Jump to content
270soft Forum

GOP Rebuilding Strategy if Democrat Wave Occurs


Recommended Posts

Let's say the the GE map is the map below (best case scenario for Dems); Dems take the US Senate and the increase their lead in the US House. Trump and Trumpism has been decisively defeated at the polls. How does the GOP rebuild, recalibrate, rebrand itself? Who emerges as the new leader? Do they veer right? Do they veer to the center? Do they adopt Democratic positions on some things? How do you see their best pathway towards a wave election in 2022 and a victory in 2024 or 2028, assuming Biden doesn't flop as a president? 

 

Ro9b4.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Let's say the the GE map is the map below (best case scenario for Dems); Dems take the US Senate and the increase their lead in the US House. Trump and Trumpism has been decisively defeated at the polls. How does the GOP rebuild, recalibrate, rebrand itself? Who emerges as the new leader? Do they veer right? Do they veer to the center? Do they adopt Democratic positions on some things? How do you see their best pathway towards a wave election in 2022 and a victory in 2024 or 2028, assuming Biden doesn't flop as a president? 

 

Ro9b4.png

Something that unbelievably extreme would naturally wipe out a lot of the Trump  enablers as well, so while this would be painful in the short term for the Republican Party, it would actually expedite their ability to clean house and return to the basics:

1) Strength abroad - following a Mathis/John Kelly path

2) Pro-Business policies

3) Being “the adult in the room” voice of reason respectfully countering extreme left proposals

While also modernizing to appeal to new voters:

1) Accepting gay marriage as law of the land, to attract young voters

2) Backing laws establishing more “family friendly” labor practices, to attract female and suburban voters

3) Denouncing Trump definitively, at least on the basis that he was stunningly incompetent.  Show that you can recognize weakness even within your own party and turn against it, to build public integrity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Let's say the the GE map is the map below (best case scenario for Dems); Dems take the US Senate and the increase their lead in the US House. Trump and Trumpism has been decisively defeated at the polls. How does the GOP rebuild, recalibrate, rebrand itself? Who emerges as the new leader? Do they veer right? Do they veer to the center? Do they adopt Democratic positions on some things? How do you see their best pathway towards a wave election in 2022 and a victory in 2024 or 2028, assuming Biden doesn't flop as a president? 

 

Ro9b4.png

 

5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Something that unbelievably extreme would naturally wipe out a lot of the Trump  enablers as well, so while this would be painful in the short term for the Republican Party, it would actually expedite their ability to clean house and return to the basics:

1) Strength abroad - following a Mathis/John Kelly path

2) Pro-Business policies

3) Being “the adult in the room” voice of reason respectfully countering extreme left proposals

While also modernizing to appeal to new voters:

1) Accepting gay marriage as law of the land, to attract young voters

2) Backing laws establishing more “family friendly” labor practices, to attract female and suburban voters

3) Denouncing Trump definitively, at least on the basis that he was stunningly incompetent.  Show that you can recognize weakness even within your own party and turn against it, to build public integrity.

In a politically healthy system where the State and main Parties were not dangerously and corrupt intertwined with each other in a similar vein to how Cold War East Bloc Communist Parties were with their governments, or 1920's to 1940's Fascist Parties were with their governments, or Dominant Parties in Emerging Democracies or Parties-of-Power in many Post-Soviet are with their governments - one that allows the marginalization of other parties and candidates not endorsed by them by institutional power, and threatens Constitutional and legal integrity - the Republican Party should be allowed to meet a natural and normal political demise, as is very common in nations all over the world, and the political partisan scheme and balance shift on an actual party level. But that is considered "unthinkable," in American politics, and thus will not be "allowed," to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this a great deal. Allow me to expand on to @Actinguy's platform. 

1) Strength Abroad absolutely, but like Reagan not like Trump. Diplomacy and working with the Western World is a must. Mattis also isn't a great example either, we need to speak more softly.

2) Pro-Business Policies are natural to the GOP and I don't see them going away any time soon. This means returning to Free Trade Economics

3) We need to radically change our position on immigration. Stop villifying illegal immigrants and go back to Bush's Compassionate Conservative rhetoric on immigration. 

4) Likewise, we need to start running toward criminal justice reform and voting rights, we need to stop hemorraghing among non-white voters.

5) Gay Marriage isn't really a huge political issue anymore, it's a moot point and we need to get with the times.

6) Denounce Trump as racist and incompetent

It is the middle of the night so I'm sure I'm missing things but I shall expand as I see necessary. But we need the biggest 180s on issues that effect people of color.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I've been thinking about this a great deal. Allow me to expand on to @Actinguy's platform. 

1) Strength Abroad absolutely, but like Reagan not like Trump. Diplomacy and working with the Western World is a must. Mattis also isn't a great example either, we need to speak more softly.

2) Pro-Business Policies are natural to the GOP and I don't see them going away any time soon. This means returning to Free Trade Economics

3) We need to radically change our position on immigration. Stop villifying illegal immigrants and go back to Bush's Compassionate Conservative rhetoric on immigration. 

4) Likewise, we need to start running toward criminal justice reform and voting rights, we need to stop hemorraghing among non-white voters.

5) Gay Marriage isn't really a huge political issue anymore, it's a moot point and we need to get with the times.

6) Denounce Trump as racist and incompetent

It is the middle of the night so I'm sure I'm missing things but I shall expand as I see necessary. But we need the biggest 180s on issues that effect people of color.

My criticism is not that these are terrible ideas, but that I dont know how the GoP can shift to those policies easily.

Strength abroad can work, under the right President. Take Romney, or even Haley, their hypothetical administrations would try to strengthen our traditional partnerships abroad (EU/UK, NAFTA, AUSNZ). I'm more skeptical if a Tom Cotton administration was designing the foreign policy, as he seems to be more nationalistic in the vein of Trump. 

This one might be the hardest sell to voters (maybe immigration is harder). Being pro-free trade will win back both suburban voters that are fleeing the party, and keep the sun belt in the GoP. However, with the rust belt becoming more Republican friendly(and also less friendly to free-trade), it is hard to see how the GoP can square this circle. However, I can see the party adopt a message that is, "Sensible trade", or "Fair trade, not free trade", that can ease the concerns of rust belt voters without alienating the suburbanites.

Immigration might be the most difficult issue for the GoP to shift on. The party tried back in 2016, and I am more skeptical that the "Second time" will be the charm. Even prominent conservative news commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, have expressed views that are not friendly to any immigration reform. 

Again I agree with this point. W knew that latinos can be natural conservative voters;and in the 2012 "autopsy report", there was a quote that summarized your thought: "You can't call a girl ugly, and expect to take her to the dance."

Again I agree. 

I am very skeptical on this since Trump has 90% approval among Republicans.  Mitt Romney is persona non grata after his impeachment vote, and Mark Sanford lost his primary in 2018 after being viewed as "too critical" of Trump.

To add onto this list, would be accept climate change is real. I believe that voters under 35 vote 2:1 Democratic, and view climate change as a serious threat. If the GoP were to adopt solutions that were akin to the CDU in Germany, I am certain they can peel off some voters that might be skeptical of the overly ambitious plans in the Green New Deal. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if somehow Larry Hogan could emerge being the opposite of Trump within the Republican party, would be the best case scenario. 

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

The problem with accepting gay marriage is that the GOP needs social conservatives.  Without them, the Democrats would win every election.

I think once gay marriage becomes more socially acceptable the GoP will have to change their stance. After all, the socially conservative stance at one point in American history was segregation; and aside from a few nut jobs, most conservatives today are against that.  Give it time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine @Actinguy @Reagan04 @Sunnymentoaddict @TheMiddlePolitical

I keep thinking that the only way the GOP can be the majority party on a fairly consistent basis is if they embrace their Charlie Bakers and Larry Hogans. However, I say this as a progressives Democrats that finds them as acceptable GOP politicians (i.e. I wouldn't vote for them, but I also wouldn't be angry if they won). I should also mention that by majority party, I mean a party that would consistently win a popular vote. The Democrats are the preferred major party by more Americans, even when they lose elections. Their strategy is to appeal to the electoral college system rather than to the people at large. Democrats fail because they're appealing to the people and not to the system. They aren't playing the game. 

However, you have two very vocal bases in the GOP that might permanently hinder appeal. Combined, they are larger than the AOC-Sanders-Warren base, which is the Democratic base that can hinder universal appeal (I say this even while I align with this base). The two GOP bases are the Trumpian-Bannon Populists and the Cruz-Lee-Paul wing. Both are really just two wings of the Tea Party. I find that these two groups at odds with the less vocal part of the Republican Party, although there are some cross-over figures like Rubio and Haley. 

The GOP needs these two wings just for the numbers. If they veer to Baker and Hogan, the risk a Conservative 3rd party emerging, which would make the Democratic Party the sole majority party until a new coaltion is made. 

If Trump loses by a landslide, but Trump's cult following is still like 30% of the GOP, the GOP still has to cater to them and can't rebuke Trumpism. They're the most vocal group too, which means finding a leader that isn't Trumpist will be hard. I doubt the GOP will commit suicide by cutting off these supporters as they take a decade to form a new coalition. 

I think the GOP would do well to do the following:

  • Continue with being the stricter immigration party, but really emphasis compassion, respect, and eagerness to help those immigrants that follow the system. Refrain from villifying those that don't follow the system, but be prompt and strict with humane punishment. The rhetoric hear often emboldens Democrats. By avoiding disrespectful rhetoric, you'd take some of the energy away from the other side. 
  • I think the GOP should actually try to be the less interventionist party, militarily speaking, if they can. This will appease the slowly growing Libertarian movement, might pull in some Democratic populists, and keep some Trump supporters as well. Neocons are disappearing. GOP can always switch this policy if interventionist winds change. 
  • GOP should continue being the pro-business over labor party. However, I think being supportive of minimum wage or possibly replacing it with a guaranteed minimum income would help them steal a lot of Democratic supporters. The can still be the pro-Capitalism party and accept policies that counter the weaknesses of the capitalist system. 
  • The GOP should accept LGBT marriage and American diversity at large. Be more vocal on US mutli-culturalism being an American strength and argue that GOP policies have been more economically beneficial of Americans from all backgrounds. Focus on everyone and not "traditional Americans."

I got like 30 things I want to say, but I don't have the time. Basically, I think the GOP needs to lessen the divide between Democrats on social policy. They should take the libertarian approach on foreign policy (Trump hasn't quite done this, but it's the only area where I think he's facing the right direction). They should maintain their pro-business, pro-strict immigration, and pro-fiscal conservatis, (with some concessions). They should also back away and disown White Nationalism by accepting the permanent multiculturalism of 21st century America, and decrease their reliance somewhat on evangelical support. 

Democrats, should Biden flop, will also have to do some great rebuilding and would be smart to evolve while Biden is in office. However, I think their adjustments would probably be less extreme since they are the party preferred by most Americans, if one considers the popular vote. Their main strategy should be to change their rhetoric and give more attention to potential Democrats that aren't satisfied with the National Democratic focuses. 

I could be wrong on all of this. I think the GOP has a lot to think about and a lot of things could backfire. Some people are going to be left out in a rebuilding process. I suggest these changes because I think these changes are the ones that would make me most apprehensive of Democratic chances of maintaining primacy in the popular vote. If they veer to Cruz's wing without concessions or evolution, then I think the battle lines will basically be about the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billay said:

I wish it would become more libertarian 

To me Libertarianism is such a double-edged sword. I fear for the quality of life for so many American citizens if they do strip the country down to local rule. To me, the Federal Government is often--as imperfect as it is--preferable to state government, which is often better than local government, depending on where you live. 

If every state were New England, West Coast, or Mid-Atlantic, then I'd probably favor LIbertarianism. 

For me its, 

New England governments > Mid-Atlantic governments > West Coast governments > Federal Government > most of the other state governments in the regions > Deep South governments. 

I see the Federal Government as a pace car. I wouldn't want to see wide-spread Libertarian federal policy until all the regions seem preferable than the Federal Government to me. If I feel like a people in a state need to be saved from their own state government by the federal government, then there's an issue. However, we are getting better. No more slavery and no more Jim Crow, but we still have states that lean toward that direction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 8:03 PM, vcczar said:

Let's say the the GE map is the map below (best case scenario for Dems); Dems take the US Senate and the increase their lead in the US House. Trump and Trumpism has been decisively defeated at the polls. How does the GOP rebuild, recalibrate, rebrand itself? Who emerges as the new leader? Do they veer right? Do they veer to the center? Do they adopt Democratic positions on some things? How do you see their best pathway towards a wave election in 2022 and a victory in 2024 or 2028, assuming Biden doesn't flop as a president? 

 

Ro9b4.png

I would agree that this is the best case for Dems minus Missouri.

 

If Trump loses, there is a risk that he'd run again or put up someone like Don Jr. (though that could happen regardless). But, I'd imagine the Establishment would move quickly to regain party leadership (though I'd contend they have more power right now than people realize). With the vacuum that does occur, I'd imagine the libertarian wing would make a move to challenge the party Establishment. The grounds have been set for such a coup chance over the past couple years. If that happens, the traditional conservative wing (Ted Cruz) might hold the key to the future. Whoever they align with would probably win a party civil war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I would agree that this is the best case for Dems minus Missouri.

 

If Trump loses, there is a risk that he'd run again or put up someone like Don Jr. (though that could happen regardless). But, I'd imagine the Establishment would move quickly to regain party leadership (though I'd contend they have more power right now than people realize). With the vacuum that does occur, I'd imagine the libertarian wing would make a move to challenge the party Establishment. The grounds have been set for such a coup chance over the past couple years. If that happens, the traditional conservative wing (Ted Cruz) might hold the key to the future. Whoever they align with would probably win a party civil war.

I include Missouri because Biden was +2 in the latest Missouri poll. Two months ago there was an article arguing how Biden could put Missouri in play. I thought it odd then, but this poll--even if an outlier--shows potential for Biden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I include Missouri because Biden was +2 in the latest Missouri poll. Two months ago there was an article arguing how Biden could put Missouri in play. I thought it odd then, but this poll--even if an outlier--shows potential for Biden.

I hadn't seen that until now. It is an interesting result; though, it should be noted as an internal poll from Galloway (who is running for governor). I would take it with a grain of salt, especially since they did not disclose their methodology in getting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

I would agree that this is the best case for Dems minus Missouri.

 

If Trump loses, there is a risk that he'd run again or put up someone like Don Jr. (though that could happen regardless). But, I'd imagine the Establishment would move quickly to regain party leadership (though I'd contend they have more power right now than people realize). With the vacuum that does occur, I'd imagine the libertarian wing would make a move to challenge the party Establishment. The grounds have been set for such a coup chance over the past couple years. If that happens, the traditional conservative wing (Ted Cruz) might hold the key to the future. Whoever they align with would probably win a party civil war.

I think that map is utterly ridiculous. But RE branding? the GOP hasn't rebranded itself in 40 years and I don't think it's capable of doing so now. The first thing I would recommend if advising them would be to grow a spine and a set of testicles. But that might be asking too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

I would agree that this is the best case for Dems minus Missouri.

 

If Trump loses, there is a risk that he'd run again or put up someone like Don Jr. (though that could happen regardless). But, I'd imagine the Establishment would move quickly to regain party leadership (though I'd contend they have more power right now than people realize). With the vacuum that does occur, I'd imagine the libertarian wing would make a move to challenge the party Establishment. The grounds have been set for such a coup chance over the past couple years. If that happens, the traditional conservative wing (Ted Cruz) might hold the key to the future. Whoever they align with would probably win a party civil war.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 7:39 AM, pilight said:

The problem with accepting gay marriage is that the GOP needs social conservatives.  Without them, the Democrats would win every election.

Sad but true. What really frustrates me about the GOP is that since the Democrats have gone so off the reservation to the point where the two parties can't even agree that America is a good country anymore, there is, if we define 0 as hard left and 100 hard right, an enormous vacuum in the 20-60 range where most voters are, that the GOP could, but refuses to fill because of their stubborn holding to social conservatism and moral policing. If they started putting their social policies in the 21st century and reached out to the center left, I don't think you need the social conservatives any more, you'd dominate the elections and the social conservatives... well what are they going to do form their own party? You'd think the Libertarians would fill that gap but even with the 2016 situation, they couldn't get more than 3% and are too incompetent, disorganized and leaderless to make any difference any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I think that map is utterly ridiculous. But RE branding? the GOP hasn't rebranded itself in 40 years and I don't think it's capable of doing so now. The first thing I would recommend if advising them would be to grow a spine and a set of testicles. But that might be asking too much.

You know what they say about Republicans: "They are just Democrats from 10 years ago."

Though I agree with your point about rebranding. As long as the Establishment maintains power, not a whole lot is going to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You know what they say about Republicans: "They are just Democrats from 10 years ago."

Scary but unfortunately true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

You know what they say about Republicans: "They are just Democrats from 10 years ago."

Though I agree with your point about rebranding. As long as the Establishment maintains power, not a whole lot is going to change.

 

45 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Scary but unfortunately true.

Misleading. I'd say this applies only to GOP members who are left of Rubio. There's almost nothing Democrat 10 years ago in McConnell for instance. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

Misleading. I'd say this applies only to GOP members who are left of Rubio. There's almost nothing Democrat 10 years ago in McConnell for instance. 

 

Hmmm... Maybe it's not a matter of right and left. I don't hold McConnell in high esteem because though I give him credit for the SCOTUS nominations, he's been absolutely terrible in bringing forth a conservative agenda, he's too establishment and too tied to special interests. And even with SCOTUS, let's face it Bret Kavanaugh was a Bush guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 12:50 AM, Reagan04 said:

6) Denounce Trump as racist and incompetent

Honestly, that's a matter of opinion not a platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 6:05 PM, vcczar said:

To me Libertarianism is such a double-edged sword. I fear for the quality of life for so many American citizens if they do strip the country down to local rule. To me, the Federal Government is often--as imperfect as it is--preferable to state government, which is often better than local government, depending on where you live. 

If every state were New England, West Coast, or Mid-Atlantic, then I'd probably favor LIbertarianism. 

For me its, 

New England governments > Mid-Atlantic governments > West Coast governments > Federal Government > most of the other state governments in the regions > Deep South governments. 

I see the Federal Government as a pace car. I wouldn't want to see wide-spread Libertarian federal policy until all the regions seem preferable than the Federal Government to me. If I feel like a people in a state need to be saved from their own state government by the federal government, then there's an issue. However, we are getting better. No more slavery and no more Jim Crow, but we still have states that lean toward that direction. 

Libertarianism doesn't have to mean no Federal government. We tried that once under the Articles of Confederation and it was a disaster. I look at it like this: A Federal government is necessary for things that state governments cannot do. The state government is necessary for things that local governments cannot do. Local governments are there for things that individuals cannot do. Everything else should be in private hands. Libertarians tend to agree that less government overall is necessary, but an all-powerful state government and a weak central government like we had before the Constitution would not be preferred by most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vcczar said:

 

Misleading. I'd say this applies only to GOP members who are left of Rubio. There's almost nothing Democrat 10 years ago in McConnell for instance. 

 

Maybe on the surface of things it doesn't appear that way, but it becomes more apparent when you peal away the layers. And it may not be literally 10 years, but the point it Republican leadership tends to follow a little ways behind the Democrats on issues.

Take Obamacare for instance. Republicans railed against it when it was passed and constantly voted to repeal when Obama was President. But when they actually had the opportunity to do a repeal, it faltered because the party bosses didn't have the political will to go through with a repeal (because they really didn't want it). They also had a previous opportunity to avoid funding many of Obamacare's provisions and ended up caving on the issue. It, again, was the party bosses who signaled the ok to go ahead with funding it.

Take the budget as another example. Republican leadership has been funding Democratic priorities for years. As long as they get what they want in the budget (usually more defense and corporate welfare spending), they will gladly give the Democrats what they want as well. Planned Parenthood funding is an excellent example. Republican leaders claim to be pro-life but vote for PP funding in every budget they pass. This also goes to show that the narrative of gridlock and no bipartisanship is not an accurate one and that the Establishment in both parties aren't really that far apart on issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Take Obamacare for instance. Republicans railed against it when it was passed and constantly voted to repeal when Obama was President. But when they actually had the opportunity to do a repeal, it faltered because the party bosses didn't have the political will to go through with a repeal (because they really didn't want it). They also had a previous opportunity to avoid funding many of Obamacare's provisions and ended up caving on the issue. It, again, was the party bosses who signaled the ok to go ahead with funding it.

That's just the rhetoric of partisan politics. Politicians will opposed something rhetorically while it's a hot issue with undetermined support. Once passed, the GOP or the Dems aren't going to repeal something that has more support than not. They'll repeal it if it ever gets noticeably unpopular. However, even there, the people expect a replacement. Like with Legal Gay Marriage and other progressive victories, it becomes impossible to go back to the past. The history of the US mostly moves left, leaving traditionalists in the wake. McConnell lags behind the push to the future, but he has to make some concessions or he renders the GOP coaltion completely obsolete. If Cruz or Rand Paul became Sen Maj leader, you'd probably be bitterly disappointed to find that they'd learn they'd have to do the same thing--and they'd become McConnells, and if the country moves much more left-ward and that left-ward is popular, then left of McConnell if they want to keep leadership.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...