Republicans - what is your plan for staying competitive in the following states

[IceSpear]

The GOP's strategy:

a) Keep the House indefinitely with egregious gerrymandering
b) Gain the Senate through lower turnout in midterm years and voter suppression laws
c) In order to gain the presidency, they'll simply need to wait until they got lucky with a GOP wave/Democratic scandal/economic collapse hitting at the exact best opportunity for them. Since they'll presumably hold Congress (see point A and B) they'd just need to wait until they're lucky enough for this to occur in order to ram their agenda down the throats of the country.

They have no intention of changing their message. The above will keep them competitive for at least the next two decades. After that, I have no clue what they do. Probably splinter off into factions.

[IceSpear]

This is another strategy: rig the electoral college.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that one.

[IceSpear]

I'm probably going to be blasted as a RINO for this, but whatever. The conservative base(evangelicals, gun nuts, 1%ers) doesn’t win us elections, it’s moderates and independents who do. If our margins fall in deep red states, it will be made up by winning swing states(and thus, we win the election). So screw the base.

Social Issues
Complete 180 on gay marriage, make it about strong families and individual rights.

Endorse medical marijuana, leave recreational weed up to states, while enforcing drug laws on hard drugs. The catch: promise to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one. And lighten up the penalties.

Endorse minor gun control. Stop letting Democrats steal our "common-sense" thunder. Stricter background checks, more educational/training requirements, stricter penalties for not securing weapons properly. Portray the Democrats as wanting to confiscate guns while we come off as the “common-sense protectors” instead of NRA reactionaries.

On the environment, endorse stricter pollution controls. Climate change debate aside, pollution affects everyone, and no Republican or Democrat likes their health and safety threatend.

Continue to promote merit and economic affirmative action over arbitrary and now-unnecessary race-based affirmative action.

Abortion: Become pro-PREVENTION, not so much pro-choice. Promote sex education. Allow abortion up to 6 months with few restrictions. Allow it in cases or rape, incest, or to save the mother.

On illegal immigration, endorse the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants. But for adult illegals, give them permanent green-card amnesty and require back-tax payments. Secure the border.

On education, let’s to an ENDA revamp: raise standards for public schools & teachers, stop pushing private school choice crap and focus on improving public schools and give public-school choice. Provide more money for scholarships/grants and research. Focus heavily on STEM.

Economic Issues

Accept that the financial sector needs to be regulated heavily. Oh some donors' feelings are hurt? You can have your money or your votes, screw Wall Street. They're the ones crashing the economy, anyways.

Instead, get the government off of small and mid-sized businesses backs, as well as manufacturers. This should actually play really well with both the electorate and the economy IRL.

Embrace all forms of energy, including renewables. Raise MPG standards on automobiles. Educate people about nuclear power. Sign a Canada-US Energy Pact or something.

Control the growth of spending and taxes. That's pretty simple stuff.

Stop promoting free trade agreements with 3rd world countries we can’t compete with, and promote free trade with other developed nations. A Canada-US-EU trade block would suffice.

Foreign Policy

Stop scaring people away with GWB-style talk and actions.

Steal Obama’s covert targeted killing scheme as the way to combat terrorism. Embrace multilateralism as preserving American power while also getting other countries to share the burden.

*CUT* defense spending. It’s our 3rd-largest expense and a huge driver of deficits. What good is our military if we have to borrow to fund it? And anyways, there’s too much waste and inefficiency. Close like half of our overseas bases.

TL;DR: Become permissive on social issues and make the economic policy about being more efficient and effective. Go GHWB. Be moderate.

To ideological purists: it’s better to win elections, and enact a moderately-conservative agenda, than to push ideological purity and lose elections to liberal Democrats.

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

Yes, the Democrats are winning the middle because they're clearly the palatable choice between center-right vs. far right. But if the GOP abandoned and reversed their rightward drift and adopted that platform, you'd have two center-right parties with neutered liberal/tea party wings that have no impact. So what would be the point for tea partiers to vote? Liberals would still vote because we're used to having to vote center-right just to stop the GOP, but the tea partiers are used to exerting their full control over a political party. They're not going to disappear into the night, and they WOULD start a 3rd party in this scenario, which would immediately destroy any hopes of the GOP winning, and most likely give them 3rd place in most states.

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

You're right about the GOP's image problems, but that still doesn't address Icespear's point. You still need to give the socons and free marketeers a reason to vote for the GOP. The platform you suggested, especially on the social side of things basically guarantees a 3rd party candidacy from someone like Huckabee or Santorum. 

Exactly. This would be a good idea for the GOP IF the Dems went far left and started to get controlled by the Dennis Kucinich/Cynthia McKinney types, but they're still firmly in control of the moderate wing. So why would moderates abandon one moderate party for another moderate party? The GOP would have little to gain and a lot to lose (that being, their huge right wing base).

The huge right wing base in America is why the GOP is still a relevant national party and can get in the 40s in the popular vote. It takes a coalition of moderates and liberals to hold them off, and sometimes even that isn't enough. If the GOP abandons their enormous base that gives them ~40% nationally just for showing up to try to peel off some moderates, they're playing with fire. That's why people like McCain/Romney etc. are/were in such tough spots. They can't afford to blow off the people giving them the vast majority of their votes, but they also can't afford to ignore moderates.

As of right now, the GOP is probably better off just focusing on their right wing base and hoping the political climate carries enough moderates to their side to give them a win (the 2010 model).

[IceSpear]

This is basically just copy and pasting the Democratic Party platform though. The only way that would work is if the Dems moved hard left to compensate (sort of the reverse of the current political environment where Dems are moving right and Republicans are moving hard right, even though it's the Dems who are winning elections).

If the GOP actually did this, a new right wing party would start and the GOP would get 3rd place in most elections.

Not really. It's capturing the middle.

The Democratic Party is winning because they have captured the middle since 1992.

Republicans captured the middle 1968-1988. The demise of the USSR eliminated Communism as a uniting factor withing the Republican Party(which had a massive moderate wing), leaving them with divisive social issues as their basic platform. Since then(with the exception of 2004), the focus has been domestic, and that's why Democrats won the popular vote in the other 5 elections. Clinton, Gore, and Obama have all been moderately liberal and the New Democrat brand is very popular.

Polling has shown that people view the GOP as extreme, out of touch, too conservative, and a party of rich old white men. 1988 was the last election in which Republicans performed well with blacks, inner suburbs, the working class, and in cities.

Quite a bit of what I posted is too conservative for liberal Democrats, but acceptable to moderate Dems/Indies/Repubs.

Yes, the Democrats are winning the middle because they're clearly the palatable choice between center-right vs. far right. But if the GOP abandoned and reversed their rightward drift and adopted that platform, you'd have two center-right parties with neutered liberal/tea party wings that have no impact. So what would be the point for tea partiers to vote? Liberals would still vote because we're used to having to vote center-right just to stop the GOP, but the tea partiers are used to exerting their full control over a political party. They're not going to disappear into the night, and they WOULD start a 3rd party in this scenario, which would immediately destroy any hopes of the GOP winning, and most likely give them 3rd place in most states.

The Democrats are not center-right. I'm assuming you're a liberal, yes? Well then, yeah, the Dems seem center-right to you. They're definitely center-left with Obama, to me at least, and to much of America.

But I guess this is a perspective issue then.

[IceSpear]

And where did you get those from, may I ask?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The fact that people see Obama/Democrats as anything but center-right just reinforces the rightward shift of US politics.

[IceSpear]

And where did you get those from, may I ask?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

The fact that people see Obama/Democrats as anything but center-right just reinforces the rightward shift of US politics.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what this website says about Obama/Democrats/Republicans. It doesn't matter what you or I think about them. What matters is the American people think that Obama is a (-1,1), Romney is a (3,1), Santorum is a (5, -4), and Gary Johnson is a (4, 6).

That's what I based my proposals off of. Anyways, we're off topic now.

In that case, ideology makes no difference, so why change your platform? Just push the Overton window to the point that Ted Cruz is considered a centrist. Would that not be a better strategy than overhauling an entire platform?

[IceSpear]

The GOP in its current form  faces a national crisis when a younger, better educated (yet less financially secure), and less white group of voters really starts voting en masse.

No doubt. But until the GOP starts getting in the 30s nationally several elections in a row, they won't have incentive to change. After all, they won the House in a landslide simply by saying "No" over and over and waiting for the political winds to blow the other way.