PDA

View Full Version : General The Demise of the Republican Party are Greatly Exaggerated




Factushima
11-12-2012, 03:14 AM
^ARE! No, that reads *IS*..........^

I have heard a non-stop barrage of claims that Republicans 'must change' or are 'not electable.' They are buttressing their argument with the results of the 2012 election.

I have taken a look at the results and find no significant ideological shift. Lets run through these races and see what we have:

Romney vs. Obama:

David Plouffe recently claimed that the Obama machine can't be transfered. This election was about Barack Obama, not policy or Romney. This isn't the only person saying this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/usa-campaign-obama-idUSL1E8M8LYY20121109

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/10/NAACP-Pres-Obama-Voters-Simply-Go-Away-When-Obama-Not-On-Top-Of-Ticket

When you get down to it a lot of Republicans just stayed home. Romney was in the wrong place at the wrong time. To claim his loss was a fundamental shift in the country, especially with what the Obama campaign is saying, is a stretch.

Senate:

Nobody is surprised by what happened:

Scott Brown lost in MA. Absolutely no surprise there.

Angus King won in ME. Again, no surprise there.

Mourdock lost in IN after making some full-retard statement about abortion and rape. That seat was his to lose and he lost it.

House:

Republicans held the house with a slightly smaller majority.


State Races:

I believe the Democrats netted one state house and broke even on the state senate races. In a surprise: Wisconsin put the Republicans back in charge of the state senate. Even with Obama on the ticket they couldn't get the Democrat turnout to win.


Governors Races:

Republicans picked up one state house: NC. This really isn't a surprise.

Of Note:

In Montana the libertarian candidate picked up 17k votes. More than enough to push Rick Hill (R) over the top.



Compare these results to 2010 when the Republicans, mainly with the support of the Tea Party, picked up 6 Senate seats, 63 House seats, 6 Governor seats, and 18 state House/Senate chambers. One of the largest turnovers in government in our history.

Overall, there was no fundamental shift in ideology at any level.

Why did I post this?

Two reasons:

1) The establishment Republicans, and the media, are pushing this narrative that the Republicans have to change. This is hugely beneficial to all people in the liberty movement as the establishment people will be more willing to accept moves in their platform. As would voters. Rural Republicans who stayed home are going to be more willing to join a more libertarian Republican party. The time to form a better coalition is now. People like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock prove that the Republicans position on abortion is very unpopular. Moderating that position may prove difficult, but getting candidates to shut up about it wont.

2) In the year of Barack Obama there was no big gain for statist progressives. To me this election was more a condemnation of big government than it was for or against any party. Almost 14 million people who voted in 2008 just stayed home.

Hope you enjoyed this!

anaconda
11-12-2012, 03:35 AM
^Well spoken. I might add that the puppet masters seem to be good at evening things out in their false "left-right" paradigm, given just a little bit of time and the effective use of their bought-and-paid-for media. It serves the special interests to have a dog-and-pony-show with as close to 50% on one side and 50% on the other that they can possibly engineer. It reminds me a bit of Las Vegas odds makers and the sports betting business. They adjust the point spread until the amount of money in the kitty is half on either side. Same thing in politics, but instead of the point spread adjustment it's a transference of policy positions and talking points (the Democratic Kennedy administration seems "right" of Mitt Romney, for example). However, the PROBLEM for the system is different now, in my opinion. And it's dangerous to the PTB. The liberty movement that has erupted on the "right" can only be appeased by relinquishing statist power. Which is not welcome for them and is relatively unprecedented. It's also simultaneous with a devastating economy that makes their shell game even more challenging. Should be an interesting few years ahead.

devil21
11-12-2012, 04:29 AM
The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.

Factushima
11-12-2012, 04:32 AM
Good points all, Anaconda.

I'm pretty interested in 2014. The potential is that, with a Romney loss, a lot of Republicans will be voting. There are certainly enough seats up for a liberty oriented movement to co-opt the Republican party and take a majority in the Senate and make gains in the House. It seems the local focus of the Tea Party is working. We only need a presidential candidate that seems sincere in his desire to shrink government.

One great piece of news is we might not see the kind of spending in 2016 that we saw this year. Without Obama on the ticket Democrats will likely see John Kerry totals.

Factushima
11-12-2012, 04:35 AM
The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.

Amen.

Well, we have to push our way back in. I have made huge strides with my group of conservatives. They are willing to accept an end to the war on some drugs, willing to shut up about abortion, and are still 100% dead set against gay marriage. Hopefully the gay marriage issue will be pulled off the table for us.

My concern is our poor showing with hispanics, any ideas on how to appeal to them?

CaptUSA
11-12-2012, 06:12 AM
My concern is our poor showing with hispanics, any ideas on how to appeal to them?Yeah, don't treat them as a monolithic group. Don't fall into the media's trap of segmenting the population into handy little groups.

The principles of liberty are attractive to individuals; not groups. Do not fall into the belief that these folks only care about immigration. lol.

mz10
11-12-2012, 09:35 AM
My concern is our poor showing with hispanics, any ideas on how to appeal to them?

Stop talking about building the Great Wall of China across the Mexican border, and start talking about simplifying the immigration process.

rpfocus
11-12-2012, 12:15 PM
Stop talking about building the Great Wall of China across the Mexican border, and start talking about simplifying the immigration process.

What could be more simple than crossing the border and not going back? The problem is that people have been streaming across the border since Reagan and all presidents have been looking the other way. Now the Reagan generation illegals are parents and grandparents and the demographics of the country have permanently shifted. 10+ million illegal immigrants want to be legal now. The time to say no was 30 years ago.

man is truth
11-12-2012, 01:06 PM
all of the new ron paul people that I have met in the last few months are hispanic and bi-lingual.

CPUd
11-12-2012, 01:59 PM
My concern is our poor showing with hispanics, any ideas on how to appeal to them?

Yes. Don't unseat delegates for the 'presumptive nominee' on the basis of their last name, especially when they are true supporters.

acptulsa
11-12-2012, 02:44 PM
We only need a presidential candidate that seems sincere in his desire to shrink government.

Yeah, well, this coalition offered one of those. And in an environment where the corruption and corporatism were so terrible that we were winning over indpendents and disaffected Democrats wholesale with nothing more than the promise of Ninth and Tenth Amendment guarantees that they could do their thing on the state level and the integrity of the candidate, Fox managed to talk Republican primary voters into moving farther left than they had ever moved before.

When rank and file Republicans figure out what Fox is doing to them, we can take this nation back for We, the People. As long as they keep letting Fox talk them into doing what the Democratic National Committee wants them to do, we're screwed. It's just that simple.

Factushima
11-12-2012, 03:11 PM
Yeah, don't treat them as a monolithic group. Don't fall into the media's trap of segmenting the population into handy little groups.

The principles of liberty are attractive to individuals; not groups. Do not fall into the belief that these folks only care about immigration. lol.

I agree and disagree. There are cultural norms that extend to people who believe they share similarities. On the other hand, there are vast differences between individuals.

I feel part of the problem this election was a constant recasting of the Republicans as 'racists'. That may have drove away some hispanics, too.

TheGrinch
11-12-2012, 03:15 PM
I agree and disagree. There are cultural norms that extend to people who believe they share similarities. On the other hand, there are vast differences between individuals.

I feel part of the problem this election was a constant recasting of the Republicans as 'racists'. That may have drove away some hispanics, too.

Many hispanics supported Ron Paul.

I've already heard this, the pundits suggesting that the Republican party can fix it's woes by pandering more to minorities, as if you'll jsut toss Rubio out there and all the problems will go away. The republican party needs to go back to conservative libertarian ideals, and ditch the social conservatism.

Factushima
11-12-2012, 03:39 PM
Yeah, well, this coalition offered one of those. And in an environment where the corruption and corporatism were so terrible that we were winning over indpendents and disaffected Democrats wholesale with nothing more than the promise of Ninth and Tenth Amendment guarantees that they could do their thing on the state level and the integrity of the candidate, Fox managed to talk Republican primary voters into moving farther left than they had ever moved before.

When rank and file Republicans figure out what Fox is doing to them, we can take this nation back for We, the People. As long as they keep letting Fox talk them into doing what the Democratic National Committee wants them to do, we're screwed. It's just that simple.

I'm not entirely sure theres a conspiracy. Foxnews is just as confused as everyone else. There is a strong wing of the Republican party that wants to be Democrat-lite, those people are losing power. With this election, and the ridiculous coverage and analysis taking place, we might see a change in their opinion.

Of course the New Media is proving very valuable. If you look how the left took over American politics, they started by creating new avenues to get out their voices. That is precisesly what we need to do.

acptulsa
11-12-2012, 03:44 PM
I'm not entirely sure theres a conspiracy.

Suit yourself.


http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg

Seems to me Obvious Troll is Obvious. And no one could be more obvious to my eyes than the owner of the New York Post.

You really don't think the Old Aussie Corporatist wanted someone with the integrity of Ron Paul in the White House? They guy the K Street lobbyists call Dr. No? Seriously?

There ain't much than can give someone like Rupert Murdoch nightmares; but that would certainly do it.

TheGrinch
11-12-2012, 04:00 PM
Suit yourself.



Seems to me Obvious Troll is Obvious. And no one could be more obvious to my eyes than the owner of the New York Post.

You really don't think the Old Aussie Corporatist wanted someone with the integrity of Ron Paul in the White House? They guy the K Street lobbyists call Dr. No? Seriously?

There ain't much than can give someone like Rupert Murdoch nightmares; but that would certainly do it.

It isn't just Murdoch, and it's no conspiracy theory. Conflicts of interest occur when you have something like 95% of the media owned by 5 megaconglomerate corporations with an abundance of different interests. GE owns NBC for instance, but it goes far far deeper than that. So yes, there is of course a conspiracy, and my guess is that it is in large part interested in maintaining the 2-party system that is used to prop up corrupt puppet candidates by being "the lesser of two evils". Divide and conquer.

No doubt in my mind that the corrupt elite would all rather have Obama re-elected than let an honest man like Dr. Paul anywhere near their gravy train.

Factushima
11-12-2012, 04:05 PM
Eh, I don't want this thread to get hijacked into a discussion of media elites and corruption.

This thread is about the election results, what they actually mean, and what we do to maximize our efforts in the coming months.

TheGrinch
11-12-2012, 04:08 PM
Eh, I don't want this thread to get hijacked into a discussion of media elites and corruption.

This thread is about the election results, what they actually mean, and what we do to maximize our efforts in the coming months.

Then you might not want to play the conspiracy card when discussing what is widely known in academia.

acptulsa
11-12-2012, 04:11 PM
Eh, I don't want this thread to get hijacked into a discussion of media elites and corruption.

This thread is about the election results, what they actually mean, and what we do to maximize our efforts in the coming months.

Well, if you know how to divorce the maximization of our efforts to elect an anti-corporatist and the issue of corruption and the Mainstream Mafia--er, I mean Media, by all means enlighten us!! Seems to me those two are inescapably intertwined.

liveandletlive
11-12-2012, 06:02 PM
im a realistic, its not gonna look good for the GOP no matter what they do. Reagan gave amnesty to illlegals no mass hispanic movement to the GOP

they should be concerned Asian vote, who are considered non-monolithic in their voting patterns - unlike blacks.

heavenlyboy34
11-12-2012, 06:12 PM
The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.
That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? :confused: Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

TheGrinch
11-12-2012, 06:14 PM
That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? :confused: Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+issues&l=1)

Keith and stuff
11-12-2012, 06:19 PM
State Races:
I believe the Democrats netted one state house and broke even on the state senate races. In a surprise: Wisconsin put the Republicans back in charge of the state senate. Even with Obama on the ticket they couldn't get the Democrat turnout to win.

My count may be off but it shows Democrats winning control of 8 legislative bodies and Republicans winning control of 3 legislative bodies.

Carson
11-12-2012, 06:27 PM
Witnesses Testify: ‘The Ayes Have it’ on the Teleprompter (http://gulagbound.com/33030/update-video-shows-the-ayes-have-it-on-the-teleprompter-witnesses-tesitify/#.UKGSDCJ_WkA)

PREDETERMINED: Photo proves DNC teleprompter loaded to affirm 2/3rds vote regardless outcome (http://www.therightscoop.com/predetermined-photo-proves-dnc-teleprompter-loaded-to-affirm-23rds-vote-regardless-outcome/)

Thread music?

heavenlyboy34
11-12-2012, 06:28 PM
Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+issues&l=1)
This is an unsatisfying answer:

A social issue (also called a social ill or a social problem) is a controversial issue that relates to people's personal lives and interactions. Social issues are distinguished from economic issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy). Some issues have both social and economic aspects, such as immigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration). There are also controversial issues that don't fall into either category, such as wars.
Economics are inherently social. Without society, there wouldn't be economics (well, there would be, but it would be irrelevant to politics otherwise). The specific issue list in that article is also open-ended. I am disappoint. :(

TheGrinch
11-12-2012, 06:31 PM
This is an unsatisfying answer:

Economics are inherently social. Without society, there wouldn't be economics (well, there would be, but it would be irrelevant to politics otherwise). The specific issue list in that article is also open-ended. I am disappoint. :(

Point being that economics has to do with math and science. Social issues typically have to do with legislating morality, which is one component of why the republican party is a mess.

If you'rew looking at it any deeper than that, then you're looknig at it too deep. Social is jsut a word that's used in conjuction with specific issues that happen in society, not fiscal issues that are supposed to be looknig at the numbers involved without the question of morality or, for lack of a better descriptor, "social issues".

acptulsa
11-12-2012, 06:32 PM
This is an unsatisfying answer: I am disappoint. :(

Well, you've blame the wrong people. The Mainstream Mafia have use the term 'social conservative' for years, and they have define the issues that get labeled 'social issues' as well. No one here has approve their selections; we have merely speak the American English that the vast majority of Americans have speak all this time.

At least I speak that until I was get to this post and decide to try to speak whatever your language might be...

devil21
11-12-2012, 07:42 PM
That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? :confused: Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

You forgot to also bold the preceding operative word.

CPUd
11-12-2012, 08:33 PM
http://i.imgur.com/XnG4F.gif

Republicanguy
11-14-2012, 10:09 AM
^LOL, what?

klamath
11-15-2012, 10:10 PM
^ARE! No, that reads *IS*..........^

I have heard a non-stop barrage of claims that Republicans 'must change' or are 'not electable.' They are buttressing their argument with the results of the 2012 election.

I have taken a look at the results and find no significant ideological shift. Lets run through these races and see what we have:

Romney vs. Obama:

David Plouffe recently claimed that the Obama machine can't be transfered. This election was about Barack Obama, not policy or Romney. This isn't the only person saying this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/usa-campaign-obama-idUSL1E8M8LYY20121109

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/10/NAACP-Pres-Obama-Voters-Simply-Go-Away-When-Obama-Not-On-Top-Of-Ticket

When you get down to it a lot of Republicans just stayed home. Romney was in the wrong place at the wrong time. To claim his loss was a fundamental shift in the country, especially with what the Obama campaign is saying, is a stretch.

Senate:

Nobody is surprised by what happened:

Scott Brown lost in MA. Absolutely no surprise there.

Angus King won in ME. Again, no surprise there.

Mourdock lost in IN after making some full-retard statement about abortion and rape. That seat was his to lose and he lost it.

House:

Republicans held the house with a slightly smaller majority.


State Races:

I believe the Democrats netted one state house and broke even on the state senate races. In a surprise: Wisconsin put the Republicans back in charge of the state senate. Even with Obama on the ticket they couldn't get the Democrat turnout to win.


Governors Races:

Republicans picked up one state house: NC. This really isn't a surprise.

Of Note:

In Montana the libertarian candidate picked up 17k votes. More than enough to push Rick Hill (R) over the top.



Compare these results to 2010 when the Republicans, mainly with the support of the Tea Party, picked up 6 Senate seats, 63 House seats, 6 Governor seats, and 18 state House/Senate chambers. One of the largest turnovers in government in our history.

Overall, there was no fundamental shift in ideology at any level.

Why did I post this?

Two reasons:

1) The establishment Republicans, and the media, are pushing this narrative that the Republicans have to change. This is hugely beneficial to all people in the liberty movement as the establishment people will be more willing to accept moves in their platform. As would voters. Rural Republicans who stayed home are going to be more willing to join a more libertarian Republican party. The time to form a better coalition is now. People like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock prove that the Republicans position on abortion is very unpopular. Moderating that position may prove difficult, but getting candidates to shut up about it wont.

2) In the year of Barack Obama there was no big gain for statist progressives. To me this election was more a condemnation of big government than it was for or against any party. Almost 14 million people who voted in 2008 just stayed home.

Hope you enjoyed this!

You are making some big assumptions yourself. Mourdock and Akin lost because the issue was turned to Rape not abortion. Both candidates were leading with well known antiabortion beliefs until the tie to rape was added.
Polling on Abortions is Not monolithic aligned with the democrats. A majority call themselves prolife. Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.
Start breaking it down to 2nd and 3rd trimister abortions and abortions for economic reasons, monster majorities OPPOSE it.
I really believe the Republicans should change their plank to the appearance of brainwaves as the cut off point for abortions. The end of brainwaves is when life is deemed over so this would be a solid legal framework.
Personally I believe in life at conception but any innocent life saved is one hell of an achievement.

cindy25
11-20-2012, 04:58 AM
I could see a scenario where the Dem is always black, and the Rep is always Hispanic. so each side gets "their" minority

carclinic
11-20-2012, 05:35 AM
Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.
It's ironic that the latter two percentages are the smaller, yet more consistent people while the majority are hypocrites.

"I think abortion is wrong, but if the mother is raped, two wrong make a right. Of course!"

Factushima
11-20-2012, 04:20 PM
You are making some big assumptions yourself. Mourdock and Akin lost because the issue was turned to Rape not abortion. Both candidates were leading with well known antiabortion beliefs until the tie to rape was added.
Polling on Abortions is Not monolithic aligned with the democrats. A majority call themselves prolife. Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.
Start breaking it down to 2nd and 3rd trimister abortions and abortions for economic reasons, monster majorities OPPOSE it.
I really believe the Republicans should change their plank to the appearance of brainwaves as the cut off point for abortions. The end of brainwaves is when life is deemed over so this would be a solid legal framework.


I agree in part and dissent in part.

The mass majority of people agree with abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Saying that abortion shouldn't be legal is the case of rape isn't just a policy position. It is the richest must effective fodder yet that leftys can use to show Republicans as uncaring and out of touch; which Akin and Mourdock were. If Bachman had said that we may be in a different situation, or Palin. The bottom line is we can't be out there talking about nonsense like removing the rape exception to abortion laws. Period.

Riyan
11-22-2012, 04:23 AM
As there are some very good points raised by Factushima about 2012 elections. Which clearly tells the story about clean sweep win by Obama. And also highlighted the total collapse of Romeny and the Republican party. But i think the situation will definitely turn in favor of Republican party in next election as they should be at a better position against Romeny.

Badger Paul
11-22-2012, 06:58 AM
A lot of Republicans died between 2008-2012. You can't tell me a party that was so geared up to vote out Obama it would have voted for a trained seal as the GOP candidate suddenly decided on Election Day: "Nahhh...I won't vote." I think is a bit misleading.

klamath
11-22-2012, 11:26 AM
I agree in part and dissent in part.

The mass majority of people agree with abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Saying that abortion shouldn't be legal is the case of rape isn't just a policy position. It is the richest must effective fodder yet that leftys can use to show Republicans as uncaring and out of touch; which Akin and Mourdock were. If Bachman had said that we may be in a different situation, or Palin. The bottom line is we can't be out there talking about nonsense like removing the rape exception to abortion laws. Period. I do agree that Rape and abortion is a no win issue for republicans. Mourdock was set up for that and he didn't lie about his moral beliefs.
You can bet your bottom dollar that EVERY last Republican candidate WILL be asked specifically about Rape and abortion from now on. Rand is set up to take the very same hit that Mourdock did. Will he lie or will he not? I don't think he will.

heavenlyboy34
11-22-2012, 12:06 PM
The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.
Depends on how you define "left". Traditionally, individualism and anti-state sentiment are "left", radical things. (Had Americans in the mid-18th century been "conservative" they would have been content being part of the British empire. Declaring independence was one of the most radical, liberal acts in history.) Remember, the Statists hijacked the word "liberal" long ago in order to manipulate public discourse and opinion.