What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Farnhamia]

Democrats aren't leftists. They're centre-right.

Are you implying liberalism is synonymous with leftism?

It's just the "my left is your right" Europe/America dance. Tiresome, isn't it?

[Luveria]

Are you implying liberalism is synonymous with leftism?

It's just the "my left is your right" Europe/America dance. Tiresome, isn't it?

It's more like America vs the rest of the world...

The Democrats are classical liberal and that's centre-right. Maybe someday America will realize liberalism isn't leftist. It makes it difficult being taken seriously as a liberal.

[European Socialist Republic]

"Low taxations, limited government, free-market, pro-constitution
low taxation: doesn't relate to freedom, unless taxation is too low to fund the government then it is opposed to freedom or excessively high then it is pro-freedom
Limited government: depends on what is being limited and is not necessarily related to freedom, however limited government intervention in the economy is anti-freedom while limited government in the social sphere is typically pro-freedom
'Free' market: opposed to freedom
Pro-constitution: depends on the part of constitution in question

As if I'm going to listen to what freedom is from the standpoint of a communist. Communism is as anti-liberty as they come. Very un-American.

So you have no idea what communism is? Typical...

[Ashmoria]

Democrats aren't leftists. They're centre-right.

Are you implying liberalism is synonymous with leftism?

in america it is.

we dont have much of a real left.

[Levivania]

stop being so anti gay and start being more accepting, it does not make any sense why somebody would not allow people to love each other, and don't give me that crap on how it's not in the bible its a free country and you should be allowed to love who you want. If you don't want to be in a free country move to north korea

[Luveria]

Are you implying liberalism is synonymous with leftism?

in america it is.

we dont have much of a real left.

There isn't any left. You've got one lone leftist in the senate. It doesn't help leftism at all when you call centre-rightists the left.

[Ashmoria]

in america it is.

we dont have much of a real left.

There isn't any left. You've got one lone leftist in the senate. It doesn't help leftism at all when you call centre-rightists the left.

you cant have one of something AND not have any.

we have a teeny tiny left and we hate them. we arent even allowed to understand what left means. thats why all american politics is center-right with some being more right than others.

[Wikkiwallana]

What policies does the Democratic party have that non-Whites love so much?

"Not being racist" is a perennial favorite.

[Luveria]

There isn't any left. You've got one lone leftist in the senate. It doesn't help leftism at all when you call centre-rightists the left.

you cant have one of something AND not have any.

we have a teeny tiny left and we hate them. we arent even allowed to understand what left means. thats why all american politics is center-right with some being more right than others.

I'm actually surprised there is a socialist in the senate.

[Aldheim]

you cant have one of something AND not have any.

we have a teeny tiny left and we hate them. we arent even allowed to understand what left means. thats why all american politics is center-right with some being more right than others.

I'm actually surprised there is a socialist in the senate.

In all honesty, there isn't. Bernie Sanders certainly calls himself one, but in reality he's no more left-wing than the pre-clinton Democrats were.

[Luveria]

I'm actually surprised there is a socialist in the senate.

In all honesty, there isn't. Bernie Sanders certainly calls himself one, but in reality he's no more left-wing than the pre-clinton Democrats were.

So in America the Liberals are considered leftists, and the socialists are really just centrists. Makes sense.

[Hurdegaryp]

In all honesty, there isn't. Bernie Sanders certainly calls himself one, but in reality he's no more left-wing than the pre-clinton Democrats were.

So in America the Liberals are considered leftists, and the socialists are really just centrists. Makes sense.

The USA is Bizarro World.

[Luveria]

So in America the Liberals are considered leftists, and the socialists are really just centrists. Makes sense.

The USA is Bizarro World.

Note to self: When an American says leftist they really mean a classical liberal. Liberalism and leftism have the same meaning, which is centre-right politics. When an American talks about a socialist senator they are actually talking someone who is a centrist and thus not a socialist. When an American says 'centre-left' they really mean 'centre-right'.

Everything is backwards.

[Saiwania]

If your idea of a conservative platform is that nothing whatsoever should be done for minorities to help overcome their poverty, and that they're just going to have to drag themselves out of poverty by themselves, without anybody's help and in the face of severe discrimination by white society — well then, yes, you've answered your own question: They're never going to selflessly vote for a Party on the basis of some abstract ideological principle that their plight is their own damned fault, and that they can just all go get fucked.

Mind you, I have no problem with this. If today's conservative movement destroys itself through demographic obsolescence, that suits me just fine.

As a White racist, I'm more upset over the fact that Whites are sharply contracting as a share of the US population than most people. Many White people might be okay with becoming in the minority, but I don't want to so long as I can manage. I just can't handle it! I need to be among my own kind for me to be able to thrive and not be surrounded by people completely different from me. One of these days, the US just won't be a country I can call home.

Assuming that you are right however, it'd still take a while for non-Whites to want to vote for the GOP and in the meantime, the party would lose its base if they were to implement your recommendations. Even though holding onto unpopular views such as being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage is causing them to lose, Republicans would still get fewer voters gained than voters lost as of right now if it is too soon to make any dramatic changes. It'd be okay to lose the rotten base gradually, but not to let the floor cave in abruptly which would surely cause the death of the party.

[Khadgar]

If your idea of a conservative platform is that nothing whatsoever should be done for minorities to help overcome their poverty, and that they're just going to have to drag themselves out of poverty by themselves, without anybody's help and in the face of severe discrimination by white society — well then, yes, you've answered your own question: They're never going to selflessly vote for a Party on the basis of some abstract ideological principle that their plight is their own damned fault, and that they can just all go get fucked.

Mind you, I have no problem with this. If today's conservative movement destroys itself through demographic obsolescence, that suits me just fine.

As a White racist, I'm more upset over the fact that Whites are sharply contracting as a share of the US population than most people. Many White people might be okay with becoming in the minority, but I don't want to so long as I can manage. I just can't handle it! I need to be among my own kind for me to be able to thrive and not be surrounded by people completely different from me. One of these days, the US just won't be a country I can call home.

Assuming that you are right however, it'd still take a while for non-Whites to want to vote for the GOP and in the meantime, the party would lose its base if they were to implement your recommendations. Even though holding onto unpopular views such as being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage is causing them to lose, Republicans would still get fewer voters gained than voters lost as of right now if it is too soon to make any dramatic changes. It'd be okay to lose the rotten base gradually, but not to let the floor cave in abruptly which would surely cause the death of the party.

Losing by 1 EV or losing by 400 is the same result. If they don't change the trend they will lose now and forever. The racist white male vote is a shrinking demographic. Gathering up more of it is a losing strategy now, and will be a losing strategy forever more.

[Wikkiwallana]

As a White racist, I'm more upset over the fact that Whites are sharply contracting as a share of the US population than most people. Many White people might be okay with becoming in the minority, but I don't want to so long as I can manage. I just can't handle it! I need to be among my own kind for me to be able to thrive and not be surrounded by people completely different from me. One of these days, the US just won't be a country I can call home.

The incredible self-imposed blindness in this is depressing.

[Myrensis]

As a White racist, I'm more upset over the fact that Whites are sharply contracting as a share of the US population than most people. Many White people might be okay with becoming in the minority, but I don't want to so long as I can manage. I just can't handle it! I need to be among my own kind for me to be able to thrive and not be surrounded by people completely different from me. One of these days, the US just won't be a country I can call home.

....and yet you still ask why non-whites vote Democrat.

Assuming that you are right however, it'd still take a while for non-Whites to want to vote for the GOP and in the meantime, the party would lose its base if they were to implement your recommendations. Even though holding onto unpopular views such as being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage is causing them to lose, Republicans would still get fewer voters gained than voters lost as of right now if it is too soon to make any dramatic changes. It'd be okay to lose the rotten base gradually, but not to let the floor cave in abruptly which would surely cause the death of the party.

The longer they try to 'gradually lose' the rotten base, the more solidified the Democrat lock on...everyone else gets. The Republicans need to decide if they want to bite the bullet now and suffer a few cycles out in the cold in exchange for long term viability, or continue clinging desperately to their shrinking 'old white racist' base which might get them a couple more elections now, but pretty much doom them in the long term.

[Farnhamia]

The USA is Bizarro World.

Note to self: When an American says leftist they really mean a classical liberal. Liberalism and leftism have the same meaning, which is centre-right politics. When an American talks about a socialist senator they are actually talking someone who is a centrist and thus not a socialist. When an American says 'centre-left' they really mean 'centre-right'.

Everything is backwards.

It's not backwards, it's just shifted to the right by your "standards."

[Nigerian Kenya]

Okay. We'll assume that the above composition is what happens, and that there are no faithless electors.

These are the states that I believe Clinton would have a significantly hard time winning, more so than your typical swing state:

Arizona
Missouri
Kentucky
Montana
Georgia

Start with those.

OK, fair enough. Let's indeed start with these. I'll first address those with Clinton-specific polling:

Kentucky: Absent a Rand Paul entry (and nomination), Clinton is sporting healthy leads in Kentucky per PPP polling. And before you go on a jag about how PPP is "Democratic friendly", it called all 50 States correctly last year. And she's pulling even with Rand Paul, so even if he does enter, it's not guaranteed that he wins his home state.

Montana: Clinton's behind in Montana, but not by as far as Democrats usually are. While I don't pretend that it'd be an easy State to win (and probably it'd be one that she wouldn't try that hard to, given the lack of other reasons - Senate seats, House seats - to try), it's possible.

Georgia: Clinton is at or above 50% in Georgia against any Republican candidate to date, which actually makes some sense. Of the remaining "Solid South" states, Georgia has for a long time been just out of reach for Democrats - Obama received 47% and 45.5% of the vote in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and Bill Clinton won the Peach State once and came within a hair of winning it again. While it's certainly possible that a long, grueling campaign will drag her down, I think that if her campaign chooses to play offense, Georgia's one of the first places they'll look, particularly given that their electoral strategy will be about making inroads into the white Republican vote, while maintaining the biggest leads they can among non-whites.

Now to the two states that don't have any HRC-specific polling: Arizona and Missouri.

While both of these States have an undeniable Republican lean, neither of them is exactly unwinnable for Democrats, and a large part of why Barack Obama lost both States so badly in 2012 is - to be brutally frank - his skin colour. Once again, Bill Clinton won both States (once for Arizona, twice for Missouri), and I think that a smart Clinton campaign will start laying groundwork in both States the day she announces.

Now, I'm going to submit that you've missed at least one bet: West Virginia. The Clintons - as Southern(esque), DLC-centrist white Democrats, have historically polled well in Appalachia, and particularly in West Virginia. In point of fact, Clinton led in the general election polling there in 2008, and I think she'll be competitive there (and a few other places) if she puts the effort in.

To put it bluntly, the electoral map is much wider for Hillary Clinton than it ever was for Barack Obama, simply because she's white - and many conservative white voters (particularly in the South, where Romney carried whites by a whopping 40 points - Romney and Obama were actually competitive among white voters in the Northeast, the rust belt and the west coast, less so in the Great Plains) will at least listen to a white candidate whilst ignoring a black candidate. Is that fair? No - of course not. I don't hold racial considerations as important in my voting patterns, and I hope for a day when no-one else does either. But it's the reality.

***

As I admitted in my previous post, 400 Electoral College votes for Clinton is, on the surface, optimistic - I agree with this.

But between the ability of the Democrats to GOTV (I remind you that people were telling the Obama campaign to write off Florida as late as October 2012, but won the Sunshine State due to an extraordinarily good GOTV effort), the ability of Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot, the effects of four more years of demographic erosion for the Republicans (I may also remind you that even among white voters, Republicans do markedly better among the oldest voters - i.e., the ones who will die in the greatest number between elections) and the fact that many Republican-leaning white voters will at least be willing to listen to a white Democrat (rather than "switching off" as they've done with Obama), it's not impossible.

Even with these, I'd give it - three years out and absent any specific campaign developments - no better than a 40% chance of happening. But if the Republicans nominate a clown from the clown car in 2016 (whatever else could be said about Mitt Romney, he wasn't a frothing lunatic), then it's certainly possible.

And they're likely to do so. The only thing that saved Romney's ass in the nominations last year was the "clown car" effect - the multiple tea-partying candidates (Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, etc. etc. etc.) all essentially campaigning as the "not-Romney" and dividing the not-Romney vote. If the anti-establishment Republicans can unite behind a single candidate earlier in the process, the establishment's going to find a nasty fight on its hands, and a bloodied, limping, broke primary winner at the end of it.

Gore came fairly close in West Virginia in 2000, but every year since then, it's been very deep red. I'd be very surprised if Clinton managed to pull out a win there. Let's remind ourselves that Bill Clinton had a successful southern governorship that I believed helped out a lot in southern states he won at least once (Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Florida). 1992 (Clinton vs. Bush) was also a very different time with very different swing states - Texas, for instance, was a swing state back then, and Clinton almost won it. Now, it's two decades later, and states have shifted on the political spectrum from their 92/96 position, which makes winning southern states, be it Georgia or Arizona, a much harder thing to do in 2016. Hillary was just an Arkansas Senator - not a governor. Also, all this polling - it's really based on name recognition at this point. In 2015/16 when Republicans start rolling out all the various ads - "She'll raise your taxes!", "She'll shutdown the government!", "She'll refuse to protect our ambassadors!", then you'll get a much better look at Clinton's popularity. I'm not saying that Clinton getting 400 electoral votes is impossible, it can happen under the right situation. It's just not what I'll expect even in my wildest dreams, unless Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann or similar is nominated. I don't see it happening with Santorum however, due to his pull with the evangelical vote, and probably not with Rand Paul as his advantage in Kentucky would probably give some help elsewhere.

And as for Florida - Obama winning there in 2012 was a true surprise. Clinton should have an easier time though, due to her husband's record and what not.

[Grave_n_idle]

Shhhh!! Don't tell them that! I want them to run Rubio, just because when he flops with Hispanics I want to see what their new batch of excuses are for their inability to appeal to minority voters, because we know it has nothing at all to do with their policies or any racism within the party.

My money is on some combination of "liberal media!!", "welfare phones!" and "Illegals voting!!".

Pray tell, which policies do the Democrats have that non-Whites just love? Because if they aren't conservative and won't vote for conservative policies, then they are frankly a lost cause. If the Republican party has to become just as liberal as the Democrats to survive, they might as well disband.

Seems like a winning argument.

[Grave_n_idle]

lol, "liberal" Democrats.

But, thank you for highlighting exactly the issue that is creating problems for the GOP, and will continue to do so. Namely, the belief that ideological purity is more important than the welfare of the country or the will of the voters.

I still want you to answer my question. I don't think giving up on abortion and gay marriage would be enough to make things better for the GOP as much as I'd like it to and don't personally care about those issues. In fact, the Republicans would lose voters they apparently can't do without if they decided to abandon the social conservatives/religious bloc.

Probably not, actually - that's the problem with catering to your base - they were going to vote for you anyway.

If the GOP positions themselves even slightly to the economic and social right of the Democrats, they'll be the 'lesser of two evils' as far as the rightwing voters care. It's why it's crazy for the GOP to be constantly leaning further and further right - they've GOT that bloc already, offering them MORE fanservice won't make them vote more.

[Death Metal]

And as for Florida - Obama winning there in 2012 was a true surprise.

Not really. Only voter suppression would have stopped that (and they tried voter suppression and it STILL didn't work)

[Grave_n_idle]

*sniff sniff* Ah yes. The myth of the welfare queens. You thing that would have tossed that rotting argument by now. I guess they like to conserve it......

If this isn't a welfare queen, then I don't know what is:
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascoun ... 21900.html

Donte and Lakisha Muhammad, who together collected $219,000 at taxpayers expense in Oregon.

Were they finally found guilty?

(The article says they were going to plead not guilty, but doesn't link to an update).

[Grave_n_idle]

Gosh, I don't know. How about not trying to keep them from voting, or actually helping them secure voting rights and political power proportionate to their population?

How about working to prevent discrimination against them in employment, lending, housing, and criminal justice?

How about working to help bring jobs to the places where they live? How about working to help them start businesses within their community? How about working to help them accumulate wealth they can pass along to their kids, or even just working to help them build a better future for those kids?

You know, the sorts of things that white people want — except without the magical tooth fairy thinking that says that if we just pretend there's no such thing as discrimination and help existing businesses and communities that are thriving today (i.e., white communities), the market will just do all our hard work for us and sort it all out without any further effort on our part?

All I got out of that is that they want more government spending/programs and affirmative action, all of which are liberal policies. What exactly is conservative about catering to their every need?

If we actually tried that, it would be cheaper than the alternative. Which makes it the fiscally conservative option.

[Faolinn]

Here's the ultimate strategy. The one that could not fail if they really wanted people to favor them. They should take everything that makes them republicans and....




Get rid of it, do a 180 turn and become a progressive party that purposely excludes the stupid and outright insane.