What's next for the GOP?

[Euphdude]

I think we're seeing the GOP as we know it becoming less viable and attractive to the nation as a whole, thus changes will have to be made. Some potential changes include:

• Backing down on their new war on birth control.
• Acceptance of gays and lesbians.
• Easing on immigration issues.
• Acceptance of abortion in case of rape, incest, and danger to mother.
• Less aggressive foriegn policy (i.e., won't start a war with Iran).
• Backing down on cutting and privitizing the likes of Social Security.

What do you think the GOP needs to do to attract more non-whites, women, moderates and voters in general?

[mtutiger]

I think we're seeing the GOP as we know it becoming less viable and attractive to the nation as a whole, thus changes will have to be made. Some potential changes include:

• Backing down on their new war on birth control.
• Acceptance of gays and lesbians.
• Easing on immigration issues.
• Acceptance of abortion in case of rape, incest, and danger to mother.
• Less aggressive foriegn policy (i.e., won't start a war with Iran).
• Backing down on cutting and privitizing the likes of Social Security.

What do you think the GOP needs to do to attract more non-whites, women, moderates and voters in general?

For their survival, the most important thing on this front are to ease their immigration policy.

Their immigration policy is an absolute killer for them long term. The demographics don't lie: we're becoming an increasingly diverse country, especially in states like Florida, Texas and Arizona, and if their policy on immigration continues on its current course, Florida could become a "lean blue" state and Texas and Arizona could become swing states. Texas and Arizona, in particular, are fascinating to me because it appears that Latinos are finally starting to wield more political muscle in these states.

Bear in mind that Latino's tend to be sympathetic on a lot of social issue stances that the GOP has (abortion, gay marriage), so I think that they could perhaps moderate only slightly on those issues but still gain Latino votes long term. Either way, they're going to have to finesse some of these issues. There isn't an easy answer here, no matter what stanpapi says.

[Euphdude]

I wonder if we're getting to the point where the like of Rush, Hannity, and Beck are actually doing more damage than good for the GOP. Older white men seem to get a kick out those pundits, but they could be turning off a big part of their future voting block.

[DTroppens]

Generally I think you are right. They can keep their fiscal positions, but probably need to shift on the social positions.

[Gehringer_2]

For their survival, the most important thing on this front are to ease their immigration policy.

Their immigration policy is an absolute killer for them long term. The demographics don't lie: we're becoming an increasingly diverse country, especially in states like Florida, Texas and Arizona, and if their policy on immigration continues on its current course, Florida could become a "lean blue" state and Texas and Arizona could become swing states. Texas and Arizona, in particular, are fascinating to me because it appears that Latinos are finally starting to wield more political muscle in these states.

Bear in mind that Latino's tend to be sympathetic on a lot of social issue stances that the GOP has (abortion, gay marriage), so I think that they could perhaps moderate only slightly on those issues but still gain Latino votes long term. Either way, they're going to have to finesse some of these issues. There isn't an easy answer here, no matter what stanpapi says.

The thing about the Republican party that has to be understood first is where their money is coming from, not only their formal campaign money, but the money that feeds the party's ideological structure builders such as Cato, Hoover, and Fox. And that money is coming from people like the Koch's, Murdoch, etc. The GOP is a party which is ideologically captive to the economic interests of a corporate, internationalist, mercantilist, elite. The key and overriding interests of this elite are laissez-faire regulation, government corporatism, and low marginal tax rates. At heart these are the only things they are actually 'for'. Their opposition on these key issues today lies in the liberal wing of the democratic party.

Now once these underlying premises are understood, the rest of the mechanics become more clear. There is no natural majority public preference for these economic views, so in order to build a political coalition to oppose them, the ideological imperative of the GOP simply becomes to oppose the Democratic Party on every position it supports. By this logic they have hoped to build the largest possible coalition for their economic view. But the problem is that as a whole, all these 'oppositions' don't amount to any coherent economic, political, or social world view. On all issues except their financial interests, which are by definition too narrow to build a democratic majority on, the GOP elites have driven the party to be defined as no more than a collection of disparate oppositions by the logic that they want to recruit every voter that might have reason to disagree with the Democrats on some issue.

This means that it is really no easy task for the GOP to compromise with the Democrats on any issue, because for each issue settled, they will lose an opposition constituency from their artificial coalition. The closer the party is stripped to its core driving principles, the smaller its natural base becomes.

This is also why the Repubs have been having such a big problem with the "Vision Thing" since - oh, about Bush I? It's a problem that transcends their choice of candidates. As Romney's candidacy has shown, even a man who on his own could probably have done a pretty good job on the 'vision' thing is hamstrung by the dogma of oppositions he must embrace to play in the GOPs sandbox.

[pfife]

fwiw, their record on fiscal matters isn't that good either. Tax cuts haven't increased jobs, and the deficit has exploded under every GOP president.

[ballmich]

I think we're seeing the GOP as we know it becoming less viable and attractive to the nation as a whole, thus changes will have to be made. Some potential changes include:

• Backing down on their new war on birth control.
• Acceptance of gays and lesbians.
• Easing on immigration issues.
• Acceptance of abortion in case of rape, incest, and danger to mother.
• Less aggressive foriegn policy (i.e., won't start a war with Iran).
• Backing down on cutting and privitizing the likes of Social Security.

What do you think the GOP needs to do to attract more non-whites, women, moderates and voters in general?

So you are in favor of the one party system? I mean, what you are outlining is pretty much exactly the other Party. And if you turn the Republicans into Democrats, you've left people with no choice on the ballot.

The only savior for the Republican party is the constitution.

[Deleterious]

So you are in favor of the one party system? I mean, what you are outlining is pretty much exactly the other Party. And if you turn the Republicans into Democrats, you've left people with no choice on the ballot.

The only savior for the Republican party is the constitution.

Well, thats the problem when the other side offers advice on how to fix the other party. Just look at the people on the left clamoring for a Huntsman ticket.

[Euphdude]

So you are in favor of the one party system? I mean, what you are outlining is pretty much exactly the other Party. And if you turn the Republicans into Democrats, you've left people with no choice on the ballot.

The only savior for the Republican party is the constitution.

At the rate the GOP is going, we will have one dominant party sooner than later, which probably wouldn't be a good thing. We need at a minimum two strong parties to keep each other honest.

[John_Brian_K]

I think we're seeing the GOP as we know it becoming less viable and attractive to the nation as a whole, thus changes will have to be made. Some potential changes include:

• Backing down on their new war on birth control.
• Acceptance of gays and lesbians.
• Easing on immigration issues.
• Acceptance of abortion in case of rape, incest, and danger to mother.
• Less aggressive foriegn policy (i.e., won't start a war with Iran).
• Backing down on cutting and privitizing the likes of Social Security.

What do you think the GOP needs to do to attract more non-whites, women, moderates and voters in general?

Sooooo basically becoming Democrats. Take all that away and you have a democrat.

FTR: I do not personally believe in EVERYTHING above or everything the GOP stands for, but it is the core beliefs in politics I always side with the GOP on.

[ballmich]

At the rate the GOP is going, we will have one dominant party sooner than later, which probably wouldn't be a good thing. We need at a minimum two strong parties to keep each other honest.

Telling one party to adopt the views of the other party, just creates one party.

[Euphdude]

Sooooo basically becoming Democrats. Take all that away and you have a democrat.

FTR: I do not personally believe in EVERYTHING above or everything the GOP stands for, but it is the core beliefs in politics I always side with the GOP on.

At a minimum the GOP will probably need to adapt some Democratic strategy to increase their vote totals. Possibly the "easiest" targets are Hispanics (by easing on immigration) and women (by knocking off their attack on birth control).

[Euphdude]

Telling one party to adopt the views of the other party, just creates one party.

I'm not telling the GOP anything. If they are unwilling to change with the demographics of the country, their fate will be sealed all on their own.

[ballmich]

At a minimum the GOP will probably need to adapt some Democratic strategy to increase their vote totals. Possibly the "easiest" targets are Hispanics (by easing on immigration) and women (by knocking off their attack on birth control).

No they don't. They need to adopt the constitution as their framework for a platform.

[Gehringer_2]

At the rate the GOP is going, we will have one dominant party sooner than later, which probably wouldn't be a good thing. We need at a minimum two strong parties to keep each other honest.

If the GOP is to rebuild itself around a wider more progressive base, it need an issue(s) where it's positions are actually in the best interests of the society as a whole. The natural weakness of the Democratic party in this regard is it's support of the basic status quo in educational theory and practice in the US; the political result of the power of the teachers' unions within the Democratic Party. In the US we have been completely oblivious for the last 40-50 years of all the progress going on in other places in the world regarding how to organize schools and educate children. In the US we are absolutely rooted rock solidly in the 19th century.

The only problem is that this is a much better issue to pursue at state level politics than national. And until the GOP frees itself of all delusional ideas about the virtues of privatizing education, they are not going to be fertile ground to become standard bearers of a real educational revolution. Plus, probably the best lever to get this discussion going would be a move to make at least some college in this country free, but that requires taxation and so also runs too counter to current GOP thinking for me to imagine them getting there.

[pfife]

In other words, turn the GOP into the Libertarian party?

[RatkoVarda]

They can double-down on God, gays and guns, and when Texas turns blue 8 years from now, well, that's the end of it

[toadhunter911]

I'm not telling the GOP anything. If they are unwilling to change with the demographics of the country, their fate will be sealed all on their own.

So in other words, become as unprincipled as their opposition in order to garner favor with the masses. Great...

[pfife]

So in other words, become as unprincipled as their opposition in order to garner favor with the masses. Great...

Their opposition isn't unprincipled so it should be all good.

[John_Brian_K]

2004:



2008:



2012:

[clark1mt]

If Republicans don't moderate on social issues, I can easily see the Libertarian party winning a dozen seats or more in the House in the next four years. It might be the development of a sustainable third party.

[Mr. DNA]

No they don't. They need to adopt the constitution as their framework for a platform.

You sure about that? Between the 16th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause you have a dystopian socialistic agenda right there in the document.

[pfife]

You sure about that? Between the 16th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause you have a dystopian socialistic agenda right there in the document.

don't forget about the general welfare clause

[monkeynuts]

If Republicans don't moderate on social issues, I can easily see the Libertarian party winning a dozen seats or more in the House in the next four years. It might be the development of a sustainable third party.

Possible, but Gary Johnson last night had to have had a really disappointing night for Libertarians. It looks like he'll wind up at 1.0% of the national vote...at least one Libertarian on here yesterday was hoping he could get 5.0%.

[FloridaTigers]

I felt last night was a rejection of the Tea Party (Cruz's win in Texas aside). The GOP doesn't need to become Democrats, but they need to change their immigration policy and certainly work on getting the female vote back. I don't think old white men are necessarily the most qualified people to talk about rape.

[clark1mt]

Possible, but Gary Johnson last night had to have had a really disappointing night for Libertarians. It looks like he'll wind up at 1.0% of the national vote...at least one Libertarian on here yesterday was hoping he could get 5.0%.

If Libertarians were serious about trying to gain traction, they would focus on races at the local/state level first, which are winnable. Running a national candidate in a close race isn't the best way to build momentum.

[Deleterious]

If Libertarians were serious about trying to gain traction, they would focus on races at the local/state level first, which are winnable. Running a national candidate in a close race isn't the best way to build momentum.

Without Ron Paul or Gary Jonson, nobody mentions the word Libertarian this election cycle.

[chasfh]

They can double-down on God, gays and guns, and when Texas turns blue 8 years from now, well, that's the end of it

This is what I think might very well happen. Neocons never compromise, and neocons never admit they are wrong. They are confident that the people will eventually adopt their point of view. After all, how can they not? Right?

I don't know whether they lose Texas over it in eight years, but I think they might continue work the church media and AM radio circuit to keep that hard-boiled social message going, while taking a seemingly more moderate approach on national media.

[chasfh]

If Republicans don't moderate on social issues, I can easily see the Libertarian party winning a dozen seats or more in the House in the next four years. It might be the development of a sustainable third party.

I don't see it. Adopting the Libertarian philosophy requires an active, cognizant and time-consuming interest in internalizing its principles, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people cannot be engaged to do that so easily.

I don't know what it would get a critical mass of people to ignore their current free time pursuits and spend most of their free time intellectually engaging in Libertarian political philosophy, but I'd think it would have to be a social or economic cataclysm of some sort, something like a sudden collapse of the economy leading to hyperinflation and 50% unemployment, for example.

[Sparks4Ever]

I'm to the left of the GOP on social issues, but I don't think their stances need a major overhaul, just some tweaks.

Whatever gets them to consistently around 40% of the hispanic vote is what they need to do. They need to get republican governors and legislatures in states with heavy hispanic populations to work that vote. Losing Ohio does not worry me. That was Romney making a misstep with the auto bailout. Losing Florida, and Colorado and New Mexico becoming virtually out of reach is a serious and more fundamental problem for the GOP.

[Sparks4Ever]

The libertarian party will remain irrelevant. Libertarians need to focus on running libertarian candidates as republicans in favorable congressional districts. If they take that approach, they could eventually gain significant influence in the house.

Once they do that, then maybe they can have more of an influence on national elections.

[chasfh]

The libertarian party will remain irrelevant. Libertarians need to focus on running libertarian candidates as republicans in favorable congressional districts. If they take that approach, they could eventually gain significant influence in the house.

Once they do that, then maybe they can have more of an influence on national elections.

I agree that is probably their only path to relevance, but once R candidates get outed as being actually Libertarians, D might be able to successfully run campaigns claiming that the Libertarian will advocate completely abandoning constituents to fend for themselves in case of natural disasters, unemployment, sudden illness and the like.

[chasfh]

No they don't. They need to adopt the constitution as their framework for a platform.

I'm interested in hearing exactly what such a framework would look like. After all, all elected representatives are already sworn to uphold the Constitution upon taking office, so wouldn't this kind of platform look superfluous to people? Meaning, don't elected representative already work within the Constitution? So how would your suggestion be new or different?

[RatkoVarda]

This is what I think might very well happen. Neocons never compromise, and neocons never admit they are wrong. They are confident that the people will eventually adopt their point of view. After all, how can they not? Right?

I don't know whether they lose Texas over it in eight years, but I think they might continue work the church media and AM radio circuit to keep that hard-boiled social message going, while taking a seemingly more moderate approach on national media.

Texas is admittedly a stretch even 8 years out, but Obama once did get Indiana (11) and NC (15). Arizona (11) or Georgia (16) could be other places for the Democrats to expand the map.

[CMRivdog]

My 2 cents for what it is worth

The GOP needs to divorce themselves from Grover Norquist. Distance themselves from the Koch's, Embrace and take the lead on Bowles-Simpson or something similar (both cuts and tax increases).

Embrace the Dream Act

Teach their candidates how to properly answer and sidestep the abortion question.

[DetroitCity313]

Race baiting: LiveLeak.com - Bill O'Reilly: "The White Establishment Is Now The Minority"

If the GOP wants to do more, they have to stop with that BS. Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Blacks...they are all seeing this...and the GOP is slitting its own throat.

[pfife]

I hope the GOP follows Limbaugh's lead and continues disparaging everyone's intellect and work ethic who didn't vote for Romney. I'm pretty sure that will be wildly successful.

[DetroitCity313]

I hope the GOP follows Limbaugh's lead and continues disparaging everyone's intellect and work ethic who didn't vote for Romney. I'm pretty sure that will be wildly successful.

Whats great is the same people disparaging everyone who voted for Obama chide Obama for not uniting the country.

[Melody]

Texas is admittedly a stretch even 8 years out, but Obama once did get Indiana (11) and NC (15). Arizona (11) or Georgia (16) could be other places for the Democrats to expand the map.

I don't know. At the rate that people are migrating to Texas from the blue states to find work, could happen sooner. Maybe it's our northern border we need to reinforce. ;D

[CMRivdog]

I don't know. At the rate that people are migrating to Texas from the blue states to find work, could happen sooner. Maybe it's our northern border we need to reinforce. ;D

Don't know. I know a few Michiganders who are being sent back (Thank you Comerica Bank)