Potential Post-2010 Consequences

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To Vander Blubb:  At present, I agree with you-- no one seems to care about the environment.  All attention is on the economy.  But when the recession eventually subsides, we'll turn our attention to other things.  And it's only a matter of time-- the environment isn't getting better, it's gradually worsening.  Will we be smart enough to avert the really serious problems before they arrive, or we will we choose not to care?  Most young people coming into the voting ranks over the next 10 years will tend to care.  So the GOP will have to choose between holding the hard line on everything, or attempting to appeal to this new generation of voters based on the issues they care about.  The current GOP platform has no hope with these voters, so it will have to be adjusted at some point.

To Lunar:  Your specifics are helpful, thanks for your input.  I don't know what I think about Kentucky yet-- but you do have a point.  I seriously doubt they will throw out Harry Reid in Nevada.  There doesn't seem to be a viable candidate to run against him, and he's the most powerful legislator they have.  I think NV will stick with him in the end.  And I don't buy into Rob Portman being this amazing candidate.  It should definitely be close though.  I guess my take on the governors is it will be a wash on Wednesday morning, but the Democrats should have some big prizes to replace whatever they lose in KS, OK, TN, etc.  I did not know "Freudy" is running again in WY.  I know he was considering it, but did not hear it was official.  If so, great.

Portman's strength right now is in his fundraising and he is uncontested in the GOP primary. We will see if he can translate that to other areas of the race or not. The best the GOP can hope to get against Reid is some Businessman or something to run. Also all the big time Money(Casino's and Mining) have lined up behind Reid so the GOP candidate will have to raise their money outside NV (doubt common people will pony up large sums with the beleaguered NV housing market) which should be pretty easy considering how much conservatives hate Harry Reid.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

Indeed the the GOP has got to stop with the NO Taxes ever policy. Hell that was the key to Reagon's success. He cut taxes yes in the beggining of his term when a necessary recession had started due to Volcker's Interest rate hikes(necessary to end stagflation). Reagon cut taxes and boosted spending on Defense and domestically as part of a deal with the Dems and thus put a bottom on the recession and allowed the Economy to come back quickly. After that though people forget that he raised taxes all throughout that boom and with the exception of a small bump in the road in 1987 there wasn't an real recession or downturn till 1991. However Reagan was smart enough to know that he needed to reduce the deficit and cutting domestic spending was not an option(The Dems in congress would also cut Defense spending if he tried) so he raised a few taxes here and there. Thats what pragmatists due. Finally Reagonomics only works in an Inflationary Recession not a deflationary one. I think the Republicans should instead work to simplify the tax code remove as many exemptions for certain corporations, etc.

I think Vepres has a very naive view about things and about our abililty to attract Hispanics. In my opinion we will only get the 33% who are strongly opposed to Illegal Immigration and maybe a few more. Finally it is very incorrect to say that  all of our problems among Hispanics are immigration related for instance there was talk of McCain winning the Hispanic vote, but the Economy destroyeed that particullarily in the hard hit states like NV, AZ, and FL, especially since so many work in the Construction industry. They are also concerned abour Education and Health Care and untill we have reasonable proposals for that you can go all out for instant citizenship for Illegals and it would reverse the GOP decline cause the Dems will still use the Economy/Education/Health Care issues to make gains among them. If anything such a strategy would hurt us cause that 33% that due vote for us likely wouldn't care for that. We have to address all four issues, Immigration/Economy/Education/Health Care to have at chance at 45% again like we had in 2004. The question is will Vepres support "An" economic stimulus(Doesn't have to be Obama's, could be McCains $485 Billion dollar one or one that Romney proposed last December that was $275 billion), spending more on education, and some kind of Heath care compromise.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

Indeed the the GOP has got to stop with the NO Taxes ever policy. Hell that was the key to Reagon's success. He cut taxes yes in the beggining of his term when a necessary recession had started due to Volcker's Interest rate hikes(necessary to end stagflation). Reagon cut taxes and boosted spending on Defense and domestically as part of a deal with the Dems and thus put a bottom on the recession and allowed the Economy to come back quickly. After that though people forget that he raised taxes all throughout that boom and with the exception of a small bump in the road in 1987 there wasn't an real recession or downturn till 1991. However Reagan was smart enough to know that he needed to reduce the deficit and cutting domestic spending was not an option(The Dems in congress would also cut Defense spending if he tried) so he raised a few taxes here and there. Thats what pragmatists due. Finally Reagonomics only works in an Inflationary Recession not a deflationary one. I think the Republicans should instead work to simplify the tax code remove as many exemptions for certain corporations, etc.

I think Vepres has a very naive view about things and about our abililty to attract Hispanics. In my opinion we will only get the 33% who are strongly opposed to Illegal Immigration and maybe a few more. Finally it is very incorrect to say that  all of our problems among Hispanics are immigration related for instance there was talk of McCain winning the Hispanic vote, but the Economy destroyeed that particullarily in the hard hit states like NV, AZ, and FL, especially since so many work in the Construction industry. They are also concerned abour Education and Health Care and untill we have reasonable proposals for that you can go all out for instant citizenship for Illegals and it would reverse the GOP decline cause the Dems will still use the Economy/Education/Health Care issues to make gains among them. If anything such a strategy would hurt us cause that 33% that due vote for us likely wouldn't care for that. We have to address all four issues, Immigration/Economy/Education/Health Care to have at chance at 45% again like we had in 2004. The question is will Vepres support "An" economic stimulus(Doesn't have to be Obama's, could be McCains $485 Billion dollar one or one that Romney proposed last December that was $275 billion), spending more on education, and some kind of Heath care compromise.

Everything you said is on point. People underestimate Republican strengths with Hispanics. Republicans and Hispanics agree on more issues generally, while Democrats have more of a machine that allows them to get votes, i.e. sending out mailers saying simply "No on 8- Protect Equality" and nothing else. To an uninformed Hispanic voter (which most Hispanic voters are uninformed politically), it sounds like it is something related to their community, rather than gay marriage.

Its more then that. The Dems have a natural advantage among every minority group simply by being the party of big Gov't and unless we come up with serious proposals on Education and Health Care we can forget about trying to do anything to win Hispanics. All that will happen is we will accept some Guest Worker McCain program and we end up with gains cancelling out the loses as the Dems continue to make Gains b/c of Education and Health Care among Hispanics. So in my mind these Libertarians thinging we can simply accept amnesty and we will magically get 45% of Hispanics again is nothing but a pipe dream. You are right about the uninformed part and some of that was a response to Bush's strong showing in 2004 and the Dems want to keep us below 40%. We should keep the Pro-Life plank definately and continue to fight against Gay Marriage because those are the only issues we can attract Hispanics on currently. That doesn't mean we can't shift our arguement on Abortion to be a more inclusive one or take a differenct tack entirely when it comes to measures short of Gay Marriage such as Civil Unions. We are going to have to get serious on Health Care and Education.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

Indeed the the GOP has got to stop with the NO Taxes ever policy. Hell that was the key to Reagon's success. He cut taxes yes in the beggining of his term when a necessary recession had started due to Volcker's Interest rate hikes(necessary to end stagflation). Reagon cut taxes and boosted spending on Defense and domestically as part of a deal with the Dems and thus put a bottom on the recession and allowed the Economy to come back quickly. After that though people forget that he raised taxes all throughout that boom and with the exception of a small bump in the road in 1987 there wasn't an real recession or downturn till 1991. However Reagan was smart enough to know that he needed to reduce the deficit and cutting domestic spending was not an option(The Dems in congress would also cut Defense spending if he tried) so he raised a few taxes here and there. Thats what pragmatists due. Finally Reagonomics only works in an Inflationary Recession not a deflationary one. I think the Republicans should instead work to simplify the tax code remove as many exemptions for certain corporations, etc.

I think Vepres has a very naive view about things and about our abililty to attract Hispanics. In my opinion we will only get the 33% who are strongly opposed to Illegal Immigration and maybe a few more. Finally it is very incorrect to say that  all of our problems among Hispanics are immigration related for instance there was talk of McCain winning the Hispanic vote, but the Economy destroyeed that particullarily in the hard hit states like NV, AZ, and FL, especially since so many work in the Construction industry. They are also concerned abour Education and Health Care and untill we have reasonable proposals for that you can go all out for instant citizenship for Illegals and it would reverse the GOP decline cause the Dems will still use the Economy/Education/Health Care issues to make gains among them. If anything such a strategy would hurt us cause that 33% that due vote for us likely wouldn't care for that. We have to address all four issues, Immigration/Economy/Education/Health Care to have at chance at 45% again like we had in 2004. The question is will Vepres support "An" economic stimulus(Doesn't have to be Obama's, could be McCains $485 Billion dollar one or one that Romney proposed last December that was $275 billion), spending more on education, and some kind of Heath care compromise.

Everything you said is on point. People underestimate Republican strengths with Hispanics. Republicans and Hispanics agree on more issues generally, while Democrats have more of a machine that allows them to get votes, i.e. sending out mailers saying simply "No on 8- Protect Equality" and nothing else. To an uninformed Hispanic voter (which most Hispanic voters are uninformed politically), it sounds like it is something related to their community, rather than gay marriage.

Its more then that. The Dems have a natural advantage among every minority group simply by being the party of big Gov't and unless we come up with serious proposals on Education and Health Care we can forget about trying to do anything to win Hispanics. All that will happen is we will accept some Guest Worker McCain program and we end up with gains cancelling out the loses as the Dems continue to make Gains b/c of Education and Health Care among Hispanics. So in my mind these Libertarians thinging we can simply accept amnesty and we will magically get 45% of Hispanics again is nothing but a pipe dream. You are right about the uninformed part and some of that was a response to Bush's strong showing in 2004 and the Dems want to keep us below 40%. We should keep the Pro-Life plank definately and continue to fight against Gay Marriage because those are the only issues we can attract Hispanics on currently. That doesn't mean we can't shift our arguement on Abortion to be a more inclusive one or take a differenct tack entirely when it comes to measures short of Gay Marriage such as Civil Unions. We are going to have to get serious on Health Care and Education.

We need to push more pro-choice candidates and pro-gay marriage candidates in locations where social conservatives generally can't win, but we need to keep the pro-life and pro-family components in the national platform. This will help us expand the map back into the Northeast and the Pacific while attracting younger voters and more minorities without losing "the base."

I have every intention of supporting recruiting the best match for there states no matter what there positions, the reason I support Simmons, Kirk, and hopefully Ayotte. There are so many things we used to be best in, from recruiting to fundraising that we have simply forgotten how to win and how to run a campaign. I remember Obama criticizing Republicans last year saying "They may not know how to govern, but they know how to win elections". If only thay were still true. Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Marriage will definately be staying put in the platform and National Party. Far too many support them for us to be able to abandon them and get away with it. 

It would also help us to find more "Suburban Conservatives" like McDonnell and McCrory. They represent the future of the GOP in these "Changed" southern states like VA, NC, and FL.