The future of the Republican Party

[rookie]

Well gay rights and drug legalization is heating up, as well as a stronger push towards Universal healthcare. By your theory, they are due to die from their vote pandering.

Change, yes. Die, no. Not until something is ready to take it's place.

[wrongfrog]

Well gay rights and drug legalization is heating up, as well as a stronger push towards Universal healthcare. By your theory, they are due to die from their vote pandering.

Change, yes. Die, no. Not until something is ready to take it's place.

Please.
(I just want to see Owl vs. Donkey political cartoons ok)

[Veras]

Oh, they'll double down, which rookie suggests as an option.  They are, to re-phrase Lt. Fred, spectacularly dumb. 

The more I look at them, the more I think we'll see that doubling down during the midterms. I have a sneaky feeling that the congressional candidates fielded during the midterm is going to deplete our strategic supplies of both popcorn and memes.

The problem is that the Republicans stand to do well in the midterms for three reasons.

1.  The President's party virtually always loses seats in the midterm (there have been, I believe, three exceptions since the Civil War).

2.  The Democrats are more vulnerable in the Senate.  The class of Senators that are up for election in 2014 are those that were elected during the 2008 election cycle, in which the Democrats did very well.  This means that there are more Democratic seats (20) than Republican seats (13).  What's more, while incumbency is a huge advantage, it is weaker in the Senate than the House, and its protective effects are not at full strength until a member of Congress has won reelection once.  This means both that the large number of Republicans who came into the House in 2010 will be far harder to unseat, as most won reelection this year; and that there will be more vulnerable Democratic Senators than Republicans.  Of the Senate 33 seats that will be open, 10 belong to Democrats who have not yet completed a full term (as opposed to only two for Republicans).  Of those ten, two are in solidly conservative states (Alaska and West Virginia) and four more are in states that were considered to be swing states in 2012 (Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia).  There are five other Democratic Senators from red or swing states whose terms will expire following the 2014 elections (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, and South Dakota).  The only Republican up for election in a state that is not solidly Republican is Susan Collins of Maine, who is quite popular.

3.  Voter turnout is lower in midterm elections.  Lower turnout almost always benefits the Republicans anyway, but this is especially true now.  Low turnout means that a relatively small but highly motivated minority like the Tea Party can have disproportionate influence.

This isn't to say that the Republican Party isn't in trouble.  Failing to expand their base beyond white men will put them into a position where they cannot win Presidential elections as Arizona, Nevada, and eventually even Texas will move safely into the Democratic column due to their growing Hispanic populations.  However, I think that it is a bit too soon to start putting nails in their coffin right now.  Don't forget, after their defeat in 2008, which was far more complete than the one they suffered last Tuesday, people began having this conversation, only for the rise of the Tea Party to lead to an enormous victory for them in 2010.

[Material Defender]

33% mid term election turnout is unforgivable.

[rookie]

Veras, that was good, but you forgot one little thing. For a legislative seat, you don't have to convince a majority of Americans of your views. Just enough in your state. Which means running crazy right in Arizona and other such states. Reaching the wing nuts of your party in your state or even congressional district gives you a lot less scrutiny (outside of major gaffes).

[Meshakhad]

Several conservative commentators have suggested that the best way for the Republicans to expand their base is to go after the Latinos. Their thinking is that if they adopt a more moderate stance on immigration, they'll eliminate the one thing that keeps Latinos voting Democrat, then win over the Latinos with the usual family values stuff.

Of course, the Tea Party will fight tooth and nail. I think we may end up with a period of Democratic dominance during the interim, followed by a Republican comeback as conservative Latinos turn Republican. If the Tea Party is still in charge come 2016, then I predict the Democrats will hold the White House - which would, incidentally, be the first time one Democrat handed the White House to another since James fucking Buchanan (this doesn't count Presidents who died in office).

[ironbite]

Veras while that is true you're forgetting the Republican party is fighting a war on two fronts.  First front is their traditional one with the Dems and the other is the Tea Party that is vowing to go after the Republican party itself.I have a feeling that the voters aren't going to want such crazy in Congress after the last two years.

Ironbite-all the Dems have to do is run a platform of "LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID" and the mid-term election shouldn't be that bloody.

[rookie]

We can all agree that the GOP, as they stood Tuesday night, is just about done. The midterms may see some twitching from it, but that'll be the last time the Republican Party as we see it now will be taken seriously by enough people to stand. If they wish to continue to attract either social or fiscal conservatives there's a few things that I can see they'll need to do.

As Meshakhad pointed out, you gotta do something to, well, if not attract Hispanics, you certainly want to stop scaring them. Pretty simple to say, right? Just stop treating everyone brown as if they just crossed the border last week with 15 kilos strapped to their backs. You want to go after illegal immigrants with a hard on? Knock yourselves out. Just get better at differentiating between legal and illegal immigrants.

Second, you gotta have a system for dealing with those Todd Akin type verbal oopsies. Sometimes circling the wagons isn't the best answer. For something like that, cut him loose. Very publicly withdraw his funding and run the everloving hell out of someone else. Have your high profile people come out and say that shit isn't OK and it's not going to be put up with. Yeah, it sucks for you to do that. But how many Senate seats did you loose because of that?  How much did Sarah Palin's inability to answer a question without a script hurt?

Third, you gotta distance yourself from the extremes in media. Sometimes you have to remind people Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Levin, Beck, and other Fox talking heads doesn't speak for the Republican Party. News flash, Fox (and republicans, you pay attention too). The majority of people know you're lying. A majority of people see through the fear mongering. Now, what with the First Amendment and all, I understand you really can't shut them up, as much as everyone reading this would enjoy the quiet. But you can do enough other things, like strongly suggest candidates stop going on the shows or coming out against them. A statement that says hate is not a conservative value (I know, I know) might go far enough for it to be worth a second look.

Fourth, it appears the GOP is under complete control of their special interests, namely big business, big Pentagon contractors, and the religious right. I'm going to talk about them backwards. The country is becoming more secular by the hour. You had two states legalize marijuana (at least one of them for recreational use) and a couple for same sex marriage. And by popular vote. While that's sinking in, let me put this forward. Women don't want the government to pay for abortions or birth control. They do, however, want birth control and abortions to be there when they need them. The Pentagon has always been a monkey on your back. I'm really not sure how to get around that problem, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed. And big business, well, I understand you gotta dance with the guys who brung ya. But you're going too far. It's OK to be pro big business. It's not OK for us to see their mouths moving as you talk. Pretend like you believe it's the right thing as opposed to appeasing the money. I remember the DNC dealing with that same issue in the late 70s-mid 80's. It's how you got two terms of Reagen and Bush Sr. for an impressive 12 year run. Guess what you're seeing right now. Give up? The shoe on the other foot.

Last, get your extreme element under control. I would have thought that'd be a gimme, but it looks like it's not. You can't say your party's primary goal is to make Obama a one term president. Yeah, Obama should have done a better job with Pelosi, but that's not an excuse. If the Tea Party is going to be a part of the republicans, then somebody needs to get them in a room and explain how to act on camera and with press releases. If they aren't, cut them the hell off. Seriously, if you want to be a real party, figure out how to marginalize your extremes. They're making you look like a joke.

That's about all I have for now. These are the biggest problems I could see. There are others, but they need to figure out how to address this stuff in a hurry if they want to field a real candidate in 2016.

[wrongfrog]

Second, you gotta have a system for dealing with those Todd Akin type verbal oopsies. Sometimes circling the wagons isn't the best answer. For something like that, cut him loose. Very publicly withdraw his funding and run the everloving hell out of someone else. Have your high profile people come out and say that shit isn't OK and it's not going to be put up with. Yeah, it sucks for you to do that. But how many Senate seats did you loose because of that?  How much did Sarah Palin's inability to answer a question without a script hurt?

This is one of the biggest issues for me. I'm getting sick of the Republican Party not calling out assholes like Akin or Mourdock when they act up. No, don't just ignore them. Don't just take away some funding. Especially don't let your presidential fucking candidate endorse them in spite of controversial remarks about rape. Take a STAND against these people. Publicly say that they do not reflect the views of the party. Assure people that you will not prop up candidates with an infant's understanding of female biology. Your silence just as bad as if you were to defend them, which Fox News did, and they need to fucking stop it as well.

Oh, and while we're at it, don't mistake solidarity in your party for stubbornness and extreme partisanship. You really dropped the ball with Christie this year, what with conservatives accusing him of being a traitor left and right for doing his job. You can't let that shit slide if you want people to take you seriously.

[Veras]

Veras, that was good, but you forgot one little thing. For a legislative seat, you don't have to convince a majority of Americans of your views. Just enough in your state. Which means running crazy right in Arizona and other such states. Reaching the wing nuts of your party in your state or even congressional district gives you a lot less scrutiny (outside of major gaffes).

Right, but that also plays into my third point.  You have less scrutiny as much because fewer people are paying attention.  The electorate in midterm elections consists largely of activists, and say what you want about the Tea Party, but they have infused the Republican Party with activism.

Veras while that is true you're forgetting the Republican party is fighting a war on two fronts.  First front is their traditional one with the Dems and the other is the Tea Party that is vowing to go after the Republican party itself.I have a feeling that the voters aren't going to want such crazy in Congress after the last two years.

Ironbite-all the Dems have to do is run a platform of "LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID" and the mid-term election shouldn't be that bloody.

I didn't forget that at all.  It certainly hurt them this time around, and there are certain Republican Senators who may be vulnerable because of the Tea Party in 2014.  Hell, there has been talk about a Tea Party primary challenge to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.  And I have no doubt that the public doesn't want crazy in Congress, but the majority of the 2010 Tea Party House Republicans were reelected, so obviously they can stomach it.  Even worse, the midterm electorate is not representative of the American public as a whole.  Older people, wealthier people, and white people all vote at much higher rates in non-presidential election years relative to other demographics, and all three tend to favor Republicans.

Undoubtedly, there will be a few races where Tea Party lunatics are so outrageous that they cost the Republicans a seat.  It happened in 2010 with Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and in 2012 with Mourdock and Akin.  However, the bump in turnout that the Tea Party provides will probably make up for those losses.

Also, unless something dramatic happens (of the magnitude of the 1995/1996 government shutdowns), the midterm elections will not be a referendum on what Congressional Republicans have done.  It will be about Obama, and the economic recovery.

I'm not saying that 2014 will necessarily be a bloodbath like 2010 was.  I'm just pointing out that there are a number of factors indicating that the Republicans will be in a strategically advantageous position.  The political climate of that election has two years to develop, and the results of the election will have a lot to do with what happens between now and then, especially with the economy and the deficit.  And I did say that, barring change, the Republicans will be in trouble in national elections down the road.  The 2014 mid-terms are not a national election, nor are they far enough down the road.

If you're suggesting that there will be widespread three-way races (Democrat vs. mainstream Republican, vs. Tea Party Republican), as was the case with the 2010 Florida Senate election, then, yes, that could severely hurt the Republicans, but I don't see that as being particularly likely.  It's also worth noting that the Tea Party candidate won in that particular case, so not even a split like that guarantees a problem.

[wrongfrog]

In regards to the midterm elections, I'd say it would be a good idea to contact those organizations that encourage people to vote in the presidential elections to also put the same amount of effort into getting people aware of the midterms. They're just as, if not even more important than the presidential election, so we need to get people aware of the implications of these elections.

[mellenORL]

In regards to the midterm elections, I'd say it would be a good idea to contact those organizations that encourage people to vote in the presidential elections to also put the same amount of effort into getting people aware of the midterms. They're just as, if not even more important than the presidential election, so we need to get people aware of the implications of these elections.

Yup, and as it gets easier to vote by absentee (mailed ballot), in more states, just a decent effort at a social media campaign would suffice. The same grassroots orgs and pro orgs that got out the vote for Obama need to do this for the midterms - Make Sure Congress Moves Forward....meh....somebody with better slogan birthin' skills than me will come up with it.

[Material Defender]

Terming for congress! No sense.

Like Obamacare? Get to voting! Eh.

Not to care is unforgivable. Vote to show you care!

[Meshakhad]

Well, I plan to get involved in the mid-term elections. Having someone in Congress who, upon running into you, will not only recognize you, but actually give you a hug, is quite valuable.

[Cataclysm]

Well gay rights and drug legalization is heating up, as well as a stronger push towards Universal healthcare. By your theory, they are due to die from their vote pandering.

Change, yes. Die, no. Not until something is ready to take it's place.

Please.
(I just want to see Owl vs. Donkey political cartoons ok)

Incidentally

“If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community, in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state. If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House," he said. "New York and California are for the foreseeable future unalterably Democrat. If Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like the Whig Party."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/ted-cruz-latino-vote_n_2117193.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009