Republican Party Changes

[seayakin]

I could not find another thread on this and hope I didn't miss it so here is my comments and question.

Given the fall out from the Trump candidacy. Are we likely to see major shifts in the Republican party? I can see trying to change their primary process to prevent a repeat of a candidate like Trump.

Personally, I would hope they would drop the social conservatism and focus more on fiscal responsibility. If they did this, I might actually be able to consider them as an alternative to the Democrats.

 

[Trebuchet]

Am I the only one wanting to add "Trump's Diapers" to the thread title?

Seriously, you've suggested what the R's really should do. But they won't. Their base is so dominated by Tea Party and Religious Right idiots that it's nearly impossible to change that. And outside those people, they are dominated by Trickle Down morons. Creating deficits by cutting taxes on the rich isn't fiscal responsibility. The last fiscal conservative President we had was Bill Clinton, although I kind of have to give Obama a pass due to the R congress.

 

[seayakin]

I was looking at an article in the Atlantic on the Republican 2012 election post mortem. A Trump candidacy has not helped some specific things even though the analysis was quite frank and eye opening according to the article.

If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence. It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In the last election, Governor Romney received just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Trump has not helped this nor has many of the Tea Party people. Another quote:

The perception, revealed in polling, that the GOP does not care about people is doing great harm to the Party and its candidates on the federal level, especially in presidential years. It is a major deficiency that must be addressed.

One of the contributors to this problem is that while Democrats tend to talk about people, Republicans tend to talk about policy. Our ideas can sound distant and removed from people's lives. Instead of connecting with voters' concerns, we too often sound like bookkeepers. We need to do a better job connecting people to our policies.

I would offer that Trump talks about people to the exclusion of policy and substance. He connects with his core constituents but to the exclusion of everyone else.

I would agree with Trebuchet that I don't see the Republican party making the changes to garner support from non-white populations. The Atlantic article also suggests the Republican party does not have a vision beyond Reagan.

 

[Crossbow]

I could not find another thread on this and hope I didn't miss it so here is my comments and question.

Given the fall out from the Trump candidacy. Are we likely to see major shifts in the Republican party? I can see trying to change their primary process to prevent a repeat of a candidate like Trump.

Personally, I would hope they would drop the social conservatism and focus more on fiscal responsibility. If they did this, I might actually be able to consider them as an alternative to the Democrats.

If this election causes the stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans to actually start caring more about their own country as opposed to their own party, then the Donald may just have done more for the public good in the last few months than he has done in his entire life.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I would argue that gerrymandering is exactly what put the GOP in this mess: candidates with no need for support from the leadership and a voting block that is more and more unlike the demographic of the population at large.

If the GOP wants to reform it needs to have independent commissions redistrict their states - it's the only way to marginalize the influence of the Alt-right.

 

[Cavemonster]

I was looking at an article in the Atlantic on the Republican 2012 election post mortem. A Trump candidacy has not helped some specific things even though the analysis was quite frank and eye opening according to the article.



Trump has not helped this nor has many of the Tea Party people. Another quote:



I would offer that Trump talks about people to the exclusion of policy and substance. He connects with his core constituents but to the exclusion of everyone else.

I would agree with Trebuchet that I don't see the Republican party making the changes to garner support from non-white populations. The Atlantic article also suggests the Republican party does not have a vision beyond Reagan.

Yeah, just doesn't seem like an accurate self assessment by the GOP.

They have always talked plenty about people. Joe the plumber and the American family well in advance of 2012. They aren't rejected because people think policy talk is dry, that's a very sour grapes self agrandizing analysis. They're rejected because their policy has been a hamfisted call for less government with notable exceptions of people's bedrooms, their own bodies, war and putting young black men in prison.

 

[CORed]

Am I the only one wanting to add "Trump's Diapers" to the thread title?

Seriously, you've suggested what the R's really should do. But they won't. Their base is so dominated by Tea Party and Religious Right idiots that it's nearly impossible to change that. And outside those people, they are dominated by Trickle Down morons. Creating deficits by cutting taxes on the rich isn't fiscal responsibility. The last fiscal conservative President we had was Bill Clinton, although I kind of have to give Obama a pass due to the R congress.

The election of Obama in 2008, and his reelection in 2012, should have been a clue to the Republicans that they needed to change. Unfortunately, they chose to double down on stupid. Though it may take another decade or two, I think they are headed for oblivion. The Trump debacle may hasten the process, but it I think it was inevitable anyway.

 

[CORed]

Am I the only one wanting to add "Trump's Diapers" to the thread title?

Seriously, you've suggested what the R's really should do. But they won't. Their base is so dominated by Tea Party and Religious Right idiots that it's nearly impossible to change that. And outside those people, they are dominated by Trickle Down morons. Creating deficits by cutting taxes on the rich isn't fiscal responsibility. The last fiscal conservative President we had was Bill Clinton, although I kind of have to give Obama a pass due to the R congress.

I think their are a lot of people (me among them) who would vote for a party that stood for fiscal responsibility, smaller government (within reason), free market policies (again, within reason) and was socially libertarian.

I'm not a huge fan of the Democrats' idea that every problem requires a massive government program, and the continuing expansion of the national debt is likely to become a serious problem at some time in the future, but the Republican Party in its present form has gone off the deep end in terms of both economic policy and social policy.

I simply cannot vote for anybody who supports the religious right's anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda, and the fiscal problems need to be attacked by both limiting spending and raising taxes. The Republican formula of cut taxes, increase military spending and cut other spending (but they won't say what they will cut) isn't going to work. The only hope I see is for the Republican Party to die and the Democrats to split (or a new sanely conservative party to emerge). I think something like that will happen eventually, but I'm not sure it will happen soon enough.

 

[Giordano]

What I find particularly intriguing is that so many of Trump's stated positions, and his own behavior, are absolutely opposite the official Republican positions over the past decades: Trump rallies against trade pacts, is pro-isolationism in most cases, claims to be anti-Wall Street and to support the "common man" against the wealthy establishment (other than him that is), has had multiple marriages and admits to adultery during much of that time, curses and uses obscenities generously even in public, has very little religious affiliation, has a tax plan that would enormously increase the deficit, has a fairly open view of gays, has until very recently supported abortion rights, etc., etc. In addition,of course, to attacking "fellow" Republicans and failing to significantly support the "down-stream" Republican ticket. This can only make much more difficult any attempt by the Republican establishment to reconcile with Trump's supporters whether he wins or loses.

I often wonder why Trump's core Republican supporters among the public have been so willing to themselves "pull a 180" by dropping the agendas that they supported for the past 2 or 3 decades and to now so willingly support what is, for the most part, the anti of those agendas. Particularly those among the fundamentalist religious leadership, for whom so much of Trump must be abhorrent. Are they holding their noses just for the promise of a Supreme Court nomination that they can support?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There are very good reasons why the GOP leadership can consider Trump an outliner:

Democrats started with an incredible handicap: 8 years of a strongly polarizing president, followed by a candidate with a lot of baggage: it is incredibly rare in US politics for a party to hold the White House for more than 8 years, even more so for Democrats. And most voters, after having elected a member of one disenfranchised group (and thus ended racial discrimination forever, right?) are in no hurry to break another glass ceiling by electing a women...
The GOP had every right to believe that this year their candidate would win.

If in 4 years they manage to present a clear favourite to their constituents they will probably get the vote, unless Clinton turns out to be doing a great job (what are the chances of the Republicans letting her do that?)

 

[thaiboxerken]

The GOP has the house seats gerrymandered in such a way that the house representatives don't have to worry much about elections. This means that they will continue to be the ass-hats that they are without worry. Sure, they will never win the POTUS, but they don't need to. They have a choke hold on the government so that they can either get what they want, or freeze government functions. This is why they do not compromise or listen to the public.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The GOP has the house seats gerrymandered in such a way that the house representatives don't have to worry much about elections. This means that they will continue to be the ass-hats that they are without worry. Sure, they will never win the POTUS, but they don't need to. They have a choke hold on the government so that they can either get what they want, or freeze government functions. This is why they do not compromise or listen to the public.

100% agree.

But maybe Clinton will get a few new Supreme Court Justices to tip the balance to declare gerrymandering unconstitutional: that would be the best thing that could happen for the GOP as a party, since they will never give up their certain, local power for possible federal power.

 

[Aepervius]

"The perception, revealed in polling, that the GOP does not care about people"

Well for a start they should start to admit it isn't a perception only... If you are not a WASP.

 

[Kestrel]

Democrats started with an incredible handicap: 8 years of a strongly polarizing president, followed by a candidate with a lot of baggage

The sin in both cases is being a *********** Democrat.

We need to remember that the polarization was generated by the Republucan party. Obama attempted to work across the aisle and got nowhere. If Obama was for it, the GOP was against it. They even voted down bills that were introduced by Republicans once Obama said he supported the bill. The goal was to make Obama fail at all costs.

Cambined with the angry rhetoric of right wing pundits and the tacit support of birther and Benghazi conspiracy theories this kept a large section of the base stirred up. That paved the way for a candidate like Trump who explicitly pandered to that angry base and overruled the country club Republican desire for a nice safe guy like Jeb Bush.

Putting the GOP tent back together if Trump loses is going to be tough. The angry white guys that love Trump are going to be angrier than ever. The so called Christian Right is feeling left out even now. Trump doesn't act like a guy who found Jesus. A few may figure out that Hillary actually attends church on a regular basis and might not be a demon sent from Hell. The country club set will be desperately seeking voters that still accept the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy are the solution for all economic problems.

 

[Kestrel]

The GOP has the house seats gerrymandered in such a way that the house representatives don't have to worry much about elections. This means that they will continue to be the ass-hats that they are without worry. Sure, they will never win the POTUS, but they don't need to. They have a choke hold on the government so that they can either get what they want, or freeze government functions. This is why they do not compromise or listen to the public.

The only thing most of these House members worry about is being defeated in the primary by a candidate further to the right. Primary voters tend to be far more conservative than typical GOP voters. The idea that government can't solve problems that has been part of GOP rhetoric since Reagan helps enable the obstruction. GOP voters don't expect Congress to fix Obamacare, create more jobs, find a solution to student loan debt or update our nation's infrastructure.

 

[Puppycow]

I wonder if the GOP is going to get even more extreme following a Trump loss.

Trump is not going to be a good loser (I know, you're probably shocked to hear that).
He's going to blame the moderate establishment Republicans like Paul Ryan who didn't support him enough and there's already calls among his supporters to not vote for GOPe candidates. I don't know how big an effect that will have, but it could hurt moderate Republicans who tried to distance themselves from Trump the most, especially those in more competitive districts. This could result in the remains members becoming even even more extreme.

 

[Tero]

Other than cut tax, they never do anything that has any meaning for the majority. And even those don't, they help the rich, with clever names like death tax.


Both death taxes and death panels are great ideas to bring cash and cut wasteful spending.

 

[lomiller]

They are already constructing a fiction that the loss is because their candidate isn't conservative or Republican enough, so they will look for someone even more extreme next time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are already constructing a fiction that the loss is because their candidate isn't conservative or Republican enough, so they will look for someone even more extreme next time.

I hope so! What I think is that they want someone that is about as extreme in policy, but not in words. Trump's problem is that he doesn't know how to use the dog-whistle. They will find someone less abrasive but just as dangerous.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I hope so! What I think is that they want someone that is about as extreme in policy, but not in words. Trump's problem is that he doesn't know how to use the dog-whistle. They will find someone less abrasive but just as dangerous.

So Cruz 2020?