Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Future of Republicans

Recommended Posts

The Republican Party is quite an incredible party.

If you put me back between 1865 and 1908 I would have been a strong Republican.

For me the Republicans made some critical choices, for the long term.

1964: The Party of Lincoln has let the Dem President Johnson pass the end of segregation before they can.

With that measure, the blacks were on the Democratic side for 100 years like John said.

The second mistake was during the best years of the party, the 80's.

Ronald Reagan has been a great president, probably one of the last greatest even if I respect the President Bush senior even more than Clinton (and I have to say again that I would be Democrat in the US).

So the Republicans became more conservatives than they ever been especially under Ronald Reagan, he putted back the idea that being a religious was really cool in politic especially inside the GOP at a period where it was less and less in the public opinion, it was less worrying in the 80's than today, that is why Donald Trump tries to put it back.

With that position, the gays have been pushed to vote democrats as strong as the blacks are doing (82% for Clinton from the gays +7 compared to 2012 thanks to Mike Pence in 2016 and 89% from the black community).

And the party of Lincoln finished the job with a third strong decision, probably the biggest worrying, they took the decision of opposing immigrations and pushed them to the Democratic side.

So the Democrats have the growing number with them, the youngs because they are less conservatives than the previous generations, the latinos and asians because the Democrats played the open overture in their bills, and the blacks thanks to Johnson.

And the problem is not so old.

If you take a look at all previous elections since 1992, Republicans only won 1 POPULAR VOTE election, in a time where Bush was quite popular (2004) caused by the war moment and it was not crazy, 2004 showed a 50% Rep, not more.

In 2012 with 8% of unemployment Obama won clearly his re election.

And in 2016 despite of 8 years of opposition, a huge sickeness of the DNC in America (2/3 of the states controlled by Republicans), and both good majorities in the Congress, Trump did not make better than 2004 in term of votes while Hillary did not loose a single vote since 2012 despite the scandalls against her.

The basis of the victory of Trump, the wite voters, are reducing, and the new white voters are not as conservatives as the former, the Democrats are currently leaning the race for the Mid Term with an average of 10% (which could give them 230-250 Rep) and put back Pelosi in power.

However the Democrats are shared between the left and the rulers of the party which are more centrists, they also have to do things to get back the vote of confidence they got in 2008, but the current period is very good for the party.

The GOP is blocked, even if Session putted a very very good solution for Obamacare that could pass through the house and save back harmony between the N.Y. president and his party.

My point is however that the GOP has future with its policies on economy but has to change many other things, I see badly how the Rep could keep the house currently in 2020 with a reduction of its basis (the mature white voters) which could in more be less to support the party after 4 years of mandate if things go as they were untill now (a Red pres pushed to deal with blue Dems).

The rulers of the GOP understood it since the Romney defeat in 2012, Kasich and Rubio could still keep a popular vote against the Dems and modernize the party, but it will be to Trump to do it now as the GOP members elected him, even if it was not for doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

It's nice to know that my generation is a natural Republican constituency

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/the-post-millennial-generation-should-worry-democrats/

 

2 hours ago, Sami said:

The Republican Party is quite an incredible party.

If you put me back between 1865 and 1908 I would have been a strong Republican.

For me the Republicans made some critical choices, for the long term.

1964: The Party of Lincoln has let the Dem President Johnson pass the end of segregation before they can.

With that measure, the blacks were on the Democratic side for 100 years like John said.

The second mistake was during the best years of the party, the 80's.

Ronald Reagan has been a great president, probably one of the last greatest even if I respect the President Bush senior even more than Clinton (and I have to say again that I would be Democrat in the US).

So the Republicans became more conservatives than they ever been especially under Ronald Reagan, he putted back the idea that being a religious was really cool in politic especially inside the GOP at a period where it was less and less in the public opinion, it was less worrying in the 80's than today, that is why Donald Trump tries to put it back.

With that position, the gays have been pushed to vote democrats as strong as the blacks are doing (82% for Clinton from the gays +7 compared to 2012 thanks to Mike Pence in 2016 and 89% from the black community).

And the party of Lincoln finished the job with a third strong decision, probably the biggest worrying, they took the decision of opposing immigrations and pushed them to the Democratic side.

So the Democrats have the growing number with them, the youngs because they are less conservatives than the previous generations, the latinos and asians because the Democrats played the open overture in their bills, and the blacks thanks to Johnson.

And the problem is not so old.

If you take a look at all previous elections since 1992, Republicans only won 1 POPULAR VOTE election, in a time where Bush was quite popular (2004) caused by the war moment and it was not crazy, 2004 showed a 50% Rep, not more.

In 2012 with 8% of unemployment Obama won clearly his re election.

And in 2016 despite of 8 years of opposition, a huge sickeness of the DNC in America (2/3 of the states controlled by Republicans), and both good majorities in the Congress, Trump did not make better than 2004 in term of votes while Hillary did not loose a single vote since 2012 despite the scandalls against her.

The basis of the victory of Trump, the wite voters, are reducing, and the new white voters are not as conservatives as the former, the Democrats are currently leaning the race for the Mid Term with an average of 10% (which could give them 230-250 Rep) and put back Pelosi in power.

However the Democrats are shared between the left and the rulers of the party which are more centrists, they also have to do things to get back the vote of confidence they got in 2008, but the current period is very good for the party.

The GOP is blocked, even if Session putted a very very good solution for Obamacare that could pass through the house and save back harmony between the N.Y. president and his party.

My point is however that the GOP has future with its policies on economy but has to change many other things, I see badly how the Rep could keep the house currently in 2020 with a reduction of its basis (the mature white voters) which could in more be less to support the party after 4 years of mandate if things go as they were untill now (a Red pres pushed to deal with blue Dems).

The rulers of the GOP understood it since the Romney defeat in 2012, Kasich and Rubio could still keep a popular vote against the Dems and modernize the party, but it will be to Trump to do it now as the GOP members elected him, even if it was not for doing that.

The Republican Party's current appeal and message is short-term, highly-flawed, short-sighted, regurgitating old talking points many younger voters don't know personally don't work and are grave mistakes, is a desperate reactionary last gasp of death throe of many old social ideas, not a revitalization of them, and the fact they elected a President in 2016 who is very much ideologically and policy-wise still a member of the Reform Party but ONLY took the Republican label for sheer political expediency because a the deck is highly stacked and, I will dare even say the electoral system is practically rigged, against a candidate who doesn't get a nomination from the Duopoly (I believe that is the quintessential motivation for some one who gets the disparaging term "RINO" in fact, even though practically no one calls TRUMP a RINO - in fact, many of his supporters lay the title liberally on long-standing Republican members who refuse to "pledge fealty" to him, like McCain, Murkowsky, and Kasich, as examples, which I find very strange), so I believe the GOP has only a short-lived burst of popularity and appeal to it's message until the tragic flaws of that message became very apparent to all but a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine Details please. Like what parts of the Republican message do you believe to be "short-term, highly-flawed, short-sighted, regurgitating old talking points many younger voters don't know personally don't work and are grave mistakes, is a desperate reactionary last gasp of death throe of many old social ideas"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@Patine Details please. Like what parts of the Republican message do you believe to be "short-term, highly-flawed, short-sighted, regurgitating old talking points many younger voters don't know personally don't work and are grave mistakes, is a desperate reactionary last gasp of death throe of many old social ideas"

For instance, many in the Republican Party are revisiting economic policies that, long ago, were of the type that led to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (as well as the 2008 crash, for that matter) - that is, the naïve and misguided belief that repealing large amounts of corporate regulation can only lead to good things. Also, much in the way of these economic policies are gutting, not only unionized labour, but many protections in the workplace of employees and the guarantee they can actually make a living by working - that is, the prevention of employer exploitation of employees - forgetting that the phenomena so hated and detested by the Republicans and their fiscal ideologues elsewhere in the world, Socialism and Communism, especially in the militant, revolutionary form, was actually, in fact, a reaction to the horrible conditions, exploitation, meagre pay, and lack of empowerment of the common works at the hands of powerful industrialists and the governments who, at the time, completely and solidly all backed them against worker's demands, in the Industrial Era, conditions it seems many Republican ideologues (like, infamously, Scott Walker, but there are others, certainly) seem to wish to move back towards. Although it's a minority opinion, it seems to be mentioned here and there more often and more seriously, and even couched in different terms here and there, that Trickledown, and abysmal failure of the '80's and a joking point of the '90's, may be being considered as an "alternative" to welfare spending, naively hoping it will stimulate the economy enough to eliminate or massively cut down unemployment, not learning the real lessons of when it was actually tried. Also, all Republican tax schemes and new healthcare plans are equally highly plutocratic in their flaws and shortcomings. As for social issues, they main party line, outside the more libertarian branch, like Rand Paul and such, dress up their beliefs, many of which they want to legislate to apply to all, regardless of whether they hold those social beliefs or not, and the justification comes down to, "We're right, you're wrong, and our beliefs will be enforced and paramount, this Bill of Rights notwithstanding," an attitude, I might add, many, many Republicans viciously accuse Democrats of when they should they look in the mirror as well. And, now, the insistence the capital punishment is ESSENTIAL as a deterrent in the judicial system and abandoning it is unthinkable. However, there are quite a few European countries (not France, Germany, or Italy, mind, but others) who have MUCH lower crime rates, but no capital punishment. Conversely, Mexico and Colombia still have capital punishment, but seven of the world's ten murder capitals are in one of those two countries. And, do not think to use the PRC, that executes more people judicially every year than all other nations that still have capital punishment combined in the same year. In China, if you're sentenced to death for a serious crimes, you're LUCKY - you're end will be swift and merciful! Life sentences of hard labour and the sinister, Orwellian institutions of "rehabilitation," and "re-education," are far more dreaded and much greater deterrents to in China than death. Because my fingers are sore, I won't even start on the disaster that is Republican foreign and military policy, and I will get to the point of the Grand Ol' Party's tendency to sacrifice the future for maximal short-term gain in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Patine said:

For instance, many in the Republican Party are revisiting economic policies that, long ago, were of the type that led to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (as well as the 2008 crash, for that matter) - that is, the naïve and misguided belief that repealing large amounts of corporate regulation can only lead to good things.

The 2008 crash was caused by the Govt. ensuring everyone's losses so no one was careful with how their money was spent.

In 1929 Hebert Hoover tried to engineer a labor-business solution to fix the economy, we all know how well that turned out (more details here:Text of telegrams relating to these negotations)

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Also, much in the way of these economic policies are gutting, not only unionized labour, but many protections in the workplace of employees and the guarantee they can actually make a living by working - that is, the prevention of employer exploitation of employees - forgetting that the phenomena so hated and detested by the Republicans and their fiscal ideologues elsewhere in the world, Socialism and Communism, especially in the militant, revolutionary form, was actually, in fact, a reaction to the horrible conditions, exploitation, meagre pay, and lack of empowerment of the common works at the hands of powerful industrialists and the governments who, at the time, completely and solidly all backed them against worker's demands, in the Industrial Era, conditions it seems many Republican ideologues (like, infamously, Scott Walker, but there are others, certainly) seem to wish to move back towards. 

Scott Walker only wants to roll back "protections" that are not protections but just constitutionally dubious laws like forced union membership, ridiculous requirements to fire teachers etc. (some more details on ridiculous requirements to fire teachers here:NYPost article about ridicolus "protections" for teachers)

1 hour ago, Patine said:

 Although it's a minority opinion, it seems to be mentioned here and there more often and more seriously, and even couched in different terms here and there, that Trickledown, and abysmal failure of the '80's and a joking point of the '90's, may be being considered as an "alternative" to welfare spending, naively hoping it will stimulate the economy enough to eliminate or massively cut down unemployment, not learning the real lessons of when it was actually tried. Also, all Republican tax schemes and new healthcare plans are equally highly plutocratic in their flaws and shortcomings. 

Trickedown economics works and it worked very well in the '80's, in fact income from taxes actually increased during the '80's (NYtimes who paid the most in taxes in the '80's). Unemployment also decreased under Reagan (Pew Research study into unemployment under Reagan

1 hour ago, Patine said:

As for social issues, they main party line, outside the more libertarian branch, like Rand Paul and such, dress up their beliefs, many of which they want to legislate to apply to all, regardless of whether they hold those social beliefs or not, and the justification comes down to, "We're right, you're wrong, and our beliefs will be enforced and paramount, this Bill of Rights notwithstanding," an attitude, I might add, many, many Republicans viciously accuse Democrats of when they should they look in the mirror as well. 

Can you give an example of this please?

1 hour ago, Patine said:

 And, now, the insistence the capital punishment is ESSENTIAL as a deterrent in the judicial system and abandoning it is unthinkable. However, there are quite a few European countries (not France, Germany, or Italy, mind, but others) who have MUCH lower crime rates, but no capital punishment. Conversely, Mexico and Colombia still have capital punishment, but seven of the world's ten murder capitals are in one of those two countries. 

... And he conviently ignores countries that have capital punishment applied for various crimes and who's crime rate for those crimes is lower than the U.S like Japan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for social issues, they main party line, outside the more libertarian branch, like Rand Paul and such, dress up their beliefs, many of which they want to legislate to apply to all, regardless of whether they hold those social beliefs or not, and the justification comes down to, "We're right, you're wrong, and our beliefs will be enforced and paramount, this Bill of Rights notwithstanding," an attitude, I might add, many, many Republicans viciously accuse Democrats of when they should they look in the mirror as well. 

Can you give an example of this please?"

Presumably he's talking about abortion, gay marriage etc. Not saying I agree with him or that this thread is going anywhere other than the usual political shtick of "our party was right about everything at all points in history and when anything went wrong it was always the other party's fault (you'd think if one party was clearly better than the other then everyone would be a member of it eh?)" but since the question was asked twice already and I presumably know the answer I thought I'd get it over with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SiorafasNaCillini said:

"As for social issues, they main party line, outside the more libertarian branch, like Rand Paul and such, dress up their beliefs, many of which they want to legislate to apply to all, regardless of whether they hold those social beliefs or not, and the justification comes down to, "We're right, you're wrong, and our beliefs will be enforced and paramount, this Bill of Rights notwithstanding," an attitude, I might add, many, many Republicans viciously accuse Democrats of when they should they look in the mirror as well. 

Can you give an example of this please?"

Presumably he's talking about abortion, gay marriage etc. Not saying I agree with him or that this thread is going anywhere other than the usual political shtick of "our party was right about everything at all points in history and when anything went wrong it was always the other party's fault (you'd think if one party was clearly better than the other then everyone would be a member of it eh?)" but since the question was asked twice already and I presumably know the answer I thought I'd get it over with. 

First of all, I don't have a party allegiance, and I'd appreciate not being declared to have one by assumption or default by others. Second, I believe most social engineering and pressures by political groups and organizations to force culture are wrong-headed. My point is, many Republicans have taken a faux "high ground" by saying all such behaviour is a "liberal" trait and openly being in complete denial of doing exactly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

First of all, I don't have a party allegiance, and I'd appreciate not being declared to have one by assumption or default by others. Second, I believe most social engineering and pressures by political groups and organizations to force culture are wrong-headed. My point is, many Republicans have taken a faux "high ground" by saying all such behaviour is a "liberal" trait and openly being in complete denial of doing exactly the same thing.

When have they done the same thing?

Also, many of your posts indicate you have an extreme allegiance to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party.(This assumption may be incorrect but it does sound that way)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

When have they done the same thing?

Also, many of your posts indicate you have an extreme allegiance to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party.(This assumption may be incorrect but it does sound that way)

An EXTREME allegiance? Do you even know what the word 'allegiance' means? Or being an actual 'member' of a party? They're a bit more strongly-worded terms than 'usually, but not always, supports more ideas comparatively to what's available otherwise, but not all ideas, in the current zeitgeist of politics, but tempered on a candidate-by-candidate and election-by-election basis nonetheless, with the least-of-all-evils scenario occurring more often than should be (or than the voters deserve) being the case,' which is actually where I DO stand on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

@Patine Yes I did exagerrate a little.

For example, if I had been able to vote in the 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election, I think I would have voted for Rocky Delafuante. That's how horrid and monstrous (or at least highly unappealing) everyone else running was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

The 2008 crash was caused by the Govt. ensuring everyone's losses so no one was careful with how their money was spent.

In 1929 Hebert Hoover tried to engineer a labor-business solution to fix the economy, we all know how well that turned out (more details here:Text of telegrams relating to these negotations)

Scott Walker only wants to roll back "protections" that are not protections but just constitutionally dubious laws like forced union membership, ridiculous requirements to fire teachers etc. (some more details on ridiculous requirements to fire teachers here:NYPost article about ridicolus "protections" for teachers)

Trickedown economics works and it worked very well in the '80's, in fact income from taxes actually increased during the '80's (NYtimes who paid the most in taxes in the '80's). Unemployment also decreased under Reagan (Pew Research study into unemployment under Reagan

The Government ensuring everyone's losses? That's truly evil, George Bush has somehow gone down even further in my estimation.

It worked so well that Reagan had to raise taxes multiple times and the economy went into recession in '90. Trickle-down worked marvelously then and works even better now, just look at Kansas under the Brownback administration! They don't have to have stupid teacher protections there either, because the state can't afford to pay teachers! Truly a shining example of good old American capitalism at work.

 

Seriously though, I have an intense hatred for the Laffer Curve, quite possibly the stupidest contribution to economics in the history of the United States, which is saying a lot. It's like Art Laffer drew a curve in MS Paint and said "do this with taxes lol."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

It's nice to know that my generation is a natural Republican constituency

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/the-post-millennial-generation-should-worry-democrats/

With all due respect, it is far too early to assume this new generation will vote Republican. Many factors will come into play that might change this data set:

1) is President Trump a good president. If he isn't, you can expect a good subset of the generation avoid the Republican party. We can think of millennials leaning Democratic due to W. Now if Trump-somehow- became popular by the time he leaves the White House, I'm sure we will an entire generation treat him with the reverence that Reagan once had. But I don't see the latter happening, yet.

2) Party ideology. When I was born in 1992, the GoP nominee- HW Bush- was pushing hard for NAFTA; while Clinton was for it, under certain limitations. Note I'm simplifying this debate. But today, the GoP nominated a protectionist, and he has high approvals within his own party. This ideological shift can explain why the Midwest flipped for him (for many, first time since 1988). But it also explains why middle to upper middle class suburbs began shifting blue. Orange county voted for a Democrat for the first time since FDR.  Fort Bend county in Houston Texas voted Democratic. So who is to say that in the next 25 years that two parties will keep the same ideology. I doubt they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×