide clear policies, offer a definitive platform, etc.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

If that was true, McConnell would have the safest seat in history.

A Republican in Kentucky...the only way for him to lose that seat is if he massively fucks up, provide clear policies, offer a definitive platform, etc.

I mean from the right, which they're trying to do now because of the debt ceiling deal.

[Gauthier]

It's what Republicans do. They won the election? Clearly, 'Murica wants conservatism - move to the right! They lost the election? Clearly, the candidate wasn't conservative enough - move to the right!

Which, in a nutshell, is why the GOP's in trouble. About all that's saved them thus far is brand loyalty and the successful (if untruthful) smear campaigns routinely run by Republicans against $Democrat smearing them as "socialist", etc. etc.

On the issues? Americans agree with Democrats - whether it's on immigration, fiscal policy or marriage equality (not to mention abortion, foreign policy or the post-2008 regulatory reform etc.), majorities of Americans support the "liberal" positions when the "liberal" label is removed from them.

And when the GOP finally starts getting called on their bullshit identity politics and dog-whistling, people will actually start realising it.

To be fair, the Democrat guy is pretty black.

That's not what upsets them. It's the fact that the black Democrat guy isn't wearing a butler suit and he's actually sitting in the Oval Office.

[The Godly Nations]

A Republican in Kentucky...the only way for him to lose that seat is if he massively fucks up, provide clear policies, offer a definitive platform, etc.

I mean from the right, which they're trying to do now because of the debt ceiling deal.

Please explain.

[New Chalcedon]

The Republicans rule the House of Rep. While Democrats rule the Senate.So it will make sense for budgets,proposals,and acts to be bipartisan for the federal government to be effective.

"Bipartisanship" is a magic sparkling pony. One party - the Republicans - is devoted to destroying the other, to the point where they turn against their own policies whenever Democrats decide to support them.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I mean from the right, which they're trying to do now because of the debt ceiling deal.

Please explain.

The Tea Party, as subtly stated by Sarah Palin, is going after McConnell for being a "traitor" by negotiating with the president.

He's always had to watch his right flank, but he'll have to be slightly more mindful now.

[Gauthier]

Please explain.

The Tea Party, as subtly stated by Sarah Palin, is going after McConnell for being a "traitor" by negotiating with the president.

He's always had to watch his right flank, but he'll have to be slightly more mindful now.

Mitch could just pretend he's being primaried by Ashley Judd and things'll go smooth for him.

[The Godly Nations]

Please explain.

The Tea Party, as subtly stated by Sarah Palin, is going after McConnell for being a "traitor" by negotiating with the president.

He's always had to watch his right flank, but he'll have to be slightly more mindful now.

Precisely the type of plurality that is needed in the party to implement their state by state strategy...declare other, different republicans elsewhere as 'treasonous to the cause of party purity', and please the local constituients.

[Nigerian Kenya]

The Tea Party, as subtly stated by Sarah Palin, is going after McConnell for being a "traitor" by negotiating with the president.

He's always had to watch his right flank, but he'll have to be slightly more mindful now.

Mitch could just pretend he's being primaried by Ashley Judd and things'll go smooth for him.

Matt Bevin is not a total weakling, McConnell will have to put in some effort in order to beat him. But of course, Bevin is not his biggest problem. Allison Grimes, his democratic opponent, is.

The way I see it, the tougher Bevin is to beat, the better, as long as McConnell still beats him. More money spent beating Bevin means less money to spend to beat Grimes, and a higher chance of Kentucky electing a democratic senator, which will be a great help to democrats in their effort to keep the senate:

In order for the reps to gain back the senate, they need to do the following, assuming CO, MN, and VA stay democratic:

1. Win all 45
- Must Keep All Current Seats.
2. Win all 3
- Must win all red states with retiring democrats (MT, SD, WV)
3. Win 3 of 7
- Must win at least 3 of these races - AR, LA, AK, NC, IA, MI, NH

Now, if the reps. lose Kentucky, they now have to win 4 of 7 in that final step.

Here's the Democratic strategy to keep the senate, assuming NE, ME, and SC stay republican:
1. Keep the Solids
- Must win the 42 seats that I rate as Solid Democratic (Holdovers + OR, NM, IL, HI, DE, NJ, RI, MA)
2. Keep the republican long shots
- Must win CO, MN, and VA
3. Win 5 of 12
- Must win at least 5 of these races - MT, SD, WV, NC, GA, AK, AR, LA, KY, IA, MI, NH

It's too early to know for sure which strategy will end up working, but right now, I'd much rather be in the democratic camp.

[Nigerian Kenya]

And what exactly would happen in the Tea Partiers win?

Will the TP become even more right-wing?

It's what Republicans do. They won the election? Clearly, 'Murica wants conservatism - move to the right! They lost the election? Clearly, the candidate wasn't conservative enough - move to the right!

Which, in a nutshell, is why the GOP's in trouble. About all that's saved them thus far is brand loyalty and the successful (if untruthful) smear campaigns routinely run by Republicans against $Democrat smearing them as "socialist", etc. etc.

On the issues? Americans agree with Democrats - whether it's on immigration, fiscal policy or marriage equality (not to mention abortion, foreign policy or the post-2008 regulatory reform etc.), majorities of Americans support the "liberal" positions when the "liberal" label is removed from them.

And when the GOP finally starts getting called on their bullshit identity politics and dog-whistling, people will actually start realising it.

I apologize for the biased source, but I think this is a good time to link to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db3pLodhh3U

And on moving to the right - in order to win presidential elections, Republicans probably need to win the moderate vote (which they lost by 15 points in 2012). A far right candidate like Rick Santorum is not going to help them win the moderate vote.

[Viinborg]

First of all, about 30% of the American people are going to vote for the GOP whatever happens, because they are afraid of the government, gays, immigrants, minorities, secularists, foreigners, (short-haired) women like Rachel Maddow, income tax, losing gun rights and the erosion of something they refer to as 'traditional America'.

The Republicans will need to deal with those issues. In doing so, they might lose their paranoia, superstition, uneducated gun-toting-bumpkin-praying-cowboy-mentality, and start living in the real world.

Oh yes, as a general rule, stop watching FOX and pick up a book every now and then.