Honest Question: If Obama is re-elected, where does Republican Party go from there?

Haiku said:
They won because everyone else stayed home. I take issue with the term conservative when used for these people. Otherwise I agree with you...the crazy clown car will continue down the road always turning right. They will leave the GOP. I really don't see the Republicans changing very much but I haven't given it much thought.
Click to expand...

I have not read the entire thread but This is what I think.
Republicans are people. Some people are stupid, some republicans are stupid. Some people are sensible and the same can be said for republicans. So, at some point, they must sit round a table and examine where they have gone wrong. The answer to that is clear and can be taken right back to that ridiculous woman in Alaska. Not actually her but the non thinking, gung ho, brainless morons who chose her as their figurehead.
To recover the party must not simply split from these idiots, it must put so much distance between them and it that not even Curiosity could make the journey.
Then they have to accept that the running of a four year hate campaign was, and was bound to be because that sort of thing always is, self defeating. They must develop policies. They must examine the work of the Democrats and make sure that when they think the democrats have made a mistake they don't just cat-call and whistle, they put forward their own ideas with evidence to show why their ideas would be more successful.
They must grow up. They must become politicians, in it for the people and not for personal fame and fortune.
 
blackascoal said:
I'm hoping for serious thought among the inevitable partisan humor. :0)

If the current trend holds up, Obama will be re-elected. It would mean that republicans couldn't even beat the black guy with a foreign sounding name and a bad record .. who, according to most republicans, isn't even an American or a christian.

To compound the dilemna that republicans find themselves in, their base is shrinking, and by 2016 they'll have an even less chance of winning national elections than they do now.

One thing for sure, they do not have the ability to conform and adapt to changing demographics and social evolution. Without that ability, their future as a viable counter-balance to the Democratic Party does not look good.

What I predict is a fracturing of the party. The Tea Party wing of the party cannot get along with anything other than themselves. Moderate republicans will have the example of their failures to once again have a voice in the party. I predict that they will fracture, and a third party will emerge on the right.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

First off, you need to undertand the wings properly and you do not. Your division into tea party and moderate is silly and uninformed. The tea party is not a coherent group. The wings are easy to see by considering their standard bearers, the last three standing.

Romney represents the NeoCons and National Greatness Republicans. Funny, enough these include many of the people you probably call moderates. These guys rule the party. They care mostly about preventing their fears of nuclear armageddon and/or maintaining American hegemony and winning. They favor corporate welfare and believe that they can make everybody rich through Keynesianism. They are "pragmatic" and always back the most electable, as long as they can control him.

Paul represents the libertarian wing. You should know what they represent by now, but it has nothing to do with Darla's insanity, so maybe you guys don't. These are the intellectuals and free market idealists. Some of Paul's supporters (conspiracy theorists and anti-trade nuts) were misinformed about what he believed. But he never agreed with them and stated so flatly.

Santorum represents the union sympathetic, racists, homophobes and religious conservatives. These people are just ignorant.

The real uneasiness is between Paul and Santorum. Both benefited from the tea party movement. Santorum held on for the EXPRESSLY stated purpose of denying Paul a speaking spot. Paul stated flatly what he felt about Santorum saying that he "really hates homosexuals." Further, he stated that Bachmann (an early favorite of the Santorum wing before her husband was outed) "really hated muslims."

There is no way this group remains a cohesive whole. You are seriously deluded if you think the people at Reason are going to back Santorum or Romney. They will sit out or vote for Johnson. Santourm's group will vote for anybody but Obama, but they are a drain on the NeoCons and Romney.

So if there is a shakeup, either the Libertarians or Religious Right or going to get kicked to the curb. The Libertarians are not party loyalists. But if the party has a future it is with them. Most young Republicans voted with Paul. The Religious Right are knee jerk reactionaries and will always oppose Democrats. But the RR is toxic and without Libertarians the GOP is left without any viable ideas.
 
every year a new batch of college kids graduate, get a job, start paying taxes and turn into Republicans......them's demographics for ya......
 
bravo said:
I married a women.....and any male homo can marry any women that will have him and get the same treatment....
Click to expand...

Yeah, that argument has been tried and failed in Loving v Virginia. I don't think Clarence Thomas is going to want to overturn that one.
 
Lowaicue said:
I have not read the entire thread but This is what I think.
Republicans are people. Some people are stupid, some republicans are stupid. Some people are sensible and the same can be said for republicans. So, at some point, they must sit round a table and examine where they have gone wrong. The answer to that is clear and can be taken right back to that ridiculous woman in Alaska. Not actually her but the non thinking, gung ho, brainless morons who chose her as their figurehead.
To recover the party must not simply split from these idiots, it must put so much distance between them and it that not even Curiosity could make the journey.
Then they have to accept that the running of a four year hate campaign was, and was bound to be because that sort of thing always is, self defeating. They must develop policies. They must examine the work of the Democrats and make sure that when they think the democrats have made a mistake they don't just cat-call and whistle, they put forward their own ideas with evidence to show why their ideas would be more successful.
They must grow up. They must become politicians, in it for the people and not for personal fame and fortune.
Click to expand...

RedGeneral said:
First off, you need to undertand the wings properly and you do not. Your division into tea party and moderate is silly and uninformed. The tea party is not a coherent group. The wings are easy to see by considering their standard bearers, the last three standing.

Romney represents the NeoCons and National Greatness Republicans. Funny, enough these include many of the people you probably call moderates. These guys rule the party. They care mostly about preventing their fears of nuclear armageddon and/or maintaining American hegemony and winning. They favor corporate welfare and believe that they can make everybody rich through Keynesianism. They are "pragmatic" and always back the most electable, as long as they can control him.

Paul represents the libertarian wing. You should know what they represent by now, but it has nothing to do with Darla's insanity, so maybe you guys don't. These are the intellectuals and free market idealists. Some of Paul's supporters (conspiracy theorists and anti-trade nuts) were misinformed about what he believed. But he never agreed with them and stated so flatly.

Santorum represents the union sympathetic, racists, homophobes and religious conservatives. These people are just ignorant.

The real uneasiness is between Paul and Santorum. Both benefited from the tea party movement. Santorum held on for the EXPRESSLY stated purpose of denying Paul a speaking spot. Paul stated flatly what he felt about Santorum saying that he "really hates homosexuals." Further, he stated that Bachmann (an early favorite of the Santorum wing before her husband was outed) "really hated muslims."

There is no way this group remains a cohesive whole. You are seriously deluded if you think the people at Reason are going to back Santorum or Romney. They will sit out or vote for Johnson. Santourm's group will vote for anybody but Obama, but they are a drain on the NeoCons and Romney.

So if there is a shakeup, either the Libertarians or Religious Right or going to get kicked to the curb. The Libertarians are not party loyalists. But if the party has a future it is with them. Most young Republicans voted with Paul. The Religious Right are knee jerk reactionaries and will always oppose Democrats. But the RR is toxic and without Libertarians the GOP is left without any viable ideas.
Click to expand...


From the know-it-all know nothing clan.....
 
While the GOP is on the ropes and needs to take seriously the need to drop dead weight, they can rebound. The label might not survive but conservatives can coalaesce if they ditch their racists

I don't agree that Democrats have no identity problem. Many of the union types are uneasy with minorities and vice versa. The unionist support for trade wars and general xenophobia creates an uneasy alliance. African Americans are more supportive of school vouchers and are wary of the police. The minorities are also uneasy with homosexuals as many of them come from less liberal (it is amazing how few people here understand the word) cultures. Then there is the fact that blacks, Hispanics and other minorities don't identify with each other.

Also, many regulations are designed to maintain the status quo. Minority entrepreneurs can become attracted to free market principles easily after having had to suffer the burden of government agencies that block food trucks and other permits. Libertarianism, properly understood, has plenty to offer minorities. But those who identify as libertarian need to quit focusing solely on government programs that benefit the poor and start spending more of their ammunition combating corporate welfare and barriers to market entry that are killing our economy.

Then there is the fact that our top heavy Ponzi scheme of a retirement system benefits whites over minorities. When this ticking time bomb explodes it will hurt the Democrats. If their reforms are based solely on increasing the age of retirement it could further alienate minorities. Look at what wing of the GOP is rushing in to defend SS/Medicare.

The conservatives (not the GOP) are going to have to dump their racists. One way or the other it will destroy them. But once they do they may be able to capture minorities. I can't see how they will be able to under the GOP label for some time though.

Race is becoming less significant and that will continue to decline. What is Obama, black or white? I am sure he identifies as black but that is largely due to the culture he was raised under. More and more mixed race children will are not being be forced out of their white identity by a pervasive culture of racism. That does not mean they reject their non-white culture, but it will not move them. I have a relative that is 1/4 Puerto Rican. He has half-brothers that are a 1/4 white. They are his brothers and he is theirs. I love going to see them. They all consider me family.

Race labels as a dividing line will fade. The conservatives do need to move away from their hatemongers, trade warriors and Santorum. But that is not an impossible task.

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams
 
I think that it's funny how so many of the righties, and pretend Johnson-voters (they know who they are, the ones who are on here day after day defending Republicans but claim they are voting for Johnson, hahahaha yeah sure) always rush to post how much they admire BAC for not voting for Obama. This is not about BAC whom I adore and admire greatly, for different reasons than the righties do I'm sure.

It's just a point I want to make. I am voting for Obama and I am voting Dem across the ballot. And I am not ashamed nor do I think that I need to bow my head before my moral superiors (the alleged Johnson voters lol). I am voting Dem across the ballot because of women's issues. Because there IS a war on women. Because men by and large don't give a shit about it. Certainly Republican and "Libertarian" men don't give a shit about it. Because sexism is alive and well and certainly you can see that on this board, where it is actually celebrated.

Because I do not want my niece to need a coat hanger, to be policed by misogynist monsters when she goes out in a few years under the impression she can wear what the fuck she wants to wear, drink, and dance, just as if she were a man, and not be raped as a punishment for daring to be free, to not have access to birth control, to have some pimple-faced, lemon-sucking, bitter bastard looking to get back at all the bitches who said no to him by humiliating her and refusing to fill her prescription, to be called a cunt, a bitch, a whore, to not have a life filled with every single possibility and opportunity open to men.

And though the Dems are not perfect on women's issues (I pressure them all the time to go on the offensive against Hyde for one example), it is an issue that they are ions ahead of Republicans on. This doesn't mean I don't advocate from within for better policy on other issues. One way I do that is by donating my dollars to the more progressive candidates in primaries and general elections. But I vote Democratic. And I am morally inferior to none of the fuckwits around here. Thank you.
 
Lowaicue said:
I have not read the entire thread but This is what I think.
Republicans are people. Some people are stupid, some republicans are stupid. Some people are sensible and the same can be said for republicans. So, at some point, they must sit round a table and examine where they have gone wrong. The answer to that is clear and can be taken right back to that ridiculous woman in Alaska. Not actually her but the non thinking, gung ho, brainless morons who chose her as their figurehead.
To recover the party must not simply split from these idiots, it must put so much distance between them and it that not even Curiosity could make the journey.
Then they have to accept that the running of a four year hate campaign was, and was bound to be because that sort of thing always is, self defeating. They must develop policies. They must examine the work of the Democrats and make sure that when they think the democrats have made a mistake they don't just cat-call and whistle, they put forward their own ideas with evidence to show why their ideas would be more successful.
They must grow up. They must become politicians, in it for the people and not for personal fame and fortune.
Click to expand...

So in essence, you want them to become democrats? Shocking
 
RedGeneral said:
First off, you need to undertand the wings properly and you do not. Your division into tea party and moderate is silly and uninformed. The tea party is not a coherent group. The wings are easy to see by considering their standard bearers, the last three standing.

Romney represents the NeoCons and National Greatness Republicans. Funny, enough these include many of the people you probably call moderates. These guys rule the party. They care mostly about preventing their fears of nuclear armageddon and/or maintaining American hegemony and winning. They favor corporate welfare and believe that they can make everybody rich through Keynesianism. They are "pragmatic" and always back the most electable, as long as they can control him.

Paul represents the libertarian wing. You should know what they represent by now, but it has nothing to do with Darla's insanity, so maybe you guys don't. These are the intellectuals and free market idealists. Some of Paul's supporters (conspiracy theorists and anti-trade nuts) were misinformed about what he believed. But he never agreed with them and stated so flatly.

Santorum represents the union sympathetic, racists, homophobes and religious conservatives. These people are just ignorant.

The real uneasiness is between Paul and Santorum. Both benefited from the tea party movement. Santorum held on for the EXPRESSLY stated purpose of denying Paul a speaking spot. Paul stated flatly what he felt about Santorum saying that he "really hates homosexuals." Further, he stated that Bachmann (an early favorite of the Santorum wing before her husband was outed) "really hated muslims."

There is no way this group remains a cohesive whole. You are seriously deluded if you think the people at Reason are going to back Santorum or Romney. They will sit out or vote for Johnson. Santourm's group will vote for anybody but Obama, but they are a drain on the NeoCons and Romney.

So if there is a shakeup, either the Libertarians or Religious Right or going to get kicked to the curb. The Libertarians are not party loyalists. But if the party has a future it is with them. Most young Republicans voted with Paul. The Religious Right are knee jerk reactionaries and will always oppose Democrats. But the RR is toxic and without Libertarians the GOP is left without any viable ideas.
Click to expand...

First off your thoughts about the divisions in the party are your own .. or shall I say, the thoughts of Paulish libertarians. While I can appreciate your perspective, please save the pompous crap about what I don't know.

The divisions between tea party and moderate republicans is obvious to most political analysts and observers .. and contrary to what Paulites believe, they are not the most important element in the Republican Party .. in fact, they are easily dismissed. The thought that Ron Paul could EVER be the president is the thinking of children.

Additionally, there is nothing mystical about libertarian thought. The "intellectuals" ??? :0) Sure they are. That's why they believe in an economic system that doesn't exist anywhere on planet earth. Lassiez-fare economics is a pipedream .. make that a failed pipedream.

SEE: the Robber Barons.

When I think about libertarians I think scientologists. Ya'll have a lot in common. :0)

As for the tea party .. it's the party of stupid and Obama's best weapon. The knuckleheads in the tea party and their gutter language and thought energized Obama supporters far beyond what he was capable of doing by himself.

Yes, he has a horrible record .. but most people would rather that then to allow the morons in the tea party to have any more control of the government. With the tea party there, this Congress is the lowest rated in American history.

So, we can have good conversations about this issue and anyother .. but you should save the pompous for somebody else.
 
Lowaicue said:
So in essence you do not want them to grow up and you want them to remain stupid. I think that is quite likely.
Click to expand...

I will stand by my principles. Feel free to change yours. If supporting illegal immigration and a welfare state is the path to victory, then I would prefer defeat. Illegal immigration combined with a welfare state is a recipe for disaster.

Like I said, I used to really care about it. But now I don't because I have ordered my affairs to survive the coming economic collapse. Now, I can just sit back and watch you proles argue over who is going going to be the captain of the titanic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top