What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

1. Rubio is dogshit and a teabagger, Christie will get thrown under the bus. There are no sane candidates to get behind.
2.States Rights don't exist. Read 9 and 10 again. People have rights, States have limited powers. "States Rights" has been proven as an excuse for states to do oppressive things to their citizens (some of which Unconstitutional, like establishing a religion). It's an immediate red flag for civil rights-minded voters.
3. Yeah, good luck with that. The GOP by way of the CPAC conventions have made it clear that compromise is not going to happen.
4. Deregulation is what caused the economy to be shit in the first place. There are a few redundancies that can be done away with.
5. Not only would this be an economic disaster, but pushing the fence alienates minority voters.
6. Tax cuts don't help the economy during a slump. They should only be done during a boom, and never permanenced.
7. Zero sum game there as the Dems will be pushing for the same thing. It's the only reasonable point of the bunch, but you'll need something more to entice voters.

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

[Genivaria]

1. Rubio is dogshit and a teabagger, Christie will get thrown under the bus. There are no sane candidates to get behind.
2.States Rights don't exist. Read 9 and 10 again. People have rights, States have limited powers. "States Rights" has been proven as an excuse for states to do oppressive things to their citizens (some of which Unconstitutional, like establishing a religion). It's an immediate red flag for civil rights-minded voters.
3. Yeah, good luck with that. The GOP by way of the CPAC conventions have made it clear that compromise is not going to happen.
4. Deregulation is what caused the economy to be shit in the first place. There are a few redundancies that can be done away with.
5. Not only would this be an economic disaster, but pushing the fence alienates minority voters.
6. Tax cuts don't help the economy during a slump. They should only be done during a boom, and never permanenced.
7. Zero sum game there as the Dems will be pushing for the same thing. It's the only reasonable point of the bunch, but you'll need something more to entice voters.

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

I keep thinking about that one Republican woman who was attacked by a member of her own party.
An African-American, Harvard educated, female Republican is exactly the opportunity that I would try to cash in on if I were a part of the GOP leadership.
*snaps fingers* Erika Harold! That's her name!

[Pine Mountain]

Generally speaking, ideological consistency is the path to victory.

If a party supports freedom in some respects and opposes freedom in other respects (like both the republican and democratic parties do), then the party comes off as hypocritical, purposeless, and generally unattractive.

So the republicans would be wise to pick a side:
Either support both abortion rights and gun rights, or oppose both abortion rights and gun rights.

[Regnum Dominae]

1. Rubio is dogshit and a teabagger, Christie will get thrown under the bus. There are no sane candidates to get behind.
2.States Rights don't exist. Read 9 and 10 again. People have rights, States have limited powers. "States Rights" has been proven as an excuse for states to do oppressive things to their citizens (some of which Unconstitutional, like establishing a religion). It's an immediate red flag for civil rights-minded voters.
3. Yeah, good luck with that. The GOP by way of the CPAC conventions have made it clear that compromise is not going to happen.
4. Deregulation is what caused the economy to be shit in the first place. There are a few redundancies that can be done away with.
5. Not only would this be an economic disaster, but pushing the fence alienates minority voters.
6. Tax cuts don't help the economy during a slump. They should only be done during a boom, and never permanenced.
7. Zero sum game there as the Dems will be pushing for the same thing. It's the only reasonable point of the bunch, but you'll need something more to entice voters.

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

[Wikkiwallana]

The path to victory? Work to stop this homo-phobic rich rascist white guy stereotype created by the liberals.

Riiiight, we liberals created it. Has absolutely nothing to do with all the rich, racist homophobes running your party.

[Wikkiwallana]

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

You do know Huntsman is a pandering sellout, right?

[Regnum Dominae]

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

You do know Huntsman is a pandering sellout, right?

He is?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

I dunno. I don't mind his foreign policy, actually, and I'm fairly moderate. He'll have to tone down the hawkishness, as indeed I hope he would but that's the one area of a Graham presidency I wouldn't mind all that much.

Huntsman... I've heard good things about his foreign policy experience, actually. What'd he do, Wikki? Sincerely, I've missed something here.

[Revolutionarily]

there is no victory

[Beiluxia]

1. Don't look like an arsehole.
2. Don't sound like an arsehole.
3. Don't smell like an arsehole.
...
...
146. Appeal to everyone, not just your party base or those Tea Party wankers.

Edit: In other words......! There is a 6.9% chance that any of the above will happen, thus the Good Ol' Panties are probably doomed.

[Regnum Dominae]

there is no victory

How and why?

[Regnum Dominae]

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

I dunno. I don't mind his foreign policy, actually, and I'm fairly moderate. He'll have to tone down the hawkishness, as indeed I hope he would but that's the one area of a Graham presidency I wouldn't mind all that much.

Huntsman... I've heard good things about his foreign policy experience, actually. What'd he do, Wikki? Sincerely, I've missed something here.

I'd also have serious reservations about Graham's policy social issues and civil rights (a little bit with Huntsman but not nearly as much) but that is true of pretty much any GOP candidate (and a lot of Dems).

(Unless the Libertarian Party gets a grasp on sanity in the next four years and recovers from their paultardism, which I highly doubt) I'd support Huntsman over almost any Democrat, but for me to vote for Graham, the Dems would have to have a REALLY insane candidate. (like Kucinich or someone equally crazy)

And off topic, what's that reading list Caninope gave you?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I dunno. I don't mind his foreign policy, actually, and I'm fairly moderate. He'll have to tone down the hawkishness, as indeed I hope he would but that's the one area of a Graham presidency I wouldn't mind all that much.

Huntsman... I've heard good things about his foreign policy experience, actually. What'd he do, Wikki? Sincerely, I've missed something here.

I'd also have serious reservations about Graham's policy social issues and civil rights (a little bit with Huntsman but not nearly as much) but that is true of pretty much any GOP candidate (and a lot of Dems).

(Unless the Libertarian Party gets a grasp on sanity in the next four years and recovers from their paultardism, which I highly doubt) I'd support Huntsman over almost any Democrat, but for me to vote for Graham, the Dems would have to have a REALLY insane candidate. (like Kucinich or someone equally crazy)

And off topic, what's that reading list Caninope gave you?

Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crises, 1918-94; Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs (Part I + II); and Democratic Peace — Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument.

There are also several, more general papers, that Cani has passed along to me as well which I've found incredibly interesting. He's like ASB or Neo Art, but with international relations.

Which is to say, brilliant.

Anyway, I wouldn't vote for Graham (and I can, next election!) but he's not a foaming at the mouth, dyed in the wool reactionary. Say what you will about the man, he wants to actually govern, conservative or no. I can respect that, far more than our Tea Party darlings.

I wouldn't like him as president, I don't think, but I would respect him, certainly.

[Greed and Death]

Let sequester create finacial crisis, blame democrats.
Make up scandals involving IRS, Drone strikes, and the like then blame the democrats.
Avoid getting caught naked with Congressional pages.

That last one is going to be pretty damn hard.

It would be less damning if did at least refrained from doing it after the family value speech.

[Warda]

I'd also have serious reservations about Graham's policy social issues and civil rights (a little bit with Huntsman but not nearly as much) but that is true of pretty much any GOP candidate (and a lot of Dems).

(Unless the Libertarian Party gets a grasp on sanity in the next four years and recovers from their paultardism, which I highly doubt) I'd support Huntsman over almost any Democrat, but for me to vote for Graham, the Dems would have to have a REALLY insane candidate. (like Kucinich or someone equally crazy)

And off topic, what's that reading list Caninope gave you?

Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crises, 1918-94; Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs (Part I + II); and Democratic Peace — Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument.

There are also several, more general papers, that Cani has passed along to me as well which I've found incredibly interesting. He's like ASB or Neo Art, but with international relations.

Which is to say, brilliant.

Anyway, I wouldn't vote for Graham (and I can, next election!) but he's not a foaming at the mouth, dyed in the wool reactionary. Say what you will about the man, he wants to actually govern, conservative or no. I can respect that, far more than our Tea Party darlings.

I wouldn't like him as president, I don't think, but I would respect him, certainly.

If I ever run for anything I'm going hire you because your angry all the time, and would make anyone if they are wrong wrong. I would recommend seeing the movie Thank You For Smoking, it reminds soooo much of you

[Wikkiwallana]

You do know Huntsman is a pandering sellout, right?

He is?

When he saw that having principles was getting him nowhere in the primaries, he backpedaled on his support for science and made a point of being the first to publicly endorse the Ryan Plan.

[Blakk Metal]

I think that Graham's foreign policy and national security views are too extreme for a nation that is largely tired of war.

Huntsman, I could get behind.

You do know Huntsman is a pandering sellout, right?

All politicians are. Your point?

[Surfistan]

I dunno, there are sane candidates. Lindsey Graham for one, Huntsman for another. They won't win, but they're sane nevertheless.

I keep thinking about that one Republican woman who was attacked by a member of her own party.
An African-American, Harvard educated, female Republican is exactly the opportunity that I would try to cash in on if I were a part of the GOP leadership.
*snaps fingers* Erika Harold! That's her name!

She looks attractive too, hope she has a more open agenda, I mean, with all due respect, when was the last time the Republicans put someone forth who doesn't look over 50 and socially speaking lived in the 19th century. (Okay, except Palin, she still lives in the 19th century though)

[Wikkiwallana]

You do know Huntsman is a pandering sellout, right?

All politicians are. Your point?

His primary attraction was that he seemed willing to go against the party line when the need was great. Then he ditched that, so what does he have left?

[Ashmoria]

1. Don't look like an arsehole.
2. Don't sound like an arsehole.
3. Don't smell like an arsehole.
...
...
146. Appeal to everyone, not just your party base or those Tea Party wankers.

Edit: In other words......! There is a 6.9% chance that any of the above will happen, thus the Good Ol' Panties are probably doomed.

theres the problem, eh? the republican house members are all but guaranteed to be returned to office as long as they can get past their own primary. those districts have a lunatic base who insist on "the crazy" or they will put a crazy person in your place. either the non lunatic republicans don't care enough to vote in primaries or there just aren't enough of them to outweigh the lunatics.

that tars the national party as lunatics. in my mind for a good reason since the non-lunatic republicans don't have the power to bring the party back to sanity.

[Hurdegaryp]

All politicians are. Your point?

His primary attraction was that he seemed willing to go against the party line when the need was great. Then he ditched that, so what does he have left?

Difficult one. Nice teeth, perhaps?

[Maryginia]

Honestly, If they want to win in 2016, they need to reform to Goldwater Republicans, They don't need to become Libertarians, but they do need to go back to Being Goldwater Republicans.

[Blakk Metal]

Fund the KKK, they'll handle the rest.

[McCain 2018]

Here's my four point plan to get the Republicans back into the white house.

1. Pledge huge tax cuts.
2. Adopt pro-immigration rhetoric, don't pander to the bigots.
3. Become more socially liberal.
4. Colonize the Middle-East.

[Farnhamia]

Honestly, If they want to win in 2016, they need to reform to Goldwater Republicans, They don't need to become Libertarians, but they do need to go back to Being Goldwater Republicans.

Right, because President Goldwater won such a resounding, one might almost say landslide victory in 1964. What they have to do is wake up from the fever dream that the Neo-Cons and the John Birch Society and Karl Rove foisted on the party. Wake up, realize that they're not going to ever become the only party in the nation and work toward making the country better instead trying to make themselves look better. Stop pandering to fools, work with their opponents - and I mean work, not the "my way or the highway" crap they've been calling compromise - and maybe they'll have a chance.