Future of the Republican party?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why shouldn't we back down on the death penalty?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

One thing that must be remembered, at least from a detached perspective, is the ability for the average white m ale to feel alienation and disgust. While it might be expressed differently by the 27-year old demolition foreman and the 22-year old pre law student you bum cigs from outside the liberal arts building, in many ways it's the same dissatisfaction. On a college campus, from people in all colleges (except maybe UDM's School of Architecture), you're going to be able to hear the same sentiment. Even those from relatively well off families still know that there's "something" above them, and in many cases below them, to view as an antagonistic force. Many here on the forum ironically support Donald Trump, but there are people from Romney voter backgrounds talking about how Trump calls it like it is. A friend of mine who's a doctoral student right now and probably one of the smartest people I've ever met (in terms of measuring it metrically; he managed to pull off the "alcoholic 4.0 biology student who also works" gig) who is probably 55% liberal, thinks we have a serious population problem, and wanted to get a tattoo of the American Atheist Society symbol on his forearm who was a Romney voter. No idea if this is a widespread phenomenon, but at least among white male college students, there are a number of either right-wing or perceptibly right-wing viewpoints whose common source is frustration and alienation that the GOP may be able to exploit. If they're smart enough. And the Republican Party administration has not shown that they are smart enough to pull this off yet.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Why shouldn't we back down on the death penalty?

I highly doubt the GOP will ever back down from being the "business-friendly" party, and that can often times be painted as being a party without a soul, so to speak.  Being "tough on crime" is an issue where the GOP can paint itself as having a strong moral conviction ("get the bad guys" maybe).

[hopper]

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.

No not entirely true the reason why the GOP "jumped the shark" in the short term(Pre-1980) with the Black Community was because Goldwater thought Civil Rights was a states rights issue not because of any economic issue.  Where you maybe right are is the GOP lost the Black Community in the long run was because of Reaganomics. Remember Gerald Ford in 1976 won 16% of the Black Vote and still lost the election.

As for the theory that the GOP will lose Conservative Voters because of a Moderate Vote being cast for them the Conservatives are gonna vote for Democrats?

[hopper]

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.

Funny I'm 35 but its like the country has changed demographically since then(1980) and the GOP needs a new revolutionary president for the 21st century. Like David Drucker of "The Washington Examiner" said once Ronald Reagan is a guy kids read about in a history book.

[Reaganfan]

This is an interesting topic. I find myself in a unique position as I am now 27 years old, but find myself surrounded by people my age and younger who don't share my views on basic social and economic issues.

It's difficult growing up with traditional norms and then being told out of the blue that you are a racist/sexist/bigot if you disagree politically with those said traditional norms. I was raised to judge based on the content of character, not color of skin. I feel I do that. That's not racist. I think what new age liberalism pushes forward is an agenda where it isn't judged at all. That's impossible in this country. Elections are people being judged. When you commit a crime, you go before a judge. Appearance, style, hygiene, all exist because of our society which does judge. Life is about getting judged.

[Mehmentum]

An interesting point that the recent House leadership struggle has brought up is that there really isn't any way to steer this ship.

At least at the moment, the GOP can't control its message.

[SillyAmerican]

I believe the whole party structure has to change. This idea that you have to support or oppose someone based on whether they have a D or an R next to their name is simply ludicrous. People running for office should state their positions, and the electorate should inform themselves and figure out who would best represent them. The idea that a fiscal conservative can't be a Democrat, or that a candidate who supports a woman's right to have an abortion can't be a Republican, is counter productive. Seems to me that the party structure is about one thing: money. If we could figure out a better way to finance these contests (and in the process get rid of political parties altogether), the country would be better off.

[hopper]

I believe the whole party structure has to change. This idea that you have to support or oppose someone based on whether they have a D or an R next to their name is simply ludicrous. People running for office should state their positions, and the electorate should inform themselves and figure out who would best represent them. The idea that a fiscal conservative can't be a Democrat, or that a candidate who supports a woman's right to have an abortion can't be a Republican, is counter productive. Seems to me that the party structure is about one thing: money. If we could figure out a better way to finance these contests (and in the process get rid of political parties altogether), the country would be better off.

Well I do think there is need for political parties. Basically there was 2 moderate parties till like the 90's until the South went Conservative Republican. I do think people just wear their political parties label proudly like I am a Democrat or Republican and I am really proud of it.

Sure a Republican can be Pro-Choice and a Dem can be pro-life but where the 2 parties spilt off is really on fiscal issues.

Personally would I dislike currently is the Super Pacs. I wish the Presidential Election Process was pushed till like January of a new year instead of it starting up like in the spring a year and a half before the election. Like can we push the process up by 6-9 months and have presidential  primaries on a single day instead of different days scattered around a calendar as well?

[hopper]

An interesting point that the recent House leadership struggle has brought up is that there really isn't any way to steer this ship.

At least at the moment, the GOP can't control its message.

What "The "Outsiders" disagree with the establishment on is tactics and process through which bills are put through the committee process. I do agree with "The Outsiders" that the bills should go through committee mark-up. Where I disagree with "The Outsiders" on is that "Planned Parenthood" should be defunded and that "ObamaCare" is gonna be repealed when the President in office name is Barack Obama!! "Planned Parenthood" isn't gonna be defunded because Obama is pro-choice and the American People aren't in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood.

[Kingpoleon]

An interesting point that the recent House leadership struggle has brought up is that there really isn't any way to steer this ship.

At least at the moment, the GOP can't control its message.

What "The "Outsiders" disagree with the establishment on is tactics and process through which bills are put through the committee process. I do agree with "The Outsiders" that the bills should go through committee mark-up. Where I disagree with "The Outsiders" on is that "Planned Parenthood" should be defunded and that "ObamaCare" is gonna be repealed when the President in office name is Barack Obama!! "Planned Parenthood" isn't gonna be defunded because Obama is pro-choice and the American People aren't in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood.

3% of Planned Parenthood's operations are abortions. No funds from the federal government to to these abortions.

[DC Al Fine]

It doesn't really matter if the government is directly funding abortions because money is fungible.

[jaichind]

Libertarianism but that would not enough.  It will have to be a Libertarian party plus a push for the GOP to be the White party.  GOP's goal should be to get around 67%+ of the White vote.

[bobloblaw]

This is an interesting topic. I find myself in a unique position as I am now 27 years old, but find myself surrounded by people my age and younger who don't share my views on basic social and economic issues.

It's difficult growing up with traditional norms and then being told out of the blue that you are a racist/sexist/bigot if you disagree politically with those said traditional norms. I was raised to judge based on the content of character, not color of skin. I feel I do that. That's not racist. I think what new age liberalism pushes forward is an agenda where it isn't judged at all. That's impossible in this country. Elections are people being judged. When you commit a crime, you go before a judge. Appearance, style, hygiene, all exist because of our society which does judge. Life is about getting judged.

Stick to your beliefs. Liberals today have all the tolerance of a Soviet Gulag

[DS0816]

I voted 'moderation' but the key thing for the GOP is to shed its image as the party of white people. There is no future for that. Within a generation America will be a majority-minority country, just like CA is today.   

Winning 70-75% of the white votes guarantees the GOP as the majority party for here on out. And yes it can and will be done by the 2030s. As whites move towards minority status, they willing begin to act and vote like minorities.

A hilarious, deranged notion, posted two months ago, which deserves a sticky!

[RINO Tom]

This is an interesting topic. I find myself in a unique position as I am now 27 years old, but find myself surrounded by people my age and younger who don't share my views on basic social and economic issues.

It's difficult growing up with traditional norms and then being told out of the blue that you are a racist/sexist/bigot if you disagree politically with those said traditional norms. I was raised to judge based on the content of character, not color of skin. I feel I do that. That's not racist. I think what new age liberalism pushes forward is an agenda where it isn't judged at all. That's impossible in this country. Elections are people being judged. When you commit a crime, you go before a judge. Appearance, style, hygiene, all exist because of our society which does judge. Life is about getting judged.

Stick to your beliefs. Liberals today have all the tolerance of a Soviet Gulag

True.  However, you're equally as delusional as they are with your "conservatism" (LOL, anybody but you should be in charge of deciding what that term means; you seem to more or less be a bitter socially conservative Democrat who is angry and frustrated that your most convenient vehicle for your outdated beliefs is now the party of big business and Wall Street), and you've proven it several times.