What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Neo Arcad]

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?

The OP said to approach as if I was a Republican, so yeah, eliminating traitors to the Party is important.
(And if you missed the rest of it, that wasn't actually a serious proposal. )

[Regnum Dominae]

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

The OP said to approach as if I was a Republican, so yeah, eliminating traitors to the Party is important.
(And if you missed the rest of it, that wasn't actually a serious proposal. )

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

[Maurepas]

The OP said to approach as if I was a Republican, so yeah, eliminating traitors to the Party is important.
(And if you missed the rest of it, that wasn't actually a serious proposal. )

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

I'm not sure one can actually "kick" them out. I mean, all they do is nominate, support, and vote for candidates. I'm not certain the party has much control over that.

What you can do is discourage the use of the term(good idea) and direct them to less batshit issues.

[Neo Arcad]

The OP said to approach as if I was a Republican, so yeah, eliminating traitors to the Party is important.
(And if you missed the rest of it, that wasn't actually a serious proposal. )

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

[Regnum Dominae]

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

I agree, but unfortunately that's not going to happen any time in the near future.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not sure I'd point to a third party's voter numbers as evidence of the populace's views on ideas.

No, but - as per the thread - it is evidence on the populace's votes on those ideas.

The GOP are not going to gain votes by changing their policies on issues that don't affect votes.

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.

There is space for parties and candidates that disagree with both Bush's and Obama's war policies. Voters DO currently have a party (or parties) to go to - they are just utterly unelectable.

What you're arguing is that the GOP can improve it's electability, by coming closer to the positions of some unelectable extremists, on a couple of issues that don't seem to noticeably shift votes anyway.

[Maurepas]

I'm not sure I'd point to a third party's voter numbers as evidence of the populace's views on ideas.

No, but - as per the thread - it is evidence on the populace's votes on those ideas.

The GOP are not going to gain votes by changing their policies on issues that don't affect votes.

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.

There is space for parties and candidates that disagree with both Bush's and Obama's war policies. Voters DO currently have a party (or parties) to go to - they are just utterly unelectable.

What you're arguing is that the GOP can improve it's electability, by coming closer to the positions of some unelectable extremists, on a couple of issues that don't seem to noticeably shift votes anyway.

In that case I'm not sure there's anything they can do. I present it as an option because I think it is their best bet.

The problem here is, if we're taking the measure of votes as you are, all they really could do is become Democrats, because other than the things I've presented, there's not really a whole lot left that they could do to win back lost ground. At least without disavowing their current agenda almost entirely.

Out of curiosity, what would you do?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

I don't know how many libertarians you'd get, but I stand by my thinking that you'd get more of the independent and youth vote, though perhaps not the majority, if the party approached marijuana legalization from a states' rights perspective, and foreign policy from a more moderate stance. Also, you're right about the poll methodology in that link. Here's a better one.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, but - as per the thread - it is evidence on the populace's votes on those ideas.

The GOP are not going to gain votes by changing their policies on issues that don't affect votes.



There is space for parties and candidates that disagree with both Bush's and Obama's war policies. Voters DO currently have a party (or parties) to go to - they are just utterly unelectable.

What you're arguing is that the GOP can improve it's electability, by coming closer to the positions of some unelectable extremists, on a couple of issues that don't seem to noticeably shift votes anyway.

In that case I'm not sure there's anything they can do. I present it as an option because I think it is their best bet.

The problem here is, if we're taking the measure of votes as you are, all they really could do is become Democrats, because other than the things I've presented, there's not really a whole lot left that they could do to win back lost ground. At least without disavowing their current agenda almost entirely.

Out of curiosity, what would you do?

If I were in a position of some authority within the modern GOP, I would do one thing which the GOP has done poorly in recent years (sometimes to great success) and break openly vocal ranks with the TEA Party and the militant christian right.

The bulk of the GOP has let the agenda be set by increasingly fringe candidates - and the current libertarian summer is no different - it's extremists attempting to redefine where the party line is. As I said earlier, look at Eisenhower's presidency, and compare it to the modern GOP. Hell, compare it to the modern democrats.

The GOP needs to stop 'acid testing' party members with increasingly fringe tests of ideological purity, and make a return to being a party that has a big tent - a place that can accommodate different political ideas under one umbrella. The democrats are currently better at doing this - although it's a double-edged sword, because it means you don't get slavish obedience on party lines.

[Tumblr Isles]

hating women

[Mkuki]

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

Such a lovely post.

[Sociobiology]

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

Unfortunately our election system makes two parties the only stable division. It would be nice to switch to something like the french point system.

[Mkuki]

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

Unfortunately our election system makes two parties the only stable division. It would be nice to switch to something like the french point system.

What is the French Point System?

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Unfortunately our election system makes two parties the only stable division. It would be nice to switch to something like the french point system.

What is the French Point System?

The French presidential elections occur in two rounds, with the 1st round being held between everybody and the 2nd round being held between the two top vote-getters in the 1st round. That may be what he was referring to.

[Mkuki]

What is the French Point System?

The French presidential elections occur in two rounds, with the 1st round being held between everybody and the 2nd round being held between the two top vote-getters in the 1st round. That may be what he was referring to.

Sounds like a simpler version of Primary season.

[Wikkiwallana]

has been classified as a RINO

At this point, that's every office holding member of the GOP.

Edit: missing word

[Regnum Dominae]

has been classified as a RINO

At this point, that's every office holding of the GOP.

I've even seen BACHMANN called a RINO.

[Wikkiwallana]

At this point, that's every office holding of the GOP.

I've even seen BACHMANN called a RINO.

Tip of the iceberg.

[Welsh Cowboy]

At this point, that's every office holding of the GOP.

I've even seen BACHMANN called a RINO.

And Obama is a follower of Ayn Rand.

That's ridiculous...

[Wikkiwallana]

I've even seen BACHMANN called a RINO.

And Obama is a follower of Ayn Rand.

That's ridiculous...

It's what happens when you view the world through Tea goggles.

Edit: typo
Edit to the Edit: typo in saying typo (Damn you Irony!)

[Welsh Cowboy]

And Obama is a follower of Ayn Rand.

That's ridiculous...

It's what happens when you view the world through Tea goggles.

Edit: typo
Edit to the Edit: typo in saying typo (Damn you Irony!)

As someone who sympathizes with much of the Tea Party's points, I can say that Michele Bachmann is probably the last Republican I would think of as a RINO... I don't really like her that much, though. The cheesy web video announcing her retirement did it.

[Pragia]

1. Disassociate with the teatards, and get behind a good sane candidate (like say Christi or Rubio), the GOP needs a face of the party to get out there, and those two would be great starts.
2. Push for states rights, but keep to staying socially centre-right for national reform.
3. Compromise, and force dems to compromise too.
4. Aim for deregulation and simplification of government beuracracy.
5. Build a fence, and crack down on illegals while simplifying path to citizenship
6. Call for buisness tax cuts/exemptions, give companies incentives to hire here.
7. Pull out of middle east while strengthening resolve (not military numbers) in Asia, crack down on China for the trade abuse and cyberwarfare.

[Sucrati]

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has stated that the GOP is in a demographic death spiral due to lackluster support for immigration reform leading to poor approval ratings among Latino voters. I believe that he's right, but that he's missing a larger picture; namely that the GOP has encountered a perfect storm of issues over the past several years, with their base turning parasitic, and their supposed leaders losing control of the party.

So, NSGers, here's the question: If you were a Republican strategist, what would you do in order to rebuild the party, and to win elections (particularly the Presidency) in the future? This is one of my favorite games to play as a Democrat, as it forces me to completely shift my perspective. My thoughts?

1-Drop any potential talk about tax cuts for the upper class, or even putting up anything but a symbolic fight against minor hikes. This is what happens during economic downturns. The economy is slowly improving, so refocus the rhetoric on "streamlining regulations" and "removing red tape" for small businesses. Once the economy improves to a greater degree, take up the tax cut banner again.

2-When Graham's right, he's right. Path to citizenship for undocumented aliens currently here, and talk up stronger border security. Most of the GOP seems to already be on board with this.

3-Kick the ball down the field on foreign policy. There hasn't been a single issue in that area that's been a winner for the GOP for about a decade, despite their attempts to turn Benghazi into a thing. Whether they're right or not, it's a dud topic, and there's no traction to be gained there.

4-Shift focus to marijuana as being up to the states to decide. Promote education and rehabilitation efforts regarding drug users, combined with get tough rhetoric regarding dealers.

5-This is going to be a tough one, and it's going to hurt for a while: do to the Tea Party what the Democrats did to the Dixiecrats. Their brand of anti-intellectualism may appeal to part of the base, but it's hurting the party nationally, and the people who currently make up these organizations are on the wrong side of history.

Suggestions? Thoughts?

1. Raising taxes in an economic downturn on anyone (not just the 'greedy' rich... who are only greedy because they don't support the Democrats), goes against common sense knowledge of economics. How about we reform the system during the downturn and let it work itself out from there? Cutting taxes is one thing but raising them is another.

2. Didn't work in '86 or any other time in recent history for that matter, why on Earth would it work now? How about we secure the border now and then work on the whole 'pathway' later? There have been continued promises to 'secure the border' for amnesty with no work in the long run on security and more people getting a free pass. Border Security is first, as it is a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation of the Federal government to protect the States from invasion (yes, it's an unarmed invasion nonetheless.) Besides, why are we only focusing on the Hispanic aspect of the illegal immigrant influx? Immigrants come from all over but yet we're focused on ONE ethnicity! Isn't that against the whole aspect of 'equality'?

3. The thing is that the Democrats were always keen on turning Bush's international or diplomatic blunders into 'things'. It's just a back and forth between two sides of the same card. (Not just talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars).

4. That's a Libertarian philosophy that the establishment types (on both sides) won't support because of the power and money the 'War on Drugs' brings. Honestly, a major reform in our drug policies would actually be more beneficial and would eliminate a lot of internal issues with criminals and drug users.

5. It's not the Tea Party hurting the Republican party nationally, in fact, the establishment did themselves wonders by rejecting the Libertarian and youth vote (via Ron Paul and Gary Johnson). They are abandoning their base and trying to win over a base that looks to the Democrats because they know they can get more from them (at the taxpayer, and by extension, legal immigrants', expense). If you looked on the state and local levels, the Tea Party won a lot in regards to those levels. Sure the national level is really important, but without the states and localities supporting the leviathan, you'll have major support issues. Federalism was supposed to allow more power to more local levels of government with the Fed actually having the least amount.

[Greentopia]

They need to follow the lead of Northeastern Republicans, who are usually right wing economically but more moderate socially.

[AiliailiA]

If I were a republican, I'd be kicking out the Tea Party, not the sane people.

To be entirely honest, I'd like to see both the Republican and Democratic Parties implode and be replaced by, like, six or seven others. What we REALLY need in this damn country, other than proper public transit, the elimination of bribery and corruption, and a revamping of the education system, is an actual multiparty democracy like they have in European countries.

And that's not something you will get unless you change the method of election. European countries have multi-party systems because minority opinions much less than 40%-60% are directly represented* in at least one chamber of their parliament (some only have one chamber). That is, proportional representation.

And that requires a Constitutional Amendment. Without the support of either of the Big Two parties (who will always oppose: more parties pose a threat to their own share of the vote), even the congressional stage of an ammendment is extremely unlikely. The three-quarters of state legislatures needing to endorse such an amendment is frankly impossible, since the state legislatures are controlled by one or the other Big Two parties at any one time.

That's the proper way to do it anyway. There may be a workaround for the House, in that states decide (within certain limits like equal representation) how Federal representatives are chosen. A state could make all its reps "at large" and selected from a state list (ie, every voter in the state votes for candidates from the same list) but I feel the Big Two party interest still makes that unlikely EDIT and furthermore, a Federal statute 2 USC § 2c asserts only one member per district, this would need to be repealed though it's not a constitutional bar. The states that have "at large" representatives as a decent proportion of all their reps, are small population states, and for such states a proportional representation system is not much different to a single-member-constituency system. The extreme example is a state with only one house rep, in which "proportional" representation is literally identical: the one rep is whoever gets the most votes. No such workaround even exists for the Senate, since it is hard-wired to represent people of each state by election of one representative at a time by voters from a predefined geographical area.

A third party in the US is possible if and only if it represents a minority interest which is geographically concentrated (ie, smallish minority nationally but majority in one place). Since the issue of slavery was resolved, there is no issue strongly enough concentrated in one area to make that happen. Any issue which is a majority interest in an area large enough to form a base for a third national party tends to have enough support elsewhere that one of the Big Two will take it.

Sorry, but I think you're stuck with Two Parties. Well, unless a foreign power invades you, then another liberates you, providing you with the opportunity to start afresh on the electoral method without having to implement it through existing parties. With the exception of the scandinavian countries, that is how European proportional representation democracies came to be. But having your constitution torn up along with the countryside, the industry, and a generation of your young men isn't exactly something to wish for.

*By a party. It is argued that factions within the major US parties constitute representation of minority opinion, but you only have to see how rarely a faction of one party forms alliance with a faction of the other party to pass a vote, to see that this is at best a weak imitation of prop rep. European voters complain about 'blocs' and are dissatisfied when their preferred party remains in a coalition too long for too little reward of their agenda. But the coalitions can and do change eventually.