RIP CAGOP

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Long term, I could see Hispanics and a lot of Asians assimilating into mainstream white society and becoming more Republican. In the short and medium term , the GOP is in a lot of trouble. If they abandon the white nationalism and being the stupid party, they lose the deplorables. If they drop the evangelism, they lose the evangelical base. They will totally collapse with the base if they moderate.

[IceSpear]

As goes California...

Makes sense. The GOP can't survive the demographic changes. It's only a matter of time before they collapse completely.

Good lord, STOP already. The GOP has survived far worse than this. Just 10 years ago Dems had like 260 House seats, 60 Senate seats, and the presidency. Not to mention tiny little things like the Great Depression and Watergate...

As if the GOP under Trumpism can adapt to demographic changes. The country will be the most ethnic it's ever been. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

Trump is not going to do more damage to the GOP than the Great Depression or Watergate did. In fact, I highly doubt he'll even do as much damage as Dubya did. The GOP will inevitably surge back once we have a Democratic president just as they did in 2010 despite being left for dead in 2009.

[lfromnj]

As goes California...

Makes sense. The GOP can't survive the demographic changes. It's only a matter of time before they collapse completely.

Good lord, STOP already. The GOP has survived far worse than this. Just 10 years ago Dems had like 260 House seats, 60 Senate seats, and the presidency. Not to mention tiny little things like the Great Depression and Watergate...

As if the GOP under Trumpism can adapt to demographic changes. The country will be the most ethnic it's ever been. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

Trump is not going to do more damage to the GOP than the Great Depression or Watergate did. In fact, I highly doubt he'll even do as much damage as Dubya did. The GOP will inevitably surge back once we have a Democratic president just as they did in 2010 despite being left for dead in 2009.

yeah the max I can see a party holding a true trifecta these days is 6 years. American voters are idiots and refuse to give the party who will enact the policies they want time to enact those policies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Long term, I could see Hispanics and a lot of Asians assimilating into mainstream white society and becoming more Republican. In the short and medium term , the GOP is in a lot of trouble. If they abandon the white nationalism and being the stupid party, they lose the deplorables. If they drop the evangelism, they lose the evangelical base. They will totally collapse with the base if they moderate.

The religious aspects of Republican ideology and rhetoric didn't really hurt the party with Hispanics and Asians until they became wedded to nativist appeals. The easiest thing for the Republican Party to moderate on at this point in terms of maintaining its electoral base would probably be the obsession with deficit-financed tax cuts and selling off the commons. Unfortunately, that's the part of the Republican platform that the donor caste (i.e., in the Republican worldview, the only morally autonomous human beings with intellect and will) actually cares about.

[Technocracy Timmy]

As goes California...

Makes sense. The GOP can't survive the demographic changes. It's only a matter of time before they collapse completely.

Good lord, STOP already. The GOP has survived far worse than this. Just 10 years ago Dems had like 260 House seats, 60 Senate seats, and the presidency. Not to mention tiny little things like the Great Depression and Watergate...

As if the GOP under Trumpism can adapt to demographic changes. The country will be the most ethnic it's ever been. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

You’re assuming that the entire ethos of the GOP will remain stagnant, that demographics will remain stagnant, and that the reaction to Democrats in constant power with unchecked authority will be fully and always accepted.

In 1937 the GOP had been reduced to a tiny minority. They were relegated mostly to WASPs in New England. The youth vote had gone 85% for Roosevelt in the 1936 election (the GOP lost nationally by 24 points). They looked totally and utterly destroyed as a political party and the immigrant waves of Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and other catholic groups looked poised to supplant them entirely. Southerners were still stubbornly Democratic. African Americans had been added to the Democratic Party coalition as well.

They still survived. It’s one thing to argue that demographic change will make Republican majorities both smaller and a less common event, but to argue that they’ll collapse entirely is naive.

[The Mikado]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

Well that depends entirely, would this name change accompany a similar shift to more progressive social and environmental policies? Or would the GOP continue to promote the same racially tinged, supply-side economic propaganda they've been promoting recently?

A socially liberal / economically moderate - conservative  California party might do well.

[AudmanOut]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

They would do worse. Maybe the California independent Republican Party?
I wish Republican Party would just die off entirely like they have in my home state.

[ag]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

Well that depends entirely, would this name change accompany a similar shift to more progressive social and environmental policies? Or would the GOP continue to promote the same racially tinged, supply-side economic propaganda they've been promoting recently?

A socially liberal / economically moderate - conservative  California party might do well.

Yeah, something like California Progressive Conservative Party could work, especially if it insisted that its cooperation with the national GOP is not automatic, but should be subject to negotiation and acceptance of some coalition program. The problem is, it would have to fight off the rump Republican Party and Republican identity, which is still strong among the current CA Republicans. In other words, while Republicans are too weak in CA to matter for government, they are still big and strong enough to preclude emergence of effective opposition. Kind of like the Dems in much of the Deep South, of course.

[Gustaf]

I Think a distinction to the past is the way that politics now more ideological and nationally partisan. For example, one way the GOP got out of the New Deal hole was (eventually) by convincing Dixiecrats who voted Democrat for no real reason (ok, yes, that's a gross exaggeration, but still).

This doesn't seem to be true of non-White voters now. There are pretty clear solid reasons why they wouldn't vote for a party that barely contains its desire to see them dead.

Obviously in some time perspective parties wax and wane but it's silly to Think a party is bound to be competitive in the near future. You can be a "permanent" minority for a fairly long period of time. This seems especially true if you reduce yourself to a bunch of nasty kooks the way the GOP currently is. The party is rapidly shedding everyone with Brains or values and if it becomes nothing but a scam operation for a bunch of celebrity grifters to con stupid White people out of Campaign contributions there isn't any clear mechanism for pushing that to be a competitive political party.

What might happen shortterm is of course the Democratic party turning so hard left that White moderates swallow the pill of Republicanism often enough to keep them alive.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Obviously in some time perspective parties wax and wane but it's silly to Think a party is bound to be competitive in the near future. You can be a "permanent" minority for a fairly long period of time. This seems especially true if you reduce yourself to a bunch of nasty kooks the way the GOP currently is. The party is rapidly shedding everyone with Brains or values and if it becomes nothing but a scam operation for a bunch of celebrity grifters to con stupid White people out of Campaign contributions there isn't any clear mechanism for pushing that to be a competitive political party.

There’s a huge difference between predicting that a Party will be relegated to a minority for a certain period of time versus the belief that said Party will collapse. Ultimately Political Parties are vessels for people to imprint their ideologies on. This is why somebody who was pro-tariff, anti-Iraq war, pro-entitlements, and fairly secular won the Party of Bush and Reagan’s nomination in 2016.

Your post also assumes a static definition of whiteness (whose designated as the majority in America) and that the United States hasn’t undergone demographic change before. You’re also assuming that said demographics will have the same ability to vote and participate in the political process as the white majority.

Furthermore southerners did not vote for the GOP in any election between 1932-1968 except in 64’. In fact even in 1980 the south was quite close. The start of the southern trend to the GOP began in the 1950’s in the Dixie suburbs due to Yankee Republicans up north migrating to these areas after the Second World War.

[FalloutBoy97]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

Marshall Tuck and Steve Poizner still lost despite being quite moderate and not running under the official GOP banner. Not saying its not possible that someone in that mold couldn’t win (they both made it close) but its worth pointing out.

[Tintrlvr]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

Marshall Tuck and Steve Poizner still lost despite being quite moderate and not running under the official GOP banner. Not saying its not possible that someone in that mold couldn’t win (they both made it close) but its worth pointing out.

Tuck is a Democrat (and a quite left-wing one overall, at that -- being pro-charter doesn't make you a centrist).

[FalloutBoy97]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

Marshall Tuck and Steve Poizner still lost despite being quite moderate and not running under the official GOP banner. Not saying its not possible that someone in that mold couldn’t win (they both made it close) but its worth pointing out.

Tuck is a Democrat (and a quite left-wing one overall, at that -- being pro-charter doesn't make you a centrist).

I didn’t know Tuck was a democrat, but he was still to the right of his opponent. In any case, I just think the premise that “republicans could win if they just slightly moderate and ditch the (R)” needs to be questioned.

[Antonio the Sixth]

They barely lost in a very Democratic year. If anything, your argument proves why that strategy could work.

[Frenchrepublican]

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP would be better off officially pulling out of CA and creating a right wing state party called "The California Conservative Party" or something and running candidates on that banner and just have them caucus with the GOP nationally. Part of me suspects that it's literally the word "Republican" that's so tarnished in CA and that sort of shell game could let them run candidates without that R next to their name.

I totally agree with you, it’s very difficult nowadays for a state party to built its own brand and to distinguish itself from the national party (dems have the same problem in OK and most red states).

[lfromnj]

The mn gop dropped republican after watergate for like 20 years

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/california-republicans-midterms.html

[AudmanOut]

The mn gop dropped republican after watergate for like 20 years

That was 40 years ago though, things  have changed. Anyways the best bet form the gop is just to focus on winnable congressional races and put moderate candidate in a red wave year. However they won’t the gop doesn’t care who the gop candidate is they’ll vote for him/her no matter what.