What do you think about the future of the Republicans?

[Lord Falcon]

Personally, I think they've fucked themselves. They took us over the fiscal cliff, and it seems very likely that they are going to stand against gun control, which an overwhelming majority of Americans want. I know this: I am a young person, and they've alienated me so badly that I am never voting Republican again, no matter how much they change. I think they're going to lose even worse in 2014, and then get utterly crushed in 2016.

[The Romulan Republic]

The fiscal cliff could still be avoided, although there's a fair chance the Republicans (or the Democrats) will screw things up.

As for their future, it depends on how much the party changes and weather enough people are stupid enough to blame the Democrats for a recession caused largely by Republicans.

[Lord Falcon]

Well, true, but the way things are looking, I doubt anything is going to get done.

Well, people are changing. And it's this world of change the Republicans fear. The Republicans are looked on unfavorably by 30%, according to MSNBC polls, and 53% think the GOP is too extreme. The numbers are against them, if they continue to obstruct and blame and alienate voters such as myself.

[Straha]

I have heard too many eulogies for the Republican party over the past decade to believe that the giving these eulogies are either center-liberal partisans or hunting for Cassandra rights.


There is nothing structurally inhibiting the republican party that can't be fixed via minor tweaks of their message. Their success in state elections speaks eloquently to this fact.

[ryacko]

I have heard too many eulogies for the Republican party over the past decade to believe that the giving these eulogies are either center-liberal partisans or hunting for Cassandra rights.


There is nothing structurally inhibiting the republican party that can't be fixed via minor tweaks of their message. Their success in state elections speaks eloquently to this fact.

The issue is a demographic miscalculation. They have tailored their message for a population that has already changed. It is more brown. Slightly more queer.

And all those minority groups helped Obama win. The population is also somewhat tired of capitalism (of course once they experience enough socialism it'll be the opposite).

In a way, the Republican base of support pretty much prevent significant reform, as certain things, particularly gay marriage, are less of a spectrum of regulation and more of a yes/no question.

[The Kernel]

There is nothing structurally inhibiting the republican party that can't be fixed via minor tweaks of their message. Their success in state elections speaks eloquently to this fact.

Not really or did you not notice that they lost the popular House vote to the Democrats last cycle? Ability to Gerrymander nonwithstanding they are clearly out of touch with people on this issue, but I don't see the message getting better soon.

Why? Simple, Democrats and Republicans in the House fear very different things. For a Democrat his biggest worry is going to be a GOP opponent as they have to be aware of the fact that even in a very liberal district a sufficiently liberal Republican could still theoretically beat them. It's hard but it happens from time-to-time and its certainly the only plausible way a Democrat congressperson would lose their job.

Republicans fear a much different thing. For those in especially conservative districts, a primary challenge is a MUCH bigger threat to their job. And remember the voters who vote in the Primary are NOT the general electorate (usually only registered Republicans and even in open primaries still heavily Republican) and even for the GOP they are the crazies as the partisan index of voters who actually show up to the primary elections are skewed to some very weird places. We've seen this many times where the Tea Party will carry out a successful primary challenge and then blow it in the general...and they are perfectly ok with this since it keeps congresspeople ideologically pure.

So of course the GOP is going to act like a bunch of lunatics. They are scared of their own party not the majority of the electorate, even in their own district. At least against a Democrat their incumbency is an advantage--against a primary challenge it often is a liability.

[Lord Falcon]

Well, a lot of the Republicans we have now were born in the sixties or fifites, maybe even earlier in some cases. I think it's more of a generational thing. They're holdovers left over from that old era. It was easier for them to be good Republicans in that time because the Cold War allowed them to sell their religious propaganda and that all our enemies are evil, but now they're just relics that can't adapt to the current times. I mean, Obama won by 75% percent of the Latino vote, 94% of the black vote, and 55% of the female vote. That's a huge margin considering our minorities are not becoming minorities. And considering the GOP's stance on women (anti-choice, anti-contraceptive, anti-premartial sex), I'm thinking that number might go higher, and that's troubling for the GOP since the most average voter in the US is increasingly the working female, according to some MSNBC polls.

[Knife]

The Republicans, nationally, have been relying on the so called Southern Strategy for 4 decades now. The last two cycles have shown serious cracks in that strategy. Whether or not they can adjust or not is left to be seen. Either in tweaking their message or if another region can be dominated to assure X amount of electoral votes. This country has been very conservative for 30 years now, after 30 or so years of pretty liberal ideals. I just think the pendulum is swinging the other way. The conservatives won't go quietly though. I pretty much subscribe the 2010 asswhooping to the Dems as nothing but blow back and back lash of a steady march of Democrats the few cycles before.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The republicans will either adapt as a whole and survive, or they'll split up. In this case, I foresee the moderates changing and surviving with the old name, while the Tea Party (or any other vast conglomeration of shitheads) withers and dies.

Frankly, the problem isn't in predicting the split or not, but in predicting how it will happen. The Republican Party is a merry gathering of conservatives, libertarians, fundamendalists, and various far-right fruit baskets. You can't really know who will choose to form his own party.

[Straha]

There is nothing structurally inhibiting the republican party that can't be fixed via minor tweaks of their message. Their success in state elections speaks eloquently to this fact.

Not really or did you not notice that they lost the popular House vote to the Democrats last cycle? Ability to Gerrymander nonwithstanding they are clearly out of touch with people on this issue, but I don't see the message getting better soon.

You are looking at too narrow a picture. The Republicans had some of their best results since 1950 at the State level. Their message appeals to a broad base of the populace, they lost the popular vote in the house by a couple percentage points and the vote for President by a relatively tiny margin To put it bluntly, the republicans still have the support of well over 40% of the voting populace. With that level of support and the structural foundations that support the de facto two-party system inside the US there can be no existential threat to the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't need to shift away from its old "big tent" strategy; if the Republican party had tailored its message to win over 2% of the voting populace we'd have a Mormon President right now. It's just a question of fine-tuning.


This is what irks me about this discourse. When you can get 40+% of the voting populace to vote for your candidate you are not "clearly out of touch with people". Jill Stein? Clearly out of touch with the populace. Virgil Goode? Ditto. The GOP? Clearly in touch enough to remain a dominant (and with democratic incompetence the dominant) party inside the United States.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that their fine-tuning will require them to ditch the Tea Party angle; it's choking their ability to deliver the goods in the legislature.

But that IS fine-tuning. The Republicans did perfectly well without a prominent Tea Party up until 2006. They can do it again once they recover their balance and concede some lost ground on issues where it's hurting them to keep fighting- like tax cuts for the rich. And, probably, universal health care.

[Lord Falcon]

Well, what about filibuster reforms? There have been a record 300 filibusters in this Congress. That's more than any other in history. And how can they reform filibusters when they want to use it to oppose and black someone they hate just because of the color of his skin?

[ryacko]

I miss the old days, when filibusters involves a coordinated team of legislators droning on and on about their mother's soup.

According to Sixty Minutes, it only takes one phone call to start a filibuster.

I don't see anything wrong with a filibuster, it protects minority rights.

And, probably, universal health care.

Universal Healthcare is probably disputed enough to make it a wash as an issue.

[Lord Falcon]

Well, filibusters have become a problem. They're now tools of obstruction, used to prevent cooperative lawmaking. And that is a very serious problem. My point stands: How can they reform or stop them when they use them to give a big middle finger to the American people? And how do they protect minority rights, anyway?

[Rogue 9]

The filibuster has always been a tool of obstruction; that's what it is. Where have you been? The problem is that filibustering isn't filibustering anymore; if a Senator wants to do it he should good and goddamned well have to get up on the podium and read the phone book. It doesn't actually cost them anything anymore, which is why it's so liberally thrown around.

[Lord Falcon]

Again, I repeat: How does it protect minority rights?

[Rogue 9]

Again, I repeat: How does it protect minority rights?

Because the minority in the chamber can use it to stop the majority from just running over them roughshod. This should be intuitively obvious.

There's a serious argument to be made that the current Senate rules on the matter are unconstitutional, though. The way things have become, it requires a 60% supermajority to pass any legislation or approve any Presidential appointment in the Senate, even for matters which the Constitution specifies are to be decided by simple majority vote.

[Lord Falcon]

Ok thanks for answering.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, what about filibuster reforms? There have been a record 300 filibusters in this Congress. That's more than any other in history. And how can they reform filibusters when they want to use it to oppose and black someone they hate just because of the color of his skin?

What the hell are you talking about?

The Republican party would be just as obstructionist if Obama were white.

[Lord Falcon]

They got elected purely because they played on people's fears of a black man getting elected! His skin color has everything to do with it! And then when you accuse them of being racist, they turn the race card back on you to say YOU'RE dragging race into it because they hide it; you're just open about how racist they truly are.

[General Mung Beans]

That's bullshit-look at what the Republicans dealt with Bill Clinton or suppose for that matter Hillary Clinton was nominated and elected in 2008. Would they have dealt any differently with her?

Most of the Tea Party (there are undoubtedly some racists there obviously just like any other mass movement), wouldn't mind a black candidate as seen by their support for people like Herman Cain last year, or for Congressman Allan West.

[Lord Falcon]

The birther movement itself is proof of racism. I meant specifically that the Republicans, after a black man got elected, put a very powerful ground game in 2010 about talking of returning to good old-fashioned values, i.e. "niggers don't become presidents." People talked about making him a one-term president the night he took office. I think by saying race isn't involved, you yourself are a racist.

[General Mung Beans]

The birther movement itself is proof of racism. I meant specifically that the Republicans, after a black man got elected, put a very powerful ground game in 2010 about talking of returning to good old-fashioned values, i.e. "niggers don't become presidents." People talked about making him a one-term president the night he took office. I think by saying race isn't involved, you yourself are a racist.

If there was nothing to be got from "birtherism" the Republicans would have looked to something else (as again in Clinton's case). Are there some racially motivated members of the Tea Party and other Obama opponents? Certainly but you are ignoring the fact (as I stated above) that most of the Tea Party has been willing to support black candidates who they agree with politically.

[The Kernel]

The birther movement itself is proof of racism. I meant specifically that the Republicans, after a black man got elected, put a very powerful ground game in 2010 about talking of returning to good old-fashioned values, i.e. "niggers don't become presidents." People talked about making him a one-term president the night he took office. I think by saying race isn't involved, you yourself are a racist.

If there was nothing to be got from "birtherism" the Republicans would have looked to something else (as again in Clinton's case). Are there some racially motivated members of the Tea Party and other Obama opponents? Certainly but you are ignoring the fact (as I stated above) that most of the Tea Party has been willing to support black candidates who they agree with politically.

Ok, quick question then: if a person has the following mindset does that make them racist?

I don't want to be considered a racist but I fear most black people, especially if they are wearing "street" clothing and performing typical "urban" activities. Even the ones in suits though I don't trust right away like I would a white person because they could still start shouting loud and hurt me if they wanted to. I've seen it before.

I have no problem having a black friend though or a black politician just so long as they don't act too "black" and they believe in the same things I do. None of that is racist though since I am just of these opinion because blacks are typically poorer and on drugs a lot more. So at worst you could say I'm a "classist" but certainly not a racist.

So what's your answer? Is the above racist? Because that's going to heavily skew whether you think the current GOP is racist or not.

[Zinegata]

The Republicans are overdue for another split. They're simply currently completey hopeless because they've forgotten governance (except maybe at the state level / governor level) in favor of ideological stupidity.