Possible GOP comeback?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I actually agree as well. I'd much rather have opponents in the mold of the British Conservatives.

[BritishDixie]

I actually agree as well. I'd much rather have opponents in the mold of the British Conservatives.

The Tory Party is to the right of the Democrats generally, if you discount Cameron's clique (Osbourne, Warsi and Green), but is still to the left of the Republicans. A U.S comparison would probably be on the same area of the political spectrum as Bush Sr, Dole or Huntsman.

[Kevin]

I actually agree as well. I'd much rather have opponents in the mold of the British Conservatives.

The Tory Party is to the right of the Democrats generally, if you discount Cameron's clique (Osbourne, Warsi and Green), but is still to the left of the Republicans. A U.S comparison would probably be on the same area of the political spectrum as Bush Sr, Dole or Huntsman.

Agreed; the UK Tories today are awfully like many of the 80's/90's Republicans for the most part then the GOP of today.

As I find it ludicrous that some say that even the Democrats are to the right of the Tories. The Democrats in the US for the most part match up with Labour's policies and ideals(Even more so recently)

Then again measuring up political parties between two countries is alot like comparing apples & oranges since the issues are different.

[Mr.Phips]

Comeback?  The GOP came back big in 2010 and will likely dominate American politics for a generation. 

[morgieb]

The Republicans have to get back to appealing to a broad section of the middle class. The South, a shrinking area of the west and rural voters are not enough to build an election winning majority upon. To do this they must not abandon social conservatism, but tone it down during the campaign. The middle class don't mind family values, but they have other concerns, and this overarching emphasis on abortion and the family, coupled with good ol' right to bear arms and immigration controls, is not going to win over these voters. The "Palin Trinity" of God, Guns and Fences alienates so many people if being talked about constantly. Instead, the Republicans need to talk up sensible tax cuts, good economic management, toughness on crime, and reforming governmental bureaucracy and government programs. Throw in the "Palin Trinity" occasionally where needed, to shore up and enthuse the base. But devote conventions and major campaign events to the important issues of the day rather than these perennial issues. Tough on Crime works, as it did in 1988. The Republicans seem to have neglected it since then. Also, promises of huge tax cuts don't work either, as they don't seem credible and threaten core programs. Instead, sensible tax cuts, which are well costed, should be offered up. The GOP should also promise to try and keep a balanced budget. Streamlining the federal bureaucracy is also a good campaign theme, as it gives scope for tax cuts, and is fairly popular. If the GOP does this, then it can win back middle-class voters, and with them New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and more.

This pretty much. The South is losing it's power. Gaining the North-east and possibly the West in exchange for the South is a good move IMO.

[Del Tachi]

I expect White voting patterns to become more homogeneous over the next twenty-to-forty years.  I think this stands to better the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Republicans don't need the Hispanic vote if they are winning >70% of the White vote.  Expect the Republicans to become a much more ethno-centric party, more in the mold of the BNP.  I don't like the idea either, but its just as viable as path for them to take as "tuning down social conservatism".  The GOP will try, in the coming elections, to unify voters on the premise of race, not social class. 

[morgieb]

I can't see "let's ignore ethnics and let's get >70% of the white vote" working effectively.

[Kevin]

I can't see "let's ignore ethnics and let's get >70% of the white vote" working effectively.

Me ether,

I also see Rockefeller's prediction as unlikely due to the fact that there in fact is a generational change about to happen within the GOP.

Let me explain,

Most of these hard-right SoCo flavored Republicans and Tea Party members who hate "Obama, Big government, Sharia Law, Abortion, GAys, and the Messicans" are typically above the age of 55 or at least above 48. So unlike what happened with the Democrats hard turn to the left in the 1970's driven by youth involvement in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. These peoples political staying power's rather limited and is waning in the long run.

The much younger generation of conservatives replacing them I.e. those in their 20's to 40's are for the most part in my experience classic moderate Republicans or hard-libertarians. As they could care less about the cultural wars and many of them openly support gay rights and legalizing pot and don't come across as anti-immigrant. What SoCos there are amongst the new generation try to sway away from the old culture war issues. So the hard right is clearly in the minority Imo in the future GOP.

 

[Del Tachi]

Kevin, never in my above comments did I address social conservatism.

Although, I would like to contend with you that social conservatism in the Republican Party is on its "last leg".  While it could be said that the younger generation of GOP'ers today is markedly not as passionate as their parents or grandparents about protecting our society's endangered social institutions, this does not translate into an absence of social conservatism in the GOP platform of the future.  Instead, a more sensible response would be that the social conservatives of tomorrow will simply identify with different social causes.  As time and progress march on, I expect the issues of drug legalization, marriage equality and abortion to be rectified in a way that appeases the more liberal segments of our society.  However, this does not mean the end of social conservatism.  Rather, changes in society (and namely technology) will present new moral dilemmas that society must deal with over the next century-or-so.  There will always be people who advocate the status-quo, its just that the status-quo will change as society evolves and new problems arise.  These individuals are "social conservatives" and they are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Take an example from history; prior to the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the American South was dedicated to one central issue:  the protection of the social institution that was American Slavery.  However, when the Civil War resolved the Slavery issue in a manner appeasing to the abolitionists, this did not translate into the collapse of the Democratic Party in the South.  According to your logic, it would have--because the absence of the Party's main issue would mean that the Party would cease to be relevant among its former constituents.  This did not happened; so, what did happen?  What happened was that the Democratic Party in the American South came to focus on new issues that were created out of the mayhem that occurred in the "Reconstructed" South--these issues included a renewed focus on issues relating to tariffs, the protection of State autonomy in a increasingly "federalized" nation and the preservation of the Church and other local institutions as the chief-means of enacting social reform.  While the Civil War represents a very abrupt period of change in our nation's history, I think the politics of the era should show us that the two parties are extremely resilient in protecting the core tenets of their respective ideologies--even if the "hot button" issues of the day may change due to changing social mores.

In short, I believe that social conservatism will continue to be a marker of the Republican Party.  However, its just that the social conservatives of 2062 will not be advocating the same causes on the same issues as the social conservatives of 2012--this does not mean that social conservatism will disappear, it just means that it will be adapt to changing conditions.  If anything, social conservatism should be commended as a solid political ideology that will surely stand the test of time as long as their are individuals wanting to preserve the status-quo.

[hopper]

I can't see "let's ignore ethnics and let's get >70% of the white vote" working effectively.

Me ether,

I also see Rockefeller's prediction as unlikely due to the fact that there in fact is a generational change about to happen within the GOP.

Let me explain,

Most of these hard-right SoCo flavored Republicans and Tea Party members who hate "Obama, Big government, Sharia Law, Abortion, GAys, and the Messicans" are typically above the age of 55 or at least above 48. So unlike what happened with the Democrats hard turn to the left in the 1970's driven by youth involvement in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. These peoples political staying power's rather limited and is waning in the long run.

The much younger generation of conservatives replacing them I.e. those in their 20's to 40's are for the most part in my experience classic moderate Republicans or hard-libertarians. As they could care less about the cultural wars and many of them openly support gay rights and legalizing pot and don't come across as anti-immigrant. What SoCos there are amongst the new generation try to sway away from the old culture war issues. So the hard right is clearly in the minority Imo in the future GOP.

 

You like Sharia Law?

[BaldEagle1991]

I can't see "let's ignore ethnics and let's get >70% of the white vote" working effectively.

Me ether,

I also see Rockefeller's prediction as unlikely due to the fact that there in fact is a generational change about to happen within the GOP.

Let me explain,

Most of these hard-right SoCo flavored Republicans and Tea Party members who hate "Obama, Big government, Sharia Law, Abortion, GAys, and the Messicans" are typically above the age of 55 or at least above 48. So unlike what happened with the Democrats hard turn to the left in the 1970's driven by youth involvement in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. These peoples political staying power's rather limited and is waning in the long run.

The much younger generation of conservatives replacing them I.e. those in their 20's to 40's are for the most part in my experience classic moderate Republicans or hard-libertarians. As they could care less about the cultural wars and many of them openly support gay rights and legalizing pot and don't come across as anti-immigrant. What SoCos there are amongst the new generation try to sway away from the old culture war issues. So the hard right is clearly in the minority Imo in the future GOP.

 

That's true. This is why Ron Paul was so damn popular among the youth.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Ron Paul had some Culture Warriors on his side too. We're anti-gay marriage, anti-big government, anti-Sharia Law, pro-life. We also happen to be anti-war and pro-immigrant as well. We are Tea Party aligned and all in our early 20's to 30's. The pro-life view evangelicals have is winning 60-40 over the pro-abortion crowd.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ron Paul had some Culture Warriors on his side too. We're anti-gay marriage, anti-big government, anti-Sharia Law, pro-life. We also happen to be anti-war and pro-immigrant as well. We are Tea Party aligned and all in our early 20's to 30's. The pro-life view evangelicals have is winning 60-40 over the pro-abortion crowd.

Having been to a Paul rally, I can tell you that hardly a complete majority of Paul supporters are pro-life.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Ron Paul had some Culture Warriors on his side too. We're anti-gay marriage, anti-big government, anti-Sharia Law, pro-life. We also happen to be anti-war and pro-immigrant as well. We are Tea Party aligned and all in our early 20's to 30's. The pro-life view evangelicals have is winning 60-40 over the pro-abortion crowd.

Having been to a Paul rally, I can tell you that hardly a complete majority of Paul supporters are pro-life.

I know many Paul supporters are not pro-life. I was talking my group of Paul supporters.

[old timey villain]

I expect White voting patterns to become more homogeneous over the next twenty-to-forty years.  I think this stands to better the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Republicans don't need the Hispanic vote if they are winning >70% of the White vote.  Expect the Republicans to become a much more ethno-centric party, more in the mold of the BNP.  I don't like the idea either, but its just as viable as path for them to take as "tuning down social conservatism".  The GOP will try, in the coming elections, to unify voters on the premise of race, not social class. 

Oh great. So the entire country will be like the racist Solid South.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I expect multiculturalism, immigration, cultural integration/assimilation, and issues like that to be bigger rallying cries among the social conservatives in the Republican Party than they already are. I also think abortion, LGBT rights, and gender roles will also continue to be big issues for the Republican Party to run on.

As far as economic issues go-the Republican Party could actually get back to being fiscally conservative, and not just say that they are. The Republican Party certainly needs to become more pragmatic, less ideologically purist, and have a less hyper-partisan, "ends justify the means" attitude towards politics and governance, if they want to have a future as a respectable political party.

[hopper]

I expect White voting patterns to become more homogeneous over the next twenty-to-forty years.  I think this stands to better the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Republicans don't need the Hispanic vote if they are winning >70% of the White vote.  Expect the Republicans to become a much more ethno-centric party, more in the mold of the BNP.  I don't like the idea either, but its just as viable as path for them to take as "tuning down social conservatism".  The GOP will try, in the coming elections, to unify voters on the premise of race, not social class. 

Oh great. So the entire country will be like the racist Solid South.

Your response to that post is kind of hilarious because of what Obama did to unify the latino vote with this temporary amnesty executive order.

[hopper]

Ron Paul had some Culture Warriors on his side too. We're anti-gay marriage, anti-big government, anti-Sharia Law, pro-life. We also happen to be anti-war and pro-immigrant as well. We are Tea Party aligned and all in our early 20's to 30's. The pro-life view evangelicals have is winning 60-40 over the pro-abortion crowd.

Having been to a Paul rally, I can tell you that hardly a complete majority of Paul supporters are pro-life.

I know many Paul supporters are not pro-life. I was talking my group of Paul supporters.

Ron Paul? I like his economic platform but his foreign policy views are crazy and out of the mainstream. I hope anti-war activists are not the future of the GOP. We already have the liberal left for that type of thing.

On a side note why are we talking about sharia law on these threads? Sharia Law is for 3rd world countries.

[indulgence]

Question:

What's wrong with Libertarians?

Answer:

The fittest survive and the rest will have to figure it out.  It's just like being an animal out in nature, you have to survive on your own after you've been raised by your parents. 

Q.E.D.