Future of the Republican party?

[WVdemocrat]

The party is clearly moving towards nativism, nationalism, and populism. It is no longer the party of Lincoln, or the party of Reagan, but it is the party of Trump. Over time, this will have to fade. Such a vigorously hateful ideology is not compatible with a modern electorate. Trump's surge is the last gasp of the old bats who form Bill O'Reilly's audience. A more liberal generation is on the horizon.

After they end their failed experiment in Trumpism sometime in the next decade, the GOP will come to its senses, and move towards moderation - on all issues, not just social issues. Ike wasn't a far right-winger on social issues in his time, but he also wasn't a far right-winger on economic issues. The GOP will eventually have to accept the healthcare bill - it is here to stay - just as Ike accepted the New Deal, and made no attempts to roll it back. The GOP will have to accept that income inequality is a real issue. They will have to accept the change in American culture: away from "give me liberty or give me death" and towards "peace, order, and good government."

The GOP is in for a wild ride over the next few decades, so sit tight. The party will have to moderate in the future, but right now it seems they want to endorse Trump's brand of populism. I vote populism.

[President Johnson]

As crazy as it sounds now (with the Tea-Party, which already lost influence): Moderation.

The GOP's voter base is falling apart. They won't win only with (mostly male) white votes. They need to reach out to blacks, lations, Asians, young people, women and academics. Out of the predidential elections since 1988, they only carried the popular vote once.

[Mister Mets]

My guess is moderation.

In economics, there are three paths political parties can take: No government, Smart Government and More Government. I think the best strategy for Republicans is to be the party of Smart Government.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There's nothing the GOP party can do until there is a recession. They have maximized their gains for at the state level, and the dynasty candidate of Jeb, wasnt a winner.

Most European  govts have converted to more Democratic govts and its only a matter of time UK gets its act right.

[hopper]

The party is clearly moving towards nativism, nationalism, and populism. It is no longer the party of Lincoln, or the party of Reagan, but it is the party of Trump. Over time, this will have to fade. Such a vigorously hateful ideology is not compatible with a modern electorate. Trump's surge is the last gasp of the old bats who form Bill O'Reilly's audience. A more liberal generation is on the horizon.

After they end their failed experiment in Trumpism sometime in the next decade, the GOP will come to its senses, and move towards moderation - on all issues, not just social issues. Ike wasn't a far right-winger on social issues in his time, but he also wasn't a far right-winger on economic issues. The GOP will eventually have to accept the healthcare bill - it is here to stay - just as Ike accepted the New Deal, and made no attempts to roll it back. The GOP will have to accept that income inequality is a real issue. They will have to accept the change in American culture: away from "give me liberty or give me death" and towards "peace, order, and good government."

The GOP is in for a wild ride over the next few decades, so sit tight. The party will have to moderate in the future, but right now it seems they want to endorse Trump's brand of populism. I vote populism.

"The Party of Trump" is a short-term thing if he gets to the General Election and loses.

Would you guys stop invoking Bill O'Reilly's name on the D side? He is not hard-right. He believes in global warming. He doesn't align with the hard-right against Immigration Reform. He even attacked the GOP for being against the poor once.

True about Ike being a Moderate.

I do agree with you that Republicans have to accept the "Affordable Care Act"(I don't like it) because "The Latino Community" likes it and they are the fastest growing demographic in the US.

What's wrong with Populism? I dislike Trumps Brand of "Angry Populism" with hateful language against women and illegal immigrants.  

[hopper]

Actually, I've said before that I think Perot probably did cost Republicans a 19th century style winning streak from 1980-2004/08 by invoking the deficit against the right in a non-partisan way.  So Clinton was something of a fluke, all things considered, just like Nixon probably wouldn't have won without Wallace in 1968, not just because of the South but because Wallace made Nixon look like the reasonable middle.  

Yeah but Nixon did have some Moderate Cred though as President.  He had a DW-Nominate score of +0.563 so basically he  was between Eisenhower(+0.302) and Reagan(+0.703.)

He was for a business mandate for healthcare, raising taxes(ok to maintain economy and sound dollar) and  increased enforcement of gun laws(even after "Brady Bill" was passed.) Once said "We Are All Keynesians" now.  Nixon also started the EPA while President.

[WVdemocrat]

What's wrong with Populism? I dislike Trumps Brand of "Angry Populism" with hateful language against women and illegal immigrants.

Nothing particularly wrong about it, but like you said, Trump's angry, nativist, nationalist populism is something I don't like and is dangerous.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I sound like Cathcon here, but in a sense populism IS a style and not a philosophy.  Both parties are populist in certain ways, or neither would ever win elections.

"White urban rich liberals with grad degrees" and "rich White suburbanites who want lower taxes" are not very large swathes of the population.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Libertarians suggesting libertarianism are wishful thinkers.

[Intell]

populist, 'americanism' would probably be the best course of action. Maybe be protectionist and pro-American worker and more moderate. Be the traditional party advocating for less taxes and more jobs protected for the common man. Cathcon is right.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It's fine as it is.  Every area of American policy, minus gay marriage, has moved to the right over the last few decades, and the Republicans are still winning.  If anything, growing more Conservative.

[Blue3]

It's fine as it is.  Every area of American policy, minus gay marriage, has moved to the right over the last few decades, and the Republicans are still winning.  If anything, growing more Conservative.

What??

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's fine as it is.  Every area of American policy, minus gay marriage, has moved to the right over the last few decades, and the Republicans are still winning.  If anything, growing more Conservative.

What??

Extreme

[/]

Libertarianism is by far the best option for the GOP, in my opinion. 'Freedom' is a strong platform for the party to argue for, and if their policies actually indicated support of economic/social liberty and small government, they could gain a bigger following pretty fast, especially among younger and more urban people. Choosing plain moderation would be better than their current platform but still not ideal, as they would essentially just be lagging behind Democrats indefinitely when it comes to social issues.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The party is going into irrelevancy, with Donald Trump & Carly Florina who might be nominees. All they have to do is allow votes on Dem issues, especially immigration reform and they will have a chance at presidential level,  but they won't.

[bobloblaw]

The party is going into irrelevancy, with Donald Trump & Carly Florina who might be nominees. All they have to do is allow votes on Dem issues, especially immigration reform and they will have a chance at presidential level,  but they won't.

So the GOP to win needs to be more like the Dems??? LOL. This myth refuses to die. Especially since minorities are loyal to the Dems REGARDLESS of the positions of the parties. A Dem party that was to the RIGHT of the GOP, would still win 90% of the black vote.

For every moderate vote the GOP picks up be being liberal, they lose far far more than one vote from their conservative base.

[bobloblaw]

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

[TJ in Oregon]

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

Lincoln is viewed as something of a founder (though he technically wasn't) and founder's names are rarely removed a century and a half later. For the same reason my undergraduate institution still claims its founder who died about 100 years ago. Also, Lincoln is good PR.

If there's any name the GOP needs to stop mentioning it's Reagan; everyone under 35 rolls their eyes every time he comes up in the GOP primary debate when he has nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times his name is invoked he still won't come back to life.

[RFayette]

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

Lincoln is viewed as something of a founder (though he technically wasn't) and founder's names are rarely removed a century and a half later. For the same reason my undergraduate institution still claims its founder who died about 100 years ago. Also, Lincoln is good PR.

If there's any name the GOP needs to stop mentioning it's Reagan; everyone under 35 rolls their eyes every time he comes up in the GOP primary debate when he has nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times his name is invoked he still won't come back to life.

Agreed, though I've seen a couple kids in my school wearing Reagan Bush '84 T-shirts before.  One time I gave the dude a brofist, only to receive a disapproving stare from the black girl sitting next to me.     

The GOP's problem is that they don't have anyone recent to point to for young people.  Of course, this could change with a new administration.

[eric82oslo]

Moderation plus Libertarianism.

This, essentially.

Freedom idea.

[DC Al Fine]

Libertarians suggesting libertarianism are wishful thinkers.

Absolutely correct. The libertarianism or a toned down "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" approach won't work in the real world. Large swathes of the party's base are voting GOP on social issues. The GOP would risk losing those voters by chasing after secular, upper middle class suburbanites. And worst of all, it still doesn't deal with their demographic issues. What on earth does libertarianism have to offer a church going, Hispanic carpenter who makes $40,000 a year?

[windjammer]

What DC said, the idea the republican party will becomessocial liberal is laughable.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Why the hell should the GOP be the "Party of Lincoln". A guy elected nearly 160 years ago???

It sends the message that we are an inclusive party that welcomes the votes of all peoples and that we support protecting the rights of all peoples.

... What exactly is your problem with that image?  Wait, nevermind, dumb question.

[Rockefeller GOP]

What DC said, the idea the republican party will becomessocial liberal is laughable.

You can be viewed as more tolerant without being socially liberal.  The GOP should absolutely NOT back down on abortion, gun control, death penalty, etc.  But being too strict/nativist on immigration is a losing strategy, and they need to give up gay marriage already.  Things like trying to dismantle the VRA - something that should be promoted as a legacy of the party - is also a pretty dumb move.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Libertarians suggesting libertarianism are wishful thinkers.

Absolutely correct. The libertarianism or a toned down "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" approach won't work in the real world. Large swathes of the party's base are voting GOP on social issues. The GOP would risk losing those voters by chasing after secular, upper middle class suburbanites. And worst of all, it still doesn't deal with their demographic issues. What on earth does libertarianism have to offer a church going, Hispanic carpenter who makes $40,000 a year?

Then I dare them to stay home or (God forbid) vote Democrat.  Agreeing with that boblo hack on a rare occasion, chasing poor minorities' votes with "social conservatism" is a losing strategy.  They're probably going to continue to vote their economic interests.  "Secular" (are you considered "secular" now if you're not an obnoxious Bible thumper?) upper-class suburbanites 1) tend to be in very key swing states and 2) vote WAY more often, therefore making a larger slice of the electorate.