Today's confession by Mark Sanford, the latest "rising star" of the Republican party, is the latest nail in the GOP coffin. The party leadership seems determined to engineer a third consecutive disaster at the polls in 2010, which may be the last election where the old boys are even considered a factor. What will the new party system in the U.S. look like? Will Democrats be considered the conservative party against the Greens? Will the Libertarians regain their rightful place as the voice for limited government on a national level?
Don't be too sure. Regan came out of left field in 1980. The way things are shaping up Obama is looking more and more like the Jimmy Carter of his generation.
Eh, much the same doom and gloom was popular in the late 70s as well. The Republican party is still here.
Don't plan the funeral yet Ron. The best thing for the conservatives, short of being in the white house right now, is the administration we have. They are going to do more to help the Republican Party in the next 3 1/2 years than the Republican Party could do themselves. If you happened to see the recent press conference you saw that the honeymoon is coming to an end for Obama. By now I am sure Obama wishes he had picked a different running mate and I am sure he must panic every time he hears that the speaker of the house is speaking again and this is just the beginning. Obama also realizes by now that he cannot deliver on his campaign promises and the people are also realizing this which is why his approval ratings are falling already. It would be interesting to hold an election today and compare the numbers to November’s election. For the future of the Republican Party I do not think anyone could do more for it than Obama will. Slowly but surely you are going to see Demarcates start to abandon ship and this will continue throughout this administration because as election 2012 draws nearer the demarcates are not going to let their entire party go down with the ship.
What I would like to see happen is the emergence of a party that truly stands for severely limiting government's role in our lives; not the lip service to this ideal offered by the Republicans. I don't think this will happen though; the demographic trends seem to point to a growing number of people who think of government as the first and best solution to any problem. This would indicate to me that the Democrats' best political chance lies in moving ever so slightly to the right and trying to pass themselves off as moderate centrists while leaving the far-left extreme to a more liberal party such as the Greenies. The far-right of course is self destructing and no strategy is required of the Democrats to remove them as a political threat. They will simply go the way of the dinosaurs and blame it on the "left-wing media".
Okay, I get that. So is this then just a plug for the Libertarian party and yourself? After all, if I'm not mistaking what your personal wants and needs are, isn't that exactly what the Libertarian party is all about? So, is it safe to say that you would like for the Republican party to possibly disassemble and then what is left of the remaining conservative moderates come join the American Libertarian party? Do you see all Democrats as left-wing? Are Democrats secret Greenies in someway. Not sure were the Green Party is fitting in the mix. No coffee today. Just trying to learn something for a change.
No plugs, I'm not a member of any political party. The Libertarians have certainly had their own problems for decades, mainly by running ill-qualified candidates. The Libertarians of the early 80's stood for limited government; it's hard to know what they stand for now.
I certainly do not see all or even most Democrats as left-wing extremists, quite the contrary. Their political success can be attributed to their capture of the center.
Why are we skipping coffee today?
Out of milk.
I have a real bud who is a staunch Libertarian. Real good friend. He is constantly pounding the lesser government rule of thumb. But he also wants polygamy legalized. But hey to each his own, but, I do believe that if more conservative moderates start switching to a party like the Libertarians, (who fundamental foundation represents the same foundation that the Republican party once stood for), things could finally start to flow in a positive manner for America.
NO! Not the Jimmy Carter thing. Jeez..
I believe once the Republicans rid themselves of the thrall of Neocons, they will be OK. We need to have the imput of true conservatives in the ongoing conversation. Of course hopefully they can grow to incorporate a few more people...as it is, their platform is lacking in participation...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archi … of-gop.php
I'd really like to see a return of the Party to the Old Right. Those were the guys who opposed FDR's mad schemes, conscription and the massive increase in government we've been burdened with since them.
One thing I don't think we need to do is get a grand consensus going. That's exactly what they tried to do in the last election, but Democrats are better at the "elect us and we'll pay you" kind of thing. Really pushing the limited government thing will not only revitalize the Party, but also get the other half of the voting public involved. You can't have a democracy or republic when half the population doesn't even vote. We ignore their silence at our peril.
Limited government, OK, that is the point worthy of the conversation. The rest of what you all talk about I don't want to know about!
I'm actually used to the moderate conservatives of the Midwest--in Iowa and Nebraska--who took the idea of responsibility and governing seriously, without much of the inflammatory rhetoric you see all over Hubpages these days... Feels like it is an invasion. But I think what we are seeing IS the last rites, and much hot air.
Sorry Lita, the Old Right was about some of that pre-Kissinger era stuff. Suffice to say they were advocates of limited government, isolationist foreign policy, basically a return to the strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm not sure you're taking the fact that only half of the eligible voters in this country vote. Whether they've done so by their own choice or not, they've become disenfranchised. I imagine that most of them feel that neither party is really speaking to what they believe, otherwise they would vote. Anytime we have a portion of the population who are disenfranchised, the potential for violence exists. I'm much more worried about that than anything else at this point.
Being the party out of power gives the Republicans a golden chance to get these people involved before things get too out of hand. I mean sure, Obama is riding a high tide right now, but what if his economic plans really do backfire. "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" and we haven't gotten that far yet. Give it six months to a year and things will look very different. Add a bad economic climate with half of the population disenfranchised. I think you can do the math.
Well, I disagree. The economy will look worse, then I believe it will get better. It always does. And not to mention, I do have faith in Obama. I voted for him--I know who and what I voted for.
As for the 'disenfranchised.' They are legion. They are most of the people you meet. Cannot say they are upset with anything much--they are as they always seem to be: disinterested in anything civic that will actually effect them. More interested in opiates like reality TV shows and other personal dramas.... It will take much more than the American version of 'poverty' to change that. Maybe you'd have to start with education and its appreciation once again.
If I want to be kinder (and I don't really--I don't believe it to be the case), I'd say like some political pundits that these are the people with families, working so much to take care of them--that they don't have time or interest in voting.
How can you be so sure, given his lack of experience?
We'll just have to see. Would it surprise you to know that I'm one of the disenfranchised. I don't support either party, because neither party really supports my beliefs. So am I then supposed to give up what I believe in to vote for someone who doesn't even support my views? That's the real reason people are disenchanted with the idea of voting. Government has taken so much upon itself that it can do nothing without angering someone. So politicians rely on the indoctrinated or the naive in order to stay in power.
While I somewhat hope you're correct about Obama, well we'll just have to see. It'll be interesting to have this conversation again this winter or next year. We've seen his programs and plans before and they didn't work back when they were tried before. But what the hey, we all need to learn for ourselves what the consequences of such a policy is.
What we need to do is rid the party of the make believe republicans, like McCain and company. Everyone is saying the Gov. should resign, Why? Clinton had sex with an intern in the White House. Remeber the line: "I didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski." Then after telling that lie to his wife, VP and the American people he went on to lie to a grand jury. Then he tried that lame excuse to cover his lie by saying, "it depends on what your definition of is is." Yhea--great. Next he sent his his wife on with Tim Russett and she told us this was a "Vast right wing conspiracy". LOL---supported by who, the liberal media? Ohh, I can still hear the liberals now as they
demonstrated what it meant to be a truly forgiving person,
night after night, It's only sex, it's his personal life, it's not a real lie if it's about sex, he was just trying to protect his family. Ha Ha good one, was trying to protect his sorry _ _ _. So for the Gov. I say in the spirit of all of the understanding and forgiving demonstrated to us by liberals, It's only sex, it's a personal matter, he was just trying to protect his family. Go back to doing what you go best governor---governing.
The Shark---trying to keep things fair
I hope the Republican Party revitalizes themsevles for the sole reason that all voices must be heard. But the neocon experiment must come to end. Bush was a total failure.
But don't count out Obama just yet. His approval ratings are higher than Bush or Clinton at this same time period, and there are signs that the economy is slowly, very slowly, improving.
It's going to be nearly impossible for the Republicans to ever reclaim the limited government mantle. The nearly six years that they were totally in control of all branches of government produced massive deficits and expansion of government powers.
If all they can bank on is the similar failures of the current Democratic rulers, they are dead as a political force. All voices will be heard, just not in the old ways of the outdated two party system.
That's what the NE Patriots say every time they get caught cheating: "it's old news, every time we cheat someone calls us cheaters."
Your friends stance on polygamy is not unusual with libertarians. He stands against making polygamy illegal, because that entails the use of force against people who have made a decision to live their lives a certain way. While a thing may be legal that does not make it legitimate. In mainstream US society, you'd be hard pressed to find people who think polygamy works. That alone would cut down on the number of people who tried polygamy. Next, there is something about people; envy, jealousy, etc. that keeps them from making a multiple partnership work. That would further cut down on the number of people who were involved in that type of a living situation. So in the end we're talking about a minority of a minority here. Last time I checked governments were instituted among men to protect the minority against the majority, not the other way around.
From a libertarian perspective, the best thing society can do is create an environment that allows people to live that way if they wish, allow those people to congregate and associate if they wish and, finally, ensure that people who choose not to live that life, or those who have tried it and decided that they don't want to live that life any longer, have the liberty to get away from that sort of situation. Granted that won't solve all the problems associated with that lifestyle, but it will at least be a start.
He knows my position. I think people should have the right to marry whom they want. Less government! That is what the Republican party USE too stand for. Since when did God make Republicans the American judge and maker? The world's judge and maker? Less government. See this is a result of women gaining the right to vote.
I'm seriously just joking there!!! Seriously!!! (I couldn't resist. I wrote it for Lita's sake.)
I do wish Lincoln's party would get back on track. Stop all this religious stampeding, and start working for the people in the political arena.
Maybe some moderates, not as liberal as myself moreover, still looking for direction will band together; to the founding principles of the said party and join up with the Libertarians. My friend Marcus and myself have very few oppositions. Our main opposition has to do the environment. I say more government protection. He says no. From a true Republican, business sense- he is absolutely correct. From a true Liberal sense- I'm partially correct. Especially because I don't consider the Capitalist business aspects when dealing with endangered species. I'd probably fit better with Teddy R. If I had my way, the government would buy the whole mess and make it a national park. Good for jobs, good for the environment and eventually good for business. Unfortunately it is all or nothing these days. I wonder where Teddy would of fit in with all of us left, right, moderate political activists? (Note, Teddy is my Vietnam;))
Funny you should mention Teddy. I really really want to admire him. Kind of like the way I want to admire Churchill. As anything but leaders, they were great men and accomplished much with their lives. As leaders though, they had a voracious appetite for power and didn't care about the unforeseen consequences of the use of that power. I suppose now that I think on it, I admire Bush personally, but felt the did much more harm than good as a leader. (I know, I just started a flame war, oh well). I did find a resource about private property and environmentalism that you might find interesting:
Also I have the experience of visiting Busch Wildlife reserve, which is just as pretty as any state park. The Busch family bought three towns out just after World War II to create the park. They weren't required to, but they chose to. Teddy would have been much better off finding those people in his time to buy Yellowstone and keep it as a wildlife refuge. Plus as private property, you don't have to worry about the government deciding to change its mind and allow drilling or other exploitation. All you have to do in the case of private property is create a charter that will govern the conservation aspects of the park and bind all signatories to that charter.
I'm surprised Lita hasn't shown up to castrate you yet.
I'd not be too quick to praise Lincoln's party for being small government. Most of the modern association with limited government came from the Old Right who were fighting FDR's plans to nationalize the economy and increase government. The original Republican party had a lot of Whigs in it, Lincoln himself was elected to the House as a Whig. Whigs could trace their ancestry back to the Federalist Party, who were anything but limited government advocates. Alexander Hamilton was one of their chief philosophers. He was opposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Madison, as you know, crafted most of the Constitution and created most of the framework that was to limit Federal power. Almost from day one the Federalist party attempted to consolidate power in the Federal government. That was the great debate in early American history, at least until slavery obscured the issue.
Still you're correct. We're correct I should say. What we desperately need is a return to the limited government envisioned by Jefferson and Madison. That vision was the catalyst for the amazing growth and the massive increase in the standard of living for even the poorest Americans. If the Republican party wants to save itself it will have to adopt such a platform. They cannot win by trying to beat the Democrats at their own game. They need to change the rules of the game.
Voters forget very quickly. That's a blessing and a curse.
Obama will be re-elected four years from now. 8 years from now, I'm confident that a Republican will be elected to the Presidency. Obama's presidency can only help, not hurt the GOP. I guarantee it.
More and more states have voters that care about 'Republican issues', but still, understandably cringe at the word Republican. In '06, the Republican Party in many states got a huge beating due to national leadership. If voters would focus on local, state oriented issues, there would be many more Republican legislators, even in current blue states. When polling on certain issues, you'd automatically assume these independent voters and a handful of democrats would vote Republican, especially when they claim these issues are most important to them. It didn't happen in '06 and '08 because of national leadership.
In '08, people were still pissed off at the national leadership and most refused to elect any Republicans in their state.
Any political science major will tell you that there is always a bounce back. Eventually, voters will start voting Republican in their states because of national leadership. It's called a rising tide, and I guarantee you'll see it rise up all around the country over the next 8 years. A few states will turn red again in '12, but still not enough for the GOP to win the presidency. It won't happen over night, but it's coming. Once unenrolled (independent) voters start to realize that most of them identify with Republican principles (scientific, un-biased polls have shown the majority of voters do), we'll have another GOP President in 8 years.
Look at this list below, it is very rare for one party to be in power for more than a few presidencies in a row. If there was a past history of Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Republican, then I'd be concerned. History repeats itself.
FDR - D
Truman - D
Eisenhower - R
Kennedy - D
Johnson - D
Nixon - R
Ford - R
Carter - D
Reagan - R
Bush - R
Clinton - D
Bush - R
Obama - D
I believe the election will be close in '12, but Obama will win re-election. It'll still be close in '16, but a GOP leader will be elected to the Presidency. Guarantee it!
It's always time for change at the end of every 8 years - and that's not necessarily a bad thing! It was the democrat's time. 8 years from now, things will be very very different.
When it comes to Americans, and American politics- there is no guarantees. Case in point, Roe vs. Wade. There is never any guarantees in the American political arena. Personal or otherwise!!! Ask Bob Dole about that one. Or George Bush Sr., and his tax bit. Never.
True, there aren't many guarantees (just like polling voters and assuming how they'll vote based upon the issues), but I'm basing everything off of history and some other stuff I've observed and am confident about.
I 'retired' from politics November, 5th....k, actually December 15th. Anyways, you typically don't quit when you are ahead. I was ahead in my career, but I saw the writing on the wall. 8 years from now, I'll have my law degree and will be able to pursue my favorite aspect of political campaigns, which is election law.
Things are definitely going to start improving for the GOP. I can guarantee that. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will start happening.
Not countering your creditableness. You have a strong opinion, with plenty of informational backing to coinside.
I just wanted to point out that American politics is crazy! With several different types of History degrees myself, as you the same historically pointed a fact. I thought I would follow that same historical line and warn that there is never a guarantee in American politics. Ask Dewey.
I've always thought a choice between just two party platforms is not really a choice at all.
I am sorry to say I really dont know much about world politics, or even all that much about right where I live. I was raised in a "cult" that believed GOD was ruler and I was forbidden to know anything else. So, I am new at this. I wanted to say, as far as I can tell from voters where I live, people are sheep and will believe anything the internet or evening news tells them to belive. They vote for who ever is popular, then bitch cuz hes not doing all he promised. They put all the authority into governments hands..bailouts etc...then complain when it doesnt go right. I have no idea whats going to happen in the future, I just hope the Free Masons dont take over....
he he ...no!!! but ive been reading the forums the past couple days...they seem to keep popping up.
Yeah, you have to be careful about that. Just because someone believes something is true that doesn't make it so. You should try reading some of the stuff that debunks the idea that Freemasonry rules the world in some sort of shadowy government.
The freemasonry posts on here are straight out of a movie or something. My grandfather was a high-ranking free mason. To envision him being so evil sort of makes me giggle - totally not possible. He was an active member of the Methodist church, too. Free Masons are basically like a fraternity. The members enjoy each others' company and it's a great networking tool. Sure they have some 'secrets'. But so do all organizations. Secrets don't mean that something illegal or immoral is going on. Another organization that drives people crazy is the Skull & Bones. Yes, it's elitist but it's a totally different organization then what is portrayed in the movie, 'The Skulls'. Totally different.
People really need to be careful what they read and perceive to be true on the internet!
Im the same way but lately specially since reading other peoples opinions etc , Im beginning to think I know more that I think I do,now if I could just find a job that makes my b/s look respectable
want your BS to look respctable? run for office...
The local taverna is looking for someone, if you fancy working in Greece - you will be able to enjoy political debates and philosophical debates, with food and drink provided.
Don't be afraid to smash a bottle over Kostas the Goat Herder's head if he gets too frisky. He's used to it
It depends on how the GOP strategists work. If they try to out-Democrat the Democrats, they'll lose. They have to find something to get the other 50%, the ones that don't vote into the polls. If they can do that, they can bury the Democrats. They'll have to give up old allies to do it though. They'll have to reinvent the Party.
The party doesn't need to be 'reinvented' to gain votes. The votes are there, trust me. The strategy needs to be reinvented, re: voter turnout. The Republican brand also needs to be marketed more aggressively, but that doesn't require re-inventing the party.
What do you all say we vote ledefensetech our Republican cadidate for president in 2012.I have confidence that he could do a good job.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but some special interest group would have me shot.
Besides, the world is going to end in 2012, so he wouldn't have any time to accomplish anything.
It's funny, I used to laugh at that date, but as I see that certain economic realities are going to hit us around 2012, I have to wonder if it really isn't a warning. Plus there's going to be something going on with sunspots at the time which could change climate on us if solar output changes, and well it makes you wonder from time to time. Still we'll just have to wait and see. Hope for the best and plan for the worst and all that.
Sure it does. Half of the population don't bother to vote anymore. That's a lot of potential there that's being wasted. What the two parties fight for on election day are the uncommitted swing voters. The Dems have no problems making what ever bribes they need to those people to get into office. The Republicans, on the other hand, have quite a few adherents of the limited government faction, that they have to be mindful of so they can't go as far as the Democrats in their promises.
Look at that so-called campaign McCain ran against Obama. He came off sounding like a weaker Obama. Same thing with Dole vs Clinton. In order to shake things up, the Republican party needs to reinvent itself. If they can find out what even 10% of the stay at home people want them to do, they can change the calculus of election day and it won't matter what the Dems do, they'll have to try their old tired tricks.
In a way you get it, voter turnout. But first you have to understand why those potential voters aren't turning out. I have my suspicions, I certainly can tell you why I don't turn out, but the answer might surprise you. It has nothing to do with marketing, but it has more to do with what promises you make and whether or not you keep them once you're in power.
I personally know people who dont vote, they think their vote doesnt count, or its raining, or they are busy..I dunno. I vote.
It's all about voter turnout. I'm basing this on personal experience that includes reviewing tons and tons of reliable data that I've seen post election cycle. I understand that it's a common misconception that Republicans don't win because of issues or failed promises. Democrats have issues that don't appeal to everyone and they have failed promises, too. Yet, they currently have the majority.
The fact of the matter is that there are tons of voters that expressed STRONG convictions about GOP issues last cycle but they didn't take the time to vote. I don't have numbers off the top of my head, but the results would truly shock you. It certainly made me nauseas.
The democrat/leaning voters that had strong convictions about democrat issues were efficiently pushed out to vote. I like to call it pushing, because that's really what it is. Nothing wrong with pushing, voter turnout is crucial.
Republicans need to develop better voter turn-out/pushing strategies to get the id'ed supporters out. I don't believe this will happen by changing stances on issues, rather adapting microtargeting techniques just like the dems do.
These low-propensity voters are costing the GOP elections. Last campaign was a good lesson on focusing which voters to turn out. I can't say much more than that on this subject, but I think you'll find over the next 8 years that things are going to get incredibly microtargeted and more GOP leaning voters will turn out. It's all about marketing the brand to increase turn-out. Democrats do this so well.
Campaigns are planned backwards. Turn-out on Election Day is crucial. Now, we have AB (absentee ballot) voting popping up all across the country. The strategy needs to be adapted. Election Day is now Election month. Either way, you can have 65% of the vote estimated (not saying this happened last cycle lol!) and only get 45% turn-out. All the supporters in the world mean nothing unless they get out to vote! Again, the dems have perfected this strategy. '00 was a great learning year for them, '08 was a great learning year for Republicans. Part of Obama's success should be accredited to the developed strategy from the results of 2000.
You don't get what I'm trying to say. People don't vote because the party doesn't do what people feel the party should do. There is a major disconnect between that a party says it's going to do when it gets power and what they actually do when they get in power. That's why you don't get the voter turnout. Until politicians stop playing the games they do vis a vis the voters and their campaign contributors, they'll gain power one cycle, only to lose it the next. You yourself said the will is out there to vote Republican, or at least for limited government which is what I think you really mean by vote Republican.
Take what's going on with universal health care. This is a great example of how the party can separate itself from the Dems, but with the "bipartisan" nonsense coming out of Washington about the bill, the Republican lawmakers are showing that they're still trying to out Dem the Dems. They can't win that way.
First lets remember that a Republican candidate starts out approximately 35% behind the Democratic opponent coming out of the gate. Just look at an electoral map, the blue in the most populated states, which translates to more electoral votes, is staggering. All of New England, (6 states), then the east coast, CT, NY, DE, DC, NJ, and PA. Then you hit the rust belt, OH, IN, IL. Then the North central, IA, MN, WI, MI. Then the South West, CO, NM. Then the etire left coast, WA, OR, CA and now we can add Nevada to the list. The only two in the list that can possibly go Republican is FL, and OH. Then you add the Union factor to all of this and what is left is the low populated heartland and the south. This is also why the Dems are so intersted in making the 35 million illegals citizens, how do you think they and the family members they will be allowed to bring here will vote?
This is why when a Republican runs they have to chart a victory by electoral map, it's why it was known that if McCain lost OH he would lose the entire thing, just not enough left out there to carry a victory. We are moving rapidly toward a one party system. I think Newt is the only guy that can pull enough Republicans together, and he has a clear concise vision of what needs to be done, and how to fix it. Newt is an intellect and is probably smarter than the majority of people in DC, including the community organizer. He knows how to maneuevere his way around the Congress, having outwitted Clinton and effetively shutting down the Clinton liberal legislative push with his Contract With America.
The Shark---clinging a tiny piec of Conservative territory
It seems only those at the apex of any organization really knows the true agenda of that organization
If you can enlighten us with more information on the skull and bones I think we would all appreciate any insight you might have to relay
It's an elitist organization of men who attended Yale. They're selective, much like any fraternity or sorority. It helps if you have lots of money and if you have a family member already in the organization or know someone well.
They get together, drink scotch, smoke fine cigars and plan on how to rule the world (j/k.....). It's a networking 'life long fraternity' of elitist men that are focused on success in their careers.
I would say that it's a bit classier then that of a fraternity. No beer pong or playmate posters on the walls.
There was a video online from a woman by the name of kay Griggs who claims that there are homosexual rituals that are used by the skull and bones society to blackmail their members to keep them inline.What do you say to that?
I've heard the same thing about the Free Masons and actually, now that I think of it - that is commonly said about many 'secret societies'. Anyways, I have no problems with what people do behind closed doors as long as it's legal and consensual. Can you honestly imagine famous member's of the Skulls & Bones engaging in those activities? I think it's pretty ludicrous.
The fact of the matter is that some people enjoy theories and fantasizing about what happens behind close doors. It's human nature and it's very understandable to want things to be more exciting and controversial then they actually are.
Despite the recent flaws in the party's leadership and the division the GOP is experiencing, there are still millions of conservatives to be found in the US that are for gun rights, against gay rights and hold a conservative viewpoint on life that will keep afloat the Republican party.
I agree the Republican Party isn't going anywhere. I hope that they go farther to the right. And that democrats go farther to the left. That way both sides represented. Right now all you have is a fight for the middle. This is wny elections are fought over a small number of issues. Generally, in the last two decades, little separated the parties. Before, historically, the parties were far apart. When both spectrums are arguing against eachother, everyone in the middle feels represented. When the spectrums are close together, those on the outside, right and left, feel disenfranchised.
America needs viable parties. I do not believe we should count the Republicans out. What the party may need to do is stop acting as the infallibles, and better still, engage Americans in conversation in which they explain their positions on the issues.
Disenfranchised voters are actually a smaller minority then what you'd think.
If you ask someone which issues are important to them, very rarely will they say "I don't care." Most will say a.) economy, b.) healthcare/national security. (Usually this is dependent upon their affiliation.
They might say, "I don't know", but that's completely different than being disenchanted.
The voters that don't turn out all have their reasons not to. Many voters that don't turn out STILL have a stance on the issues (they tell us they do!) - they just don't get out to the polls or take the time to cast an absentee ballot. These people are behind GOP candidates on the issues, but it's like pulling teeth to get them out. Sure, there are disenchanted voters but there are plenty of ID'd voters who would vote with a little more coaxing. These low propensity voters cost the GOP elections. How do we get them out? More money. More staff. More resources. Also, having a democrat in office for 8 years will help GOP/GOP leaning voters turnout in 2012. That's what happened in '08, except the parties were switched. 8 years of the same thing always greatly motivates the other group of people.
The democrats are able to do get their low prop voters out much more efficiently. They have TONS more money. As well as the support of many unions = instant volunteers. It makes me laugh when I hear people say "the republican party is so rich!". The GOP does not spend nearly as much as the democratic party does. $20,000/plate fundraisers? That's more of a democratic strategy. Works great for them, too.
More money equals more staff (like 3x the amount), more field offices (3x the amount), more advertisements, more events, more everything. The more money you have the easier it is to build your campaign. It's all about building successful campaign strategy and GOTV strategy. The party lacking funds is at a huge disadvantage.
The democrats were able to perfect their strategy from 2000 and it helped them win the last election (among other obvious things, of course). One of the reasons why the GOP will win in 2012 is because of vital learning experiences gained from '08.
Win what, the presidency? majority of either house of congress? I hereby officially bet you 1 gajillion dollars that won't happen.
Yes, I was referring to the presidency. Majorities in recently blue states will start shifting again, too.
Maybe I'll be the world's first gajillionaire.
But seriously, 8 years is a LONG time when it comes to voter's memories and tendencies. A lot can be accomplished in 8 years. The GOP isn't going anywhere. It has no place to go but up.
The main problem with your analysis is that you think that people actually say what they do. I've heard a number of stories about people running focus groups and the results they've gotten that contrast what people say and what they really do. One in particular that I remember was a guy running a focus group to decide which type of direct mail ad to use. He has a standard reasonable letter and another letter that was more hype. Not that the hype letter lied, it just used more colorful language and was "louder" than the more reserved reasonable one.
So he holds this focus group and asks people which one they'd be most likely to respond to. The vast majority said they'd respond to the reasonable letter. So he went with the reasonable letter and, guess what, it flopped. But how's that? Didn't people say that they'd be more likely to respond to the reasonable letter?
So he called another focus group. In this particular group, he mailed two types of letters inviting people to participate. The first letter was a reasonable one, the second more hype. Lo and behold, people responded much more to the hype. In fact when the ad man gave people the two letters and asked them which one they'd be more likely to respond to the chose the reasonable one even though they responded to the hype letter
So what's the point to all of this. It's simple. People say one thing for public consumption while in reality the do something quite different. You say that people say in polls that they are concerned about what the GOP considers core principles among its supporters, yet they can't get people out to vote. You think it's about money and getting the message out, but it's not, not to these potential voters.
You don't seem to understand that half of our voting population fails to vote in an election. This goes back to almost the start of the 20th century. So it's nothing new. Let me say it again. Half of the population doesn't bother to vote on election day. Why do you think that is? Polls won't tell you anything because people say one thing in public and do something else entirely different in private. It's not their opinions you want, it's their action. How do you move them to action? That's what you're missing in you analysis.
You seem to think that all you have to say is make the right promises or say the right words and people will flock to you. Quite the contrary, it works much the other way around. You have to stand for something, hold to it no matter the cost and keep your promises. One thing that the current leadership is going to find is that by embracing realpolitik, it's going to cost them. When people find out the true cost of keeping promises like universal healthcare and other welfare programs, they're going to flip. Unfortunately, by that time, we'll have a non-existent economy and probably be in the midst of a civil war to boot.
You'd do better to rely less on polls and more on grass roots problems and educating people about why the Dems are going to run this nation into the ground, if you really want to change things. Or you can keep playing the same stupid games with the Dems while around you Rome burns.
This shall pass too, with the strengthening of socialism here. We had about 95-98% people voting back in USSR. And yeah, 99.99% of them voted for Democratic - oops, sorry - Communist Party
I understand that people can slip across party lines, and an over 40 pitcher can still win a game once in a while. But it doesn't change the fact of the electoral college. It's why Bush had to have Fl and McCaine had to have OH. It will be no different in 2012. There is no such thing as dienfranchised voters, only voters. If someone is "disenfranchised" they did it to themselves. The 35 Million Illegals will be new rosters for the Dems, we are in trouble.
The Shark---clining to a tiny piece of conservative land.
California desperately needs a split electoral college. What most people don't know (outside of CA, that is) is that CA is about 55% liberal to 45% conservative. Yet because we don't have a split college, we're always seen as a democrat state. Our legislature won't change it though, even though it's been on the table, because our legislature is mostly democrat. In one way, this situation does disenfranchise some of CA's voters.
That's really funny when you think about it. We were never supposed to directly elect the President. The electoral college was to choose electors, not force electors to throw their votes to one party or another. It's kind of like how the Holy Roman Emperor was chosen. Except in that case, certain principalities had electors that were able to cast votes. Our electors were to be apportioned by population to the several states. Then the electors would choose someone to be President.
Sure it's unwieldy and cumbersome, but it was built that way for a reason. Madison envisioned that most times, the choice for President was going to be thrown into the House and thus the people indirectly would choose the President. What he did not foresee was the rise of political parties and their effect on the whole process. One of the goals of the founders was to avoid mob rule. Since the Progressive era, we've lost many of the built in protections that the Founders left us in the Constitution. Now that we're seeing the final days of Progressivism in this country we should understand better why they were put there in the first place.
X, I have to disagree with you on this one. In a Democracy people get what they vote for, hence the mess in your state, my state and the federal mess. But the people of CA voted for these clowns and did nothing about the illegals that are killing your state with expenses and anchor babies. MA is the same way, 100% democratic house and Senate for 50 years! And now we had a "historic" election and voted in the first Black Gov. He's from Chicago has no prior experience in elective office, and has run our state into the red, close to bankruptcy with a state universal health program. Sound familiar?
The Shark---trying to find a conservative corner in the North East
Yes, California is a mess. There is a contingent that wants it to split into two states, north and south, so the 45% doesn't have to always do what the 55% wants. While I am a strong proponent of states rights, I would be ok with the feds mandating more equal college splits for federal elections, especially in a state the size of CA, which carries a huge weight in those elections.
Nah, we should just remove the territory requirement for being a citizen of a state. All you'd have to do is register to be a citizen of whatever state and live wherever you wanted. That would pretty much get states competing for citizens and you'd see most of the confiscatory nonsense go by the wayside.
It was only five or six years ago that a big selling book was a book called, "How W Hoodwinked the Liberals". Now it is the Demos turn. If there is one thing you can be sure when it comes to a party in power; they will find a way to screw it up. The Repos will be back as righteous as ever.
I don't know why they don't get the idea that there are screw ups in every part of society and stop trying to hold themselves up as a beacon of family values.
Well I was wondering how to force governments to act more like businesses hustling for customers. The customers of a government are taxpayers. So if you give taxpayers a choice on which government they'd like to live under, well most of our political problems would disappear overnight. People who want to live in a socialist utopia could apply to become citizens of CA or MA or some other "People's Republic" state and people who wanted to live under a capitalist friendly regime could choose WY or NH or some other business friendly state. Those who want a mix could choose another state. Then we'd see which systems really worked and which did not by the number of people who became citizens of certain states as opposed to others. And we'd be continuing the great experiment in liberty that this country is supposed to be.
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Note: this forum is the direct result of a conservative poster's implication through a single example on facebook of a anti-conservative pedophile posting, that Democrats are linked to pedophiles.So, given the revelations in Pennsylvania of 300 conservative priests molesting children with over...
by mio cid 10 years ago
The way the republican party is positioning itself it may become an endangered specie.with democrats getting over 90 percent of the african american vote and the hispanic vote heading in that direction, as well as almost every other minority how do republicans plan to win an election in the future?
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Is the Tea Party Destroying the Republican Party?Former U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett believes the tea party is destroying the Republican Party. The ex-Utah lawmaker, a victim of tea party politics when he lost his seat in 2010 to Mike Lee, gave his candid assessment to a conference of the Assoc.of Amer...
by Credence2 9 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet. Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting,...
by Mike Russo 5 weeks ago
It's payback time for Trump. He is endorsing primary candidates who are loyal to his "stop the steal" movement and they are winning in his battleground states. He is like the pied piper with his following of "Trumpets." This is serious business. He is putting...
by VC L Veasey 9 years ago
Why Were Romney Supporters So Sure He Was Going To Win?And Now seem so Angry, Paranoid and Hateful That He Lost?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|