|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 29, 2020, 08:23:10 am
News: Don't miss the first US presidential debate at 9:00 pm EST!

Discussion thread link: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=400306.0

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  If the EC were abolished, how would the Republicans win?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: If the EC were abolished, how would the Republicans win?  (Read 4395 times)
TML
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,839


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2020, 10:51:36 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Vincenzo De Luca!
Battista Minola 1616
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2020, 03:13:09 am »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,791
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2020, 01:10:16 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.
I kind of agree that a more refined Trumpism could be a winning platform for the Republican Party. Even though I am 100% opposed to all of President Donald Trump's policies, they do resonate with white working-class voters, as well as with a small number of Hispanic working-class voters from more conservative Hispanic-majority countries such as Spain, as well as Hispanic-majority countries that were under either communist or socialist rule such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Also, a majority of people I know who were born after 1999 identify as Trump supporters, so the Republican Party should focus on gaining the support of individuals born from 1999 onward. Coupled with their lock on voters born between 1955 and 1985, the Republicans could at least be competitive in the popular vote by the time of the 2032 election.

I also think that the Republicans should heavily target Catholic voters (almost to the point of becoming a Catholic identity party so to speak), as Catholic voters have trended heavily towards the Republican Party under President Donald Trump (If I recall correctly, Melania Trump is a devout Catholic and Donald Trump is very sympathetic to the Orthodox Catholic position on most policy issues). Also, the Catholic Church seems to be the only Christian religious sect that is not declining too much in the US, so it would be advantageous for the Republicans to focus on Catholic voters.
Logged
Dr. RI, Trustbuster
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,489
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2020, 05:30:48 pm »
« Edited: July 14, 2020, 06:51:47 pm by Dr. RI, Trustbuster »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.

I broadly agree with this point of view, and it dovetails nicely with many of my own views, but I'm not sure the GOP will be able to afford to simply give up on libertarians and the upper middle class entirely, especially if the Democratic Party continues on a hard-SJW trajectory. I'm also not sure people would accept the GOP simply dumping its entire economic plank entirely overnight.

My personal belief is that the path forward for the GOP is to do several things:

1) Preserve the socially conservative views essential to the party's base: abortion, gun rights, immigration, free speech, and identity politics. Jettison opposition to marijuana and perhaps rethink parts of the drug war.

2) Promote themselves as a humanistic, patriotic alternative to the Dems. Whereas the Dems believe humanity is inherently stained by racism, sexism, harming the planet, etc., the GOP must stand on the power of human ingenuity and compassion to solve problems and bridge divides, regardless of race, sex, etc. If the left stands on the inherent sin of humanity, the right must stand on its virtue.

2a) Co-opt climate change as a real and pressing issue not to be solved by higher taxes, lower birth rates, and social liberalism but by aggressive innovation and science. Similarly, the right must become more willing to embrace science and experts insofar as they deserve to be trusted by their merits; put another way, be skeptical of science from within a scientific framework, not simply reject it out of hand as if by ad hominem.

3) Become highly economically nationalistic and community-centric -- perhaps framed as "economic patriotism" -- which includes support for a UBI (perhaps while also overhauling traditional welfare programs) and other economically-sound policies. Perhaps reframe from "smaller government" to "better government" or "smarter government" or "government for Americans".

4) Actively stand against unchecked corporate power which undermines American values, reduces privacy through surveillance, and harms American consumers and markets through monopolistic tendencies.

At least, this is what I would try to do if I where running for office.
Logged
SENATOR JOESEPH MCCARTHY (R.I.P. RGB)
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2020, 03:24:12 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.

I broadly agree with this point of view, and it dovetails nicely with many of my own views, but I'm not sure the GOP will be able to afford to simply give up on libertarians and the upper middle class entirely, especially if the Democratic Party continues on a hard-SJW trajectory. I'm also not sure people would accept the GOP simply dumping its entire economic plank entirely overnight.

My personal belief is that the path forward for the GOP is to do several things:

1) Preserve the socially conservative views essential to the party's base: abortion, gun rights, immigration, free speech, and identity politics. Jettison opposition to marijuana and perhaps rethink parts of the drug war.

2) Promote themselves as a humanistic, patriotic alternative to the Dems. Whereas the Dems believe humanity is inherently stained by racism, sexism, harming the planet, etc., the GOP must stand on the power of human ingenuity and compassion to solve problems and bridge divides, regardless of race, sex, etc. If the left stands on the inherent sin of humanity, the right must stand on its virtue.

2a) Co-opt climate change as a real and pressing issue not to be solved by higher taxes, lower birth rates, and social liberalism but by aggressive innovation and science. Similarly, the right must become more willing to embrace science and experts insofar as they deserve to be trusted by their merits; put another way, be skeptical of science from within a scientific framework, not simply reject it out of hand as if by ad hominem.

3) Become highly economically nationalistic and community-centric -- perhaps framed as "economic patriotism" -- which includes support for a UBI (perhaps while also overhauling traditional welfare programs) and other economically-sound policies. Perhaps reframe from "smaller government" to "better government" or "smarter government" or "government for Americans".

4) Actively stand against unchecked corporate power which undermines American values, reduces privacy through surveillance, and harms American consumers and markets through monopolistic tendencies.

At least, this is what I would try to do if I where running for office.

I wholly endorse this direction for the future of the GOP.
Logged
Chocolate Thunder
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2020, 07:08:02 am »

Max out the white vote and cater to middle america. Dems cant win on identity politics alone

That's identity politics.
Logged
Chocolate Thunder
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2020, 07:11:20 am »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.

I broadly agree with this point of view, and it dovetails nicely with many of my own views, but I'm not sure the GOP will be able to afford to simply give up on libertarians and the upper middle class entirely, especially if the Democratic Party continues on a hard-SJW trajectory. I'm also not sure people would accept the GOP simply dumping its entire economic plank entirely overnight.

My personal belief is that the path forward for the GOP is to do several things:

1) Preserve the socially conservative views essential to the party's base: abortion, gun rights, immigration, free speech, and identity politics. Jettison opposition to marijuana and perhaps rethink parts of the drug war.

2) Promote themselves as a humanistic, patriotic alternative to the Dems. Whereas the Dems believe humanity is inherently stained by racism, sexism, harming the planet, etc., the GOP must stand on the power of human ingenuity and compassion to solve problems and bridge divides, regardless of race, sex, etc. If the left stands on the inherent sin of humanity, the right must stand on its virtue.

2a) Co-opt climate change as a real and pressing issue not to be solved by higher taxes, lower birth rates, and social liberalism but by aggressive innovation and science. Similarly, the right must become more willing to embrace science and experts insofar as they deserve to be trusted by their merits; put another way, be skeptical of science from within a scientific framework, not simply reject it out of hand as if by ad hominem.

3) Become highly economically nationalistic and community-centric -- perhaps framed as "economic patriotism" -- which includes support for a UBI (perhaps while also overhauling traditional welfare programs) and other economically-sound policies. Perhaps reframe from "smaller government" to "better government" or "smarter government" or "government for Americans".

4) Actively stand against unchecked corporate power which undermines American values, reduces privacy through surveillance, and harms American consumers and markets through monopolistic tendencies.

At least, this is what I would try to do if I where running for office.

I wholly endorse this direction for the future of the GOP.

You mean, actually conservative?
Logged
SENATOR JOESEPH MCCARTHY (R.I.P. RGB)
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2020, 07:00:23 am »
« Edited: July 22, 2020, 07:04:58 am by AntiCommunistsche Aktion »




Well, that depends on how you interpret "conservatism" honestly.  Recently, I've been increasingly critical of the pre-Trump GOP/GOPe's vision of the party, which does not jive with the state of the country/world today or with current/future voting coalitions.  They are bent on returning to a strict doctrinal version of Tea Party conservatism that began with Newt Gingrich's revolution and peaked in 2014.  These are the ideological leaders of conservatism and the establishment GOP-Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk/TPUSA, National Review, and Ben Shapiro/DW.  Much of what they peddle is Reagan nostalgia, which is pure revisionism- Reagan compromised and negotiated to an extent that he would be called a RINO today, which also made him someone who could govern very effectively with a Democratic House his entire administration.

I don't think that's a viable path going forward, unless they are willing to become a permanent minority.  There is a reason half of all young people support Socialism over Capitalism-the old GOP is unwilling to talk about difficult issues like student debt, housing costs, the insane wealth gap and the hollowing out of the middle class.  You have to have a better answer to this than "shut up and slave away for Jeff Bezos".  The old GOP also won't explain why corporations should hire foreign labor instead of US citizens at a below-market rate (think big tech).  

GDP and low tax rates aren't a religion.  Although Trump hasn't been as populist/pro-worker as he campaigned on in 2016,  I view him as a transitional figure from one version of the GOP to another version, hopefully one that looks like what DR. RI described above-an interpretation of conservatism that actually "conserves" what makes America great.
Logged
Octosteel
Rookie
**
Posts: 28
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2020, 11:22:35 pm »




Well, that depends on how you interpret "conservatism" honestly.  Recently, I've been increasingly critical of the pre-Trump GOP/GOPe's vision of the party, which does not jive with the state of the country/world today or with current/future voting coalitions.  They are bent on returning to a strict doctrinal version of Tea Party conservatism that began with Newt Gingrich's revolution and peaked in 2014.  These are the ideological leaders of conservatism and the establishment GOP-Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk/TPUSA, National Review, and Ben Shapiro/DW.  Much of what they peddle is Reagan nostalgia, which is pure revisionism- Reagan compromised and negotiated to an extent that he would be called a RINO today, which also made him someone who could govern very effectively with a Democratic House his entire administration.

I don't think that's a viable path going forward, unless they are willing to become a permanent minority.  There is a reason half of all young people support Socialism over Capitalism-the old GOP is unwilling to talk about difficult issues like student debt, housing costs, the insane wealth gap and the hollowing out of the middle class.  You have to have a better answer to this than "shut up and slave away for Jeff Bezos".  The old GOP also won't explain why corporations should hire foreign labor instead of US citizens at a below-market rate (think big tech).  

GDP and low tax rates aren't a religion.  Although Trump hasn't been as populist/pro-worker as he campaigned on in 2016,  I view him as a transitional figure from one version of the GOP to another version, hopefully one that looks like what DR. RI described above-an interpretation of conservatism that actually "conserves" what makes America great.

The issue is I have no idea how you're going to fight the current GOP into moving that way. In the olden days of the last realignment (I'd say Reagan in 1980), a lot more seats were swing states so these Republican Senators and Congressmen had to get with the times or risk losing primaries or their general elections. Now, you have so many of these ancient GOP senators and congressmen that are never going to lose their seats as long as they appease their base so they have zero reason to get with the times and embrace a new GOP agenda. Even if all the swing district Republicans embraced this new platform, we've seen how the party as whole really isn't willing to buck much for their sake and will happily watch them all lose their seats because at least their own seats are safe.

So outside of a terrifying wave that we haven't seen since 1932, I think the GOP will have a lot harder time embracing this "populist and libertarian" or "Hawleyist" agenda. Think of how many Republicans even after Trump shocked the party, responded by essentially just embracing harsher immigration controls and absolutely nothing else.
Logged
Ferguson97
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: -6.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2020, 03:39:22 pm »

By getting more votes than the Democrats.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2020, 05:00:06 pm »

By getting more votes than the Democrats.

Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2020, 01:40:05 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.

Supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Vincenzo De Luca!
Battista Minola 1616
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2020, 01:52:58 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.

Supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics

Right. But they don't sound like names for ideologies. I have always loved the term "voodoo economics" though.
Logged
Alcibiades
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 487
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -6.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2020, 03:08:22 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.

Supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics

Right. But they don't sound like names for ideologies. I have always loved the term "voodoo economics" though.

I would describe it as “economic conservatism”, which is applying conservative ideology to economic policy (essentially preserving the status quo and existing inequalities), as opposed to fiscal conservatism which is simply not spending more than you’ve got. It can be done from a right- (low taxes, lower spending) or left-wing (high spending, higher taxes) perspective. It is a hugely unpopular ideology, as most people want lower taxes and higher spending.

The GOP has not been fiscally conservative for a long time. Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump are probably the three least fiscally conservative presidents ever.
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Vincenzo De Luca!
Battista Minola 1616
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2020, 03:26:57 pm »


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.

Supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics

Right. But they don't sound like names for ideologies. I have always loved the term "voodoo economics" though.

I would describe it as “economic conservatism”, which is applying conservative ideology to economic policy (essentially preserving the status quo and existing inequalities), as opposed to fiscal conservatism which is simply not spending more than you’ve got. It can be done from a right- (low taxes, lower spending) or left-wing (high spending, higher taxes) perspective. It is a hugely unpopular ideology, as most people want lower taxes and higher spending.

The GOP has not been fiscally conservative for a long time. Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump are probably the three least fiscally conservative presidents ever.

You are right. Thanks. That is what I was searching for. It's that I usually tend to understand "economic conservatism" when I hear "fiscal conservatism" because it seems like many people use the terms interchangeably or similar.
Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2020, 03:38:23 pm »

It would be tough. Going moderate like many advocate on here wouldn’t work as any gain from Kasich supporting crowd will be offset by those further right who just give up on voting outright. Options going forward would be:

1. Republicans will either become junior party that occasionally puts check on left moving too fast, but never controlling all branches of government (like New England politics currently). Win 1 out 5 presidential elections at most and stay legislative minority.

2. The winning strategy is full populist (Fiscal left/social conservative). Fiscal conservatives are dying breed in electorate until the federal government or a large state government goes BK.

The  GOP would abandon fiscal conservatism in its official platform (already have in practice) and run to the left of Democrats on economic policy/safety net (adopt more generous version Yang’s UBI, medicare for all citizens, higher tariffs, higher taxes on the rich, etc.) while maintaining social conservative views. This would win over both white and minority working classes at the expense of losing libertarians and upper middle class professionals who are already trending Democrat. GOP would also have to work closer and drop hostility towards organized labor. This would be winning ticket, but also equal the death of American conservatism.


What do you mean by "the GOP already have in pratice abandoned fiscal conservatism"Huh

The GOP is willing to give as many tax breaks to the rich and corporations without considering the impact of such tax cuts on the budget deficit. True fiscal conservatism would have allowed for such people/groups to pay more taxes to offset budget deficits.

Well yes that is very true. But like, since that is also not fiscal progressivism, and I'm too young to remember a time where people in power actually cared about the deficit, I'll just call tax breaks to corporations fiscal conservatism while I wait for a better term.

Supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics

Right. But they don't sound like names for ideologies. I have always loved the term "voodoo economics" though.

All of those are more accurate names than fiscal conservatism.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,153
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2020, 09:27:45 am »

The millions of suburban Republican voters in California and New York would suddenly become relevant again, thus prompting the Republicans to back-off some of their recent forays into protectionism.

Meanwhile, Democrats would suddenly have to play much harder to Black voters in the South as a key component of winning nationally.   

Basically this. The GOP would also initially want to go for safe states that have low voter turnout. There are a lot of raw votes to gain in Oklahoma, for instance, that nobody tries for in the EC system because they don't matter.
Logged
Samof94
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2020, 06:40:12 am »

Of course, you could get a 2004 type victory if things went just right. Imagine an AOC type candidate against a more “normal” Republican who is a bit more moderate.
Logged
ultraviolet
Rookie
**
Posts: 211


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2020, 11:04:05 am »

Of course, you could get a 2004 type victory if things went just right. Imagine an AOC type candidate against a more “normal” Republican who is a bit more moderate.
Someone like Romney would crush AOC in a hypothetical matchup
Logged
Samof94
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2020, 05:51:11 am »

She’d make so many gaffes it wouldn’t be funny. A lot of suburban whites would never vote for her.
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 884
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2020, 05:48:37 pm »

Aim for Hispanics. Yes, this is feasible with a generation or two between now and then. Look at how fast Democrats abandoned my community's issues after the 2016 dust settled- there's a reason Mexican-Americans suddenly went hard Sanders in the primaries. Of course Republicans would lose the white working class in the sticks, and they would suffer for it in the short term, but they're a shrinking group anyway- worst case scenario, they'll either stay home or join an unhappy Democratic coalition.

In any case, the imperative becomes reaching out more to the populous states. That means the Sun Belt, and that means minority outreach, whatever platform would be necessary to achieve that.
Logged
Samof94
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2020, 05:13:53 pm »

That’s exactly what W did for his narrow popular vote victory in 2004. Remember he was moderate on immigration.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,309
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -2.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2020, 10:24:44 pm »

I suspect a national popular vote system would give rise to a semi-viable third party. Whatever party ended up closest to the centre (likely the Democratic Party) would end up embracing that position and welcoming folks from the leftmost flanks of the GOP. As such, Democrats would become "the natural governing party," but Republican presidential candidates would also have a decent chance of winning due to vote splits, especially when there's fatigue towards incumbent Democratic leadership and left-wing voters don't really know where to go to keep the Republican out of office.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.139 seconds with 14 queries.