What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[The Rich Port]

To be fair, it's what lost them the election.

And seeing as nothing all that significant has changed about the platform since 2004, it's what won them a few eight years ago.

American attitudes change.

Or we gain sanity.

Pick your answer.

[Lesbia]

And seeing as nothing all that significant has changed about the platform since 2004, it's what won them a few eight years ago.

American attitudes change.

Or we gain sanity.

Pick your answer.

Certainly the former.

[Mkuki]

To be fair, it's what lost them the election.

And seeing as nothing all that significant has changed about the platform since 2004, it's what won them a few eight years ago.

You mean one election out of three? That's not a great track record, y'know.

[The Rich Port]

American attitudes change.

Or we gain sanity.

Pick your answer.

Certainly the former.

I would have said the latter.

Considering slavery was popular at one time in this country.

[Lesbia]

Certainly the former.

I would have said the latter.

Considering slavery was popular at one time in this country.

We're talking this past decade. And to say that normal society as a whole has become more sane seems to be rather inaccurate.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

were the hell did you come up with that number? You're so off it almost makes me laugh.

We combined your 15-year-old beliefs on the state of finances, whether or not insurance is worth it, and opinion towards the less fortunate and determined you had to be someone who has yet to enter the real world. Ergo, about 15.

To be fair, you don't have to be 15 to have that attitude. To wit:

[Edlichbury]

To be fair, it's what lost them the election.

And seeing as nothing all that significant has changed about the platform since 2004, it's what won them a few eight years ago.

And then the events of 2005-2008 happened. When your policies lead to a massive economic collapse and a systematic "Fuck You" to the minorities and poor in that same period, it's perfectly rational that people will change their minds.

[Providence and Port Hope]

Here's what the GOP needs to do:

1. Shift towards Libertarianism. The party members can keep religious values, but some things like public nudity and gay marriage must be accepted to continue the political game (considering the Bible probably meant gay sex as not using the power of creation as intended and rather for pleasure.

2. Tax cuts for all classes and groups. The promise of smaller government appeals to almost all right-wingers and libertarians.

3. Hold out on libertarianism, and enjoy more success.

[Hornesia]

Here's what the GOP needs to do:

1. Shift towards Libertarianism. The party members can keep religious values, but some things like public nudity and gay marriage must be accepted to continue the political game (considering the Bible probably meant gay sex as not using the power of creation as intended and rather for pleasure.

2. Tax cuts for all classes and groups. The promise of smaller government appeals to almost all right-wingers and libertarians.

3. Hold out on libertarianism, and enjoy more success.

This.

[Grave_n_idle]

Most of what I've seen in this thread is just changing their party's platform to match that of the Democrats. That's the best you all have?

Democrats are to the right of Eisenhower's Republican party.

Republicans don't need to try to become the Democrats, they need to go back to being Republicans.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. Shift towards Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is an unelectable fringe ideology.

If the GOP wants to become more electable, trying to emulate their least electable fringe is probably not the way to do it.

[Maurepas]

1. Shift towards Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is an unelectable fringe ideology.

If the GOP wants to become more electable, trying to emulate their least electable fringe is probably not the way to do it.

I don't know about that. As a whole, sure, but appealing to the more popular aspects, like drug policy, and foreign policy wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Especially as opposed to Democratic views on the subject, as Barack Obama hasn't exactly been friendly to the pro-marijuana crowd.

A shift towards it, I think, would be a good idea, not necessarily actually emulating them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Libertarianism is an unelectable fringe ideology.

If the GOP wants to become more electable, trying to emulate their least electable fringe is probably not the way to do it.

I don't know about that. As a whole, sure, but appealing to the more popular aspects, like drug policy, and foreign policy wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Especially as opposed to Democratic views on the subject, as Barack Obama hasn't exactly been friendly to the pro-marijuana crowd.

A shift towards it, I think, would be a good idea, not necessarily actually emulating them.

The more appealing aspects?

Drug legalisation basically appeals to stoners - a non-voting demographic - and isolationism isn't popular.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't know about that. As a whole, sure, but appealing to the more popular aspects, like drug policy, and foreign policy wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Especially as opposed to Democratic views on the subject, as Barack Obama hasn't exactly been friendly to the pro-marijuana crowd.

A shift towards it, I think, would be a good idea, not necessarily actually emulating them.

The more appealing aspects?

Drug legalisation basically appeals to stoners - a non-voting demographic

Wrong and wrong again. A definite majority of Americans support legalization, whether they use it or not. And while I'm not able to find specific numbers on the number of marijuana users who vote, the success of recent legalization measures leads me to believe that they do have some political sway.

and isolationism isn't popular.

No, but a less interventionist attitude could be appealing to a nation weary from two Mideastern quagmires, and a handful of other interventions.

[Maurepas]

The more appealing aspects?

Drug legalisation basically appeals to stoners - a non-voting demographic

Wrong and wrong again. A definite majority of Americans support legalization, whether they use it or not. And while I'm not able to find specific numbers on the number of marijuana users who vote, the success of recent legalization measures leads me to believe that they do have some political sway.

and isolationism isn't popular.

No, but a less interventionist attitude could be appealing to a nation weary from two Mideastern quagmires, and a handful of other interventions.

Yeah, that, lol

[Blakk Metal]

I don't know about that. As a whole, sure, but appealing to the more popular aspects, like drug policy, and foreign policy wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. Especially as opposed to Democratic views on the subject, as Barack Obama hasn't exactly been friendly to the pro-marijuana crowd.

A shift towards it, I think, would be a good idea, not necessarily actually emulating them.

The more appealing aspects?

Drug legalisation basically appeals to stoners.

Don't you know the Founding Fathers themselves used weed?

[Grave_n_idle]

Wrong and wrong again. A definite majority of Americans support legalization, whether they use it or not. And while I'm not able to find specific numbers on the number of marijuana users who vote, the success of recent legalization measures leads me to believe that they do have some political sway.

I'm not being 100% serious - being pro-legalisation, but absolutely straight-edge, myself - but a thousand respondents, over one day, on a website, is not a reliable sample.

But seriously, almost no-one is a single-issue voter on either legalisation or isolationism, and we're not talking about what ideas might make someone stroke their beard and express an opinion, we're talking about what ideas would cause someone eligible to vote, into a voter.

Libertarians account for about a percentage point of voters, isolationism and drug-legalisation (probably heavily overlap with that and) wouldn't add many actual votes to that.

[Regnum Dominae]

Wrong and wrong again. A definite majority of Americans support legalization, whether they use it or not. And while I'm not able to find specific numbers on the number of marijuana users who vote, the success of recent legalization measures leads me to believe that they do have some political sway.

I'm not being 100% serious - being pro-legalisation, but absolutely straight-edge, myself - but a thousand respondents, over one day, on a website, is not a reliable sample.

But seriously, almost no-one is a single-issue voter on either legalisation or isolationism, and we're not talking about what ideas might make someone stroke their beard and express an opinion, we're talking about what ideas would cause someone eligible to vote, into a voter.

Libertarians account for about a percentage point of voters, isolationism and drug-legalisation (probably heavily overlap with that and) wouldn't add many actual votes to that.

Actually, a Reason-Rupe poll showed that 24% of Americans hold libertarian beliefs, which the poll defines as being economically right and socially left. (this doesn't mean that they hold the extremist beliefs of the big-L Libertarian Party, just that they are in that quadrant).

And if you find Reason to be too biased, Gallup had a similar poll with very similar results. (PDF warning, and it reads like a Powerpoint. Relevant info starts on page 24)

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not being 100% serious - being pro-legalisation, but absolutely straight-edge, myself - but a thousand respondents, over one day, on a website, is not a reliable sample.

But seriously, almost no-one is a single-issue voter on either legalisation or isolationism, and we're not talking about what ideas might make someone stroke their beard and express an opinion, we're talking about what ideas would cause someone eligible to vote, into a voter.

Libertarians account for about a percentage point of voters, isolationism and drug-legalisation (probably heavily overlap with that and) wouldn't add many actual votes to that.

Actually, a Reason-Rupe poll showed that 24% of Americans hold libertarian beliefs, which the poll defines as being economically right and socially left. (this doesn't mean that they hold the extremist beliefs of the big-L Libertarian Party, just that they are in that quadrant).

And if you find Reason to be too biased, Gallup had a similar poll with very similar results. (PDF warning)

I prefer actual vote numbers, since they represent how popular libertarian politics are when you have to put your vote on the line.

So, peaking about 1%.

[Maurepas]

I'm not being 100% serious - being pro-legalisation, but absolutely straight-edge, myself - but a thousand respondents, over one day, on a website, is not a reliable sample.

But seriously, almost no-one is a single-issue voter on either legalisation or isolationism, and we're not talking about what ideas might make someone stroke their beard and express an opinion, we're talking about what ideas would cause someone eligible to vote, into a voter.

Libertarians account for about a percentage point of voters, isolationism and drug-legalisation (probably heavily overlap with that and) wouldn't add many actual votes to that.

Actually, a Reason-Rupe poll showed that 24% of Americans hold libertarian beliefs, which the poll defines as being economically right and socially left. (this doesn't mean that they hold the extremist beliefs of the big-L Libertarian Party, just that they are in that quadrant).

And if you find Reason to be too biased, Gallup had a similar poll with very similar results. (PDF warning)

Also I wonder how many of the numbers reflect actual beliefs or party affiliation? I mean, the trick here is adding voters, I'd imagine that the current Republicans will vote Republican regardless.

You're trying to attract that voter who doesn't currently have a party to vote for.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, a Reason-Rupe poll showed that 24% of Americans hold libertarian beliefs, which the poll defines as being economically right and socially left. (this doesn't mean that they hold the extremist beliefs of the big-L Libertarian Party, just that they are in that quadrant).

And if you find Reason to be too biased, Gallup had a similar poll with very similar results. (PDF warning)

Also I wonder how many of the numbers reflect actual beliefs or party affiliation? I mean, the trick here is adding voters, I'd imagine that the current Republicans will vote Republican regardless.

You're trying to attract that voter who doesn't currently have a party to vote for.

And a fringe of the conservative movement that's too fringe even for most conservatives, probably isn't the route to that.

[Neo Arcad]

The first thing I'd do is gather everyone in the Republican Party who accepts bribes from lobbyists, or who has been in office for more than 15 years, or has been classified as a RINO, in one room. Then I'd blow up that room and kill them all. Then, I'd clone Marco Rubio, and give all the clones bushy mustaches. And then I'd have them all elected in every state by rigging the polls or mind control or something.

That's basically where the plan ends, though. I don't know what to do after that.

[Regnum Dominae]

Actually, a Reason-Rupe poll showed that 24% of Americans hold libertarian beliefs, which the poll defines as being economically right and socially left. (this doesn't mean that they hold the extremist beliefs of the big-L Libertarian Party, just that they are in that quadrant).

And if you find Reason to be too biased, Gallup had a similar poll with very similar results. (PDF warning)

Also I wonder how many of the numbers reflect actual beliefs or party affiliation? I mean, the trick here is adding voters, I'd imagine that the current Republicans will vote Republican regardless.

The Gallup poll doesn't show the overlap between the five groups and party affiliation, that I can find.

You're trying to attract that voter who doesn't currently have a party to vote for.

Which is a lot of people. I'm one of them: The Libertarians (big-L) are too extreme economically and too socially apathetic on things besides drugs; the Democrats are a bit too left economically and don't present a strong enough message on social issues; and the GOP has just gone over the cliff of batshit insane.

EDIT: quote tags are evil

[Regnum Dominae]

The first thing I'd do is gather everyone in the Republican Party who [...] has been classified as a RINO, in one room. Then I'd blow up that room and kill them all.

So, you want to kill off all the Republicans who are even remotely sane?

[Maurepas]

Also I wonder how many of the numbers reflect actual beliefs or party affiliation? I mean, the trick here is adding voters, I'd imagine that the current Republicans will vote Republican regardless.

You're trying to attract that voter who doesn't currently have a party to vote for.

And a fringe of the conservative movement that's too fringe even for most conservatives, probably isn't the route to that.

I'm not sure I'd point to a third party's voter numbers as evidence of the populace's views on ideas. The US has always been less apt to give a Third Party any votes no matter what they say.

I mean, how many people agree with low taxes, but won't vote for a party that's against Abortion or Gay Rights? When i say go "Libertarian" I also mean social issues like that. Not necessarily the actual party.

Or, how many people disagree with both Bush and Obama's war policies, and don't currently have a party to go to? I've seen a lot of that, and that would be more of a Libertarian standpoint.