What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Abandon the Tea Party. They'll be weaker on the regional scale, but far stronger on the national scale.

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game? Who's going to do the local organizing, the phone banks, the driving disabled people to the polls, the door-to-door stuff, the organization of mailing lists (and the gathering of contact information for said lists), and the million billion other things that they've been relying on Tea Party volunteers for?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Abandon the Tea Party. They'll be weaker on the regional scale, but far stronger on the national scale.

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game?

Go to the short pass.

But seriously? Evangelical churches. Obviously the churches cannot themselves endorse candidates, but they can certainly engage in issue-related advocacy (and, indeed, they do). Furthermore, the individual members of the church (including church officers and employees, when not acting in their official capacity) who are already involved can then be mobilized in their personal capacity for actual campaign work.

They'd have to be careful to keep the two realms strictly separate, but it could work.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game?

Go to the short pass.

But seriously? Evangelical churches. Obviously the churches cannot themselves endorse candidates, but they can certainly engage in issue-related advocacy (and, indeed, they do). Furthermore, the individual members of the church (including church officers and employees, when not acting in their official capacity) who are already involved can then be mobilized in their personal capacity for actual campaign work.

They'd have to be careful to keep the two realms strictly separate, but it could work.

The problem is that that's still their old game. The Moral Majority and its successor organization The Christian Coalition did a bang-up job for the right through the 80s and 90s, but they're not as popular as they once were, and their views are being seen as outdated by a society that is increasingly gay-friendly. Putting their future in the hands of the evangelicals changes nothing.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Go to the short pass.

But seriously? Evangelical churches. Obviously the churches cannot themselves endorse candidates, but they can certainly engage in issue-related advocacy (and, indeed, they do). Furthermore, the individual members of the church (including church officers and employees, when not acting in their official capacity) who are already involved can then be mobilized in their personal capacity for actual campaign work.

They'd have to be careful to keep the two realms strictly separate, but it could work.

The problem is that that's still their old game. The Moral Majority and its successor organization The Christian Coalition did a bang-up job for the right through the 80s and 90s, but they're not as popular as they once were, and their views are being seen as outdated by a society that is increasingly gay-friendly. Putting their future in the hands of the evangelicals changes nothing.

It is literally a bear that masturbates.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Well hey there guys, what's going on in this thre-

It is literally a bear that masturbates.

what

[The Free Kingdom of Proprius]

It is literally a bear that masturbates.

YES! It is wonderful!

...what's a bear that masturbates? In what way?

Well, I think that appealing to religious groups won't help the Republicans. It'll hurt them, as many of those extremist religious groups are becoming crazy minorities. Republicans should appeal to the increasingly progressive masses. Stuff like recognizing immigration and gay rights.

And avoid being bears that masturbate. But that goes without saying.

[Nigerian Kenya]

It is literally a bear that masturbates.

YES! It is wonderful!

...what's a bear that masturbates? In what way?

Well, I think that appealing to religious groups won't help the Republicans. It'll hurt them, as many of those extremist religious groups are becoming crazy minorities. Republicans should appeal to the increasingly progressive masses. Stuff like recognizing immigration and gay rights.

And avoid being bears that masturbate. But that goes without saying.

appealing to religious groups would not be good. While nominating a huckabee, jindal, or santorum may give the evangelicals personal satisfaction, and it will probably help a lot in Iowa and Colorado (The Nevada/Minnesota evangelical vote isn't big enough to be a significant help), but it will hurt badly in more important swing states like Florida and Ohio, and will help make the GOP's holy grail (Pennsylvania) go for the democrats by 10+ points - without a huge recession going on.

In my opinion, the GOP needs to wake up and nominate christie in 2016. If he doesn't run, rubio and Jeb Bush would be good alternatives. (Paul Ryan has the obvious pitfall of not helping Romney in key swing states, Walker would probably just become the next pawlenty as far as presidential races go, and Rand Paul has the associations with his father, and the fact that catering to a group that struggled to reach 1% of the vote in 2012 just doesn't seem like a good direction for the party to go in. And don't even get me started on Ted Cruz and Rick Perry.)

[Blasveck]

YES! It is wonderful!

...what's a bear that masturbates? In what way?

Well, I think that appealing to religious groups won't help the Republicans. It'll hurt them, as many of those extremist religious groups are becoming crazy minorities. Republicans should appeal to the increasingly progressive masses. Stuff like recognizing immigration and gay rights.

And avoid being bears that masturbate. But that goes without saying.

appealing to religious groups would not be good. While nominating a huckabee, jindal, or santorum may give the evangelicals personal satisfaction, and it will probably help a lot in Iowa and Colorado (The Nevada/Minnesota evangelical vote isn't big enough to be a significant help), but it will hurt badly in more important swing states like Florida and Ohio, and will help make the GOP's holy grail (Pennsylvania) go for the democrats by 10+ points - without a huge recession going on.

In my opinion, the GOP needs to wake up and nominate christie in 2016. If he doesn't run, rubio and Jeb Bush would be good alternatives. (Paul Ryan has the obvious pitfall of not helping Romney in key swing states, Walker would probably just become the next pawlenty as far as presidential races go, and Rand Paul has the associations with his father, and the fact that catering to a group that struggled to reach 1% of the vote in 2012 just doesn't seem like a good direction for the party to go in. And don't even get me started on Ted Cruz and Rick Perry.)

Christie is literally their only option, though he may fall victim to what I like to call "Mitt Romney syndrome" to get through the primaries.

And that, obviously, is a problem.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

In my opinion, the GOP needs to wake up and nominate christie in 2016

How would nominating a fascist help the Republi...oh, you're right, it probably would.

[Nigerian Kenya]

In my opinion, the GOP needs to wake up and nominate christie in 2016

How would nominating a fascist help the Republi...oh, you're right, it probably would.

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

[Gauthier]

How would nominating a fascist help the Republi...oh, you're right, it probably would.

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

Two Words:

Obama Hugger

[Nigerian Kenya]

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

Two Words:

Obama Hugger

Obama has nothing to do with this. While I do support Obama (with reservations), and while his endorsement will be important for the democratic primaries in 2016, Obama has no role in the republican nomination process. In case you weren't aware, he can't run for a third term.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

The easiest way for them to gain much needed support is too push for drug legalization. They might lose votes from some of the "moral" voters but the Tea Party can't bitch as going against drug legalization is going against capitalism that they claim to love even though they don't actually know how it works, they can push to keep it "safe"(i.e. regulate and tax it without using the word tax or regulate), and then claim they want to reduce the prison population and other things to draw voters away from the Democrats unless the Democrats move towards the centre or even centre-left territory.

[Gauthier]

Two Words:

Obama Hugger

Obama has nothing to do with this. While I do support Obama (with reservations), and while his endorsement will be important for the democratic primaries in 2016, Obama has no role in the republican nomination process. In case you weren't aware, he can't run for a third term.

You really don't see the implications?

Seriously?

[Nigerian Kenya]

Obama has nothing to do with this. While I do support Obama (with reservations), and while his endorsement will be important for the democratic primaries in 2016, Obama has no role in the republican nomination process. In case you weren't aware, he can't run for a third term.

You really don't see the implications?

Seriously?

Well, of course, there will be republicans saying they'll undo or do better at various obama goals, but for the most part, since it's an open election, the focus will be on the path democrats as a whole offer, rather than the path Obama pursued during his two terms.

Christie's act of praising Obama for hurricane sandy is not something the tea party can really pursue as something to attack, since the obvious response from christie is "What was I supposed to do? Tell the media he was doing a terrible job and show them my Romney sweatshirt when that would have been a total lie? Tell the media he's doing "O.K." and then be unable to answer questions about what more he could do? Praising him was the only thing to do under the circumstances. The fact is that I do not like president Obama, and will pursue a much different path for the country as president." . The tea party can't really counterattack that.

So, really, Obama holds no role that is significant enough to be difference between winning and losing the republican primary.

[Othelos]

The easiest way for them to gain much needed support is too push for drug legalization. They might lose votes from some of the "moral" voters but the Tea Party can't bitch as going against drug legalization is going against capitalism that they claim to love even though they don't actually know how it works, they can push to keep it "safe"(i.e. regulate and tax it without using the word tax or regulate), and then claim they want to reduce the prison population and other things to draw voters away from the Democrats unless the Democrats move towards the centre or even centre-left territory.

Doing that might bring in some libertarian support, but I doubt many other people would support such a ridiculous idea.

[Gauthier]

You really don't see the implications?

Seriously?

Well, of course, there will be republicans saying they'll undo or do better at various obama goals, but for the most part, since it's an open election, the focus will be on the path democrats as a whole offer, rather than the path Obama pursued during his two terms.

Christie's act of praising Obama for hurricane sandy is not something the tea party can really pursue as something to attack, since the obvious response from christie is "What was I supposed to do? Tell the media he was doing a terrible job and show them my Romney sweatshirt when that would have been a total lie? Tell the media he's doing "O.K." and then be unable to answer questions about what more he could do? Praising him was the only thing to do under the circumstances. The fact is that I do not like president Obama, and will pursue a much different path for the country as president." . The tea party can't really counterattack that.

So, really, Obama holds no role that is significant enough to be difference between winning and losing the republican primary.

And if Christie does repudiate his bonding with Obama like that, the Democrats can play that over and over again as proof of him being Mitt Romney 2.0

That's before they dig up sordid incidents in New Jersey pertaining to Christie.

[ALMF]

The easiest way for them to gain much needed support is too push for drug legalization. They might lose votes from some of the "moral" voters but the Tea Party can't bitch as going against drug legalization is going against capitalism that they claim to love even though they don't actually know how it works, they can push to keep it "safe"(i.e. regulate and tax it without using the word tax or regulate), and then claim they want to reduce the prison population and other things to draw voters away from the Democrats unless the Democrats move towards the centre or even centre-left territory.

Doing that might bring in some libertarian support, but I doubt many other people would support such a ridiculous idea.

Your going to cut your unfavorables on the left by as much as hafe leaving the democrat with the choice of targeting them (and leaving the swing voters up for grabs) or targeting the swing voters (and begging for a double digit left third partie candidate). So yes, it takes away the 10 point lead the democrats will have back once the healthcare web-sight is up and working.

[ALMF]

Well, of course, there will be republicans saying they'll undo or do better at various obama goals, but for the most part, since it's an open election, the focus will be on the path democrats as a whole offer, rather than the path Obama pursued during his two terms.

Christie's act of praising Obama for hurricane sandy is not something the tea party can really pursue as something to attack, since the obvious response from christie is "What was I supposed to do? Tell the media he was doing a terrible job and show them my Romney sweatshirt when that would have been a total lie? Tell the media he's doing "O.K." and then be unable to answer questions about what more he could do? Praising him was the only thing to do under the circumstances. The fact is that I do not like president Obama, and will pursue a much different path for the country as president." . The tea party can't really counterattack that.

So, really, Obama holds no role that is significant enough to be difference between winning and losing the republican primary.

And if Christie does repudiate his bonding with Obama like that, the Democrats can play that over and over again as proof of him being Mitt Romney 2.0

That's before they dig up sordid incidents in New Jersey pertaining to Christie.

The GOP neads someone who thinks like him and will stand by it.

[ALMF]

Go to the short pass.

But seriously? Evangelical churches. Obviously the churches cannot themselves endorse candidates, but they can certainly engage in issue-related advocacy (and, indeed, they do). Furthermore, the individual members of the church (including church officers and employees, when not acting in their official capacity) who are already involved can then be mobilized in their personal capacity for actual campaign work.

They'd have to be careful to keep the two realms strictly separate, but it could work.

The problem is that that's still their old game. The Moral Majority and its successor organization The Christian Coalition did a bang-up job for the right through the 80s and 90s, but they're not as popular as they once were, and their views are being seen as outdated by a society that is increasingly gay-friendly. Putting their future in the hands of the evangelicals changes nothing.

That's just as true of the tea party today as the Christian Coalition in the 2008 election.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The problem is that that's still their old game. The Moral Majority and its successor organization The Christian Coalition did a bang-up job for the right through the 80s and 90s, but they're not as popular as they once were, and their views are being seen as outdated by a society that is increasingly gay-friendly. Putting their future in the hands of the evangelicals changes nothing.

That's just as true of the tea party today as the Christian Coalition in the 2008 election.

True. So here's the dilemma:

If they go with the religious right or Tea Party for the ground game, they alienate swing voters across the country.

If they don't go with either, then they have no ground game at all.

[ALMF]

That's just as true of the tea party today as the Christian Coalition in the 2008 election.

True. So here's the dilemma:

If they go with the religious right or Tea Party for the ground game, they alienate swing voters across the country.

If they don't go with either, then they have no ground game at all.

So you beild it from scratch the way Clinton did in 92 or Nixon in 68 (well 60 and 68).

[New Chalcedon]

How would nominating a fascist help the Republi...oh, you're right, it probably would.

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

See, this is the part where you are - frankly - overoptimistic as regards Christie. Saying that he'll "definitely" get FL and/or NH (given the reservations you express elsewhere before liking to say that Democrats will "definitely" win a given election) is wildly over-optimistic.

To start with, Florida will almost certainly elect Charlie Crist (D/R/Whatever) back into the Governor's mansion next year, and Crist has a long track record of using his power as Governor to make damn sure that everyone gets a chance to vote in reality, as well as in theory. Which will drive the turnout rates up, especially among the minority communities....and that's always (as in, "without exception for the past 40+ years") beneficial for Democrats.

Christie may be favoured to win Florida in 2016 - I don't think so, but it's possible. To say that he'll "Definitely" win it is a wild flight of optimism on your part.

And the part that you're missing is this: In 2012, all the stars were aligned for the Republican Party. The incumbent Democrat was saddled with responsibility for the worst recession in 80 years, the 2009 Citizens United ruling had cleared the way for their billionaire backers to spend unlimited amounts of money boosting Republicans (several - the Koch Bros., Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess etc. etc. - took up the opportunity, eventually leading to GOP-aligned super PACs spending more than the Romney campaign), a wave of Tea Party Governors and legislatures had committed to making voting harder in swing states expressly to drive turnout down among Democratic-leaning groups (whether it be college-student disenfranchisement in Wisconsin, voter ID laws in Pennsylvania that the Speaker of the House bragged would deliver the State to Romney or Scott's deliberate understaffing of Dem-leaning precincts for ballot places) and a media that was determined to push the false equivalency between Democrats are Tea Partiers just as hard as it could.

And the Republican Party still lost. Not only that, it wasn't even close - Obama became the first President win more than 50% of the vote twice since Reagan, and the first to win 300 Electoral College votes twice since Clinton. He also became the first Democrat since World War Two to win re-election with 50%+ of the vote.

Attempting to blame Romney (or, conversely, credit Obama) for the entirety of this is frankly silly. Yes, Romney was a rotten candidate - despite his sparkling resume. Yes, Obama was a brilliant campaigner. I do not question either of these. However, they ignore the fact that the GOP was losing solidly-Republican seats even in States that Obama didn't carry, and even in places that should have been safe territory. Such as Missouri, where Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) outran the President by 10 points to win 54-40, despite her troubled ethics record. Such as Indiana, where Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) won 50% of the vote in a State that the President lost 54-44. Such as North Dakota, where Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) won 50% of the vote (and the Senate seat at stake) in a State that Romney carried 58%-38%, against a solid establishment Republican candidate who outspent her and kept his mouth shut on womens' issues and the like.

The problems with the GOP are structural - they cannot and will not be solved by running a single brilliant candidate, or even a string of them. Christie might win in 2016 - I do not discount the possibility, particularly if Hillary Clinton declines to run for the Democratic nomination - but if he does, it will be despite his (R) label, not because of it....and a Christie victory will only paper over the cracks within the GOP, and that not for long.

[Gauthier]

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

See, this is the part where you are - frankly - overoptimistic as regards Christie. Saying that he'll "definitely" get FL and/or NH (given the reservations you express elsewhere before liking to say that Democrats will "definitely" win a given election) is wildly over-optimistic.

To start with, Florida will almost certainly elect Charlie Crist (D/R/Whatever) back into the Governor's mansion next year, and Crist has a long track record of using his power as Governor to make damn sure that everyone gets a chance to vote in reality, as well as in theory. Which will drive the turnout rates up, especially among the minority communities....and that's always (as in, "without exception for the past 40+ years") beneficial for Democrats.

Christie may be favoured to win Florida in 2016 - I don't think so, but it's possible. To say that he'll "Definitely" win it is a wild flight of optimism on your part.

He also thinks the Tea Party will ignore the Obama Hug especially when implications of being an Obama Buddy is cancer for a Republican primary.

[New Chalcedon]

He also thinks the Tea Party will ignore the Obama Hug especially when implications of being an Obama Buddy is cancer for a Republican primary.

Yes and no. I doubt that he thinks the TP will ignore it (I don't think anyone's silly enough to think that) - but I suspect he believe the TP will "clown-car" 2016 like they did 2012, dividing the nutjob vote three or four ways and leaving the establishment candidate to cruise by on 40% plurality wins in the winner-take-all primaries.