Will the GOP move leftwards on economics in the future?

[President Mitt]

It would be stupid, but I could see it happening, and that's when I will leave the Republican Party.

[President Mitt]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

You can be against Government Intervention in the economy without supporting trickle down economics.

[President Mitt]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

Dems have moved to the left. Compare Clinton to Obama.

Not much difference.

[President Mitt]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

[President Mitt]

Only on immigration. I think Republicans are fed up with their fruitless persuit of hispanics and will close the border the next time they're in power, if only in order to save themselves from destruction.

Their courting of hispanic voters has actually been pretty fruitful.  After all, GWB would not have become president if it weren't for latinos putting him over in FL.  Bush 41 carried 30% of hispanics in a landslide win 20 years ago, McCain matched that number in a landslide loss.  Republicans have made huge gains in latino communities, and as they become more integrated into America, their voting patterns will become more transient, and immigration will not be the only issue that concerns them.

Non-Cuban Latinos are not integrating into America. No evidence for "huge gains" either: in 1988 they were 29 points more Democratic relative to whites, in 2008 24 more points. And even a 40% vote share is still disastrous.

Maybe the GOP should move leftwards economically to attract more Latino voters. I think the main reason that many Latinos vote for the Democrats is due to economic policy. Even when the Republicans were in favor of amnesty for illegals (1980s) or when it was not an issue (before the 1980s), Latinos still voted for the Democrats by huge margins most of the time.

No.

Why not? Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were all pretty left-wing on economics, and they were much more fiscally responsible than Reagan and both Bushes.

Why would I want my party to be more like that?

[President Mitt]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

[President Mitt]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

Gah, I meant social liberal.

It's Ok

It's sometimes easy to mix them up.