(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

There is no more Jeffords. I think you mean Sanders, and yes the 60 total includes them.

[cartman]

I am ashamed to say that John Cornyn is my Senator. He lacks the understanding of basic tenets of "checks and balances".

Power Line - John Cornyn: What the Specter Switch Means

[ISiddiqui]

Checks and balances don't necessarily have to only apply to each branch checking each other.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Checks and balances don't necessarily have to only apply to each branch checking each other.

But that is how the founding fathers defined it, and he is now claiming they meant something else. The founding fathers were caught off-guard by the formation of political parties, and that wasn't something they considered when drafting the Constitution.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

But that is how the founding fathers defined it, and he is now claiming they meant something else. The founding fathers were caught off-guard by the formation of political parties, and that wasn't something they considered when drafting the Constitution.

He's making a more nuanced arguement:

America's founders designed a government based upon checks and balances specifically to prevent a majority faction from imposing its unchecked will on the minority. American voters have traditionally acted to preserve this check and balance system, and accountability in Washington, by refusing to entrust one political party with total control of government.

[cartman]

I'm trying to find some statements from Cornyn where he expresses the same fears of one party rule in D.C. in the 2000-2006 timeframe.

[SirFozzie]

Well, here's the thing. Just like the automakers, the Republicans are blaming everything but themselves for their current unpopularity. The current finger pointing is a good example.

Most Emailed News Stories

They are attempting to try the equivalent of a political "Bailout". Unfortunately, they are consistently shrinking their tent.

I'm noticing it more and more, more intolerance of views outside their own.

Are you anything but hardcore pro-life? Sorry, you're a RINO, no room in the tent for you.

Have you properly mollified the Club For Growth's hard-right financial stance? No? Sorry, no can do for you.

Are you going to speak anywhere that has someone who doesn't do 1 or 2? Traitor!

(this Notre Dame thing for example. Notre Dame has President Obama speaking as a commencement speaker, and is giving him an honorary degree.. and the hard-right fringe are suggesting they should change their name to "Northwestern Indiana Humanist University".

The Democratic Party grabbed the middle with the Blue Dogs and the middle class. The Republican isn't trying to get that middle back, they're running as far right as they can, and if they do not turn that around quick (and if Obama does turn things around economic wise), that 60-40 split in the Senate could still be a high water mark for the Repbulicans.

[SirFozzie]

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.



Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

[flere-imsaho]

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He's making a more nuanced arguement:

He might have been nuance int that quote, but there's no nuance in this one:

While this would unquestionably damage our country's interests in the short-term, the complete absence of any checks and balances in Washington could have a significant impact on next year's midterm elections.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.



Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

The Republican base is a shrinking demographic while the Democratic base is an expanding demographic. I remember reading somewhere that McCain would have won if the makeup of the country was the same as in 1992. Too many people running the GOP still believe they can win by locking down a larger percentage of their demographic, but the reality is that they have to expand into different demographics which will only happen if they moderate their positions.

It will happen eventually, but they could take another whipping in 2010 before enough people figure out the reality of their problem.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

That's easy. Whoever grabs the Hispanic vote over the next 20 years is well on their way to building a huge coalition.

If there is a strong Hispanic governor from, say, a southwest or midwest state, who is a pretty strong fiscal conservative runs and becomes the face of the party while marginalizing the social conservatives- there's your new strong GOP. I think people can get behind fiscal conservatism- at least some of them- if you make it more nuanced. Rather than beating the "small government, small government, small government" drum constantly- pick and choose the battles. All those super libertarians who basically want to starve out government by cutting off tax funding- that's unrealistic pie-in-the-sky but they don't see it. But you could easily make some inroads with some "smarter government" and "more bang for your buck" packaging. It needs to be something less on the nose than "if you vote for us, we'll give you tax money back". People are tired of hearing that- they want their money back but the way it is phrased just sounds like a bribe.

It's not as if the social conservatives are going to find a home in the Democratic party so they will have to vote GOP. Similar to so many southern state Democrats up until the last 20 years who voted that way for nearly 100 despite having very dissimilar interests because they had been so ticked off by the Civil War and Reconstruction.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

The problem I see with the ascendancy of an electable "moderate" candidate to the GOP national stage is that the right wing is in control of the party (its message and its money) in a way the left-wing of the Democratic party hasn't been.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This Democratic ascendancy won't last forever, just like the GOP's win streak from 2000 to 2004 (electorally) didn't last either.

However, I'm having trouble seeing what the realistic path forward is for the GOP.

If I had to summarize the lessons learned by the Democrats by 2004 that they put into effect that led to 2006 and 2008 they'd be: recruit good and moderate candidates, speak to middle America, stop running from fights with the Republicans, find a good Presidential candidate for once.

What's the gameplan for the GOP (that will really work)?

Nothing lasts forever but it could be a long time before we see Republicans in power again in Congress. The House is way out of reach right now and we'll have a fresh new round of gerrymandering done in a couple years with heavily Democratically controlled states. That'll make it a little more difficult for the GOP to make big strides.

2010 is also looking bad on the Senate front for the GOP. FiveThirtyEight.com ranks the Senate seats by likelihood of changing parties and 7 of the top 8 are Republican seats (4 of those are retiring Senators I believe). There is a good chance Democrats gain a few more Senate seats which makes the advantage ridiculous.

Unless something dramatically goes wrong in the coming years, it's going to be a long time. If the economy shows some strong signs of improving by this time next year, I don't think the Republicans have a shot at gaining anything. The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Here's a question that I was a little too young to know at the time: Was the Republican Revolution of '94 something that showed up early in the polls? Did it show up late, or was it an election day surprise? I guess my question is at what point did it become clear that the Dems were losing Congress back then?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Republican base is a shrinking demographic while the Democratic base is an expanding demographic. I remember reading somewhere that McCain would have won if the makeup of the country was the same as in 1992. Too many people running the GOP still believe they can win by locking down a larger percentage of their demographic, but the reality is that they have to expand into different demographics which will only happen if they moderate their positions.

It will happen eventually, but they could take another whipping in 2010 before enough people figure out the reality of their problem.

As someone who wants to see the GOP get back on track and pose as a legitimate opposition party, it's going to take a massive overhaul of the party. They have been attacking the fastest growing demographics in this country. Blame hispanics for economic problems. Make vague racial remarks and try to justify them. Blame Godless atheists for every social problem in this country. Three groups of people that are growing massively in this country and they are attacking them. Just a bunch of complete fucking morons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The demographics are just heavily against them until they open up the party more.

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?
Not necessarily arguing the point you're making, just pointing out why it really doesn't matter much if they do or don't.

What has to change for it to actually be meaningful is a reversal in the direction the voting public has taken. If that doesn't happen then the only difference is in pale shades of grey.

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Here's a question that I was a little too young to know at the time: Was the Republican Revolution of '94 something that showed up early in the polls? Did it show up late, or was it an election day surprise? I guess my question is at what point did it become clear that the Dems were losing Congress back then?

From what I've read on the topic, it was foreseen somewhat. Democrats had started losing elections back in 1992 and Republicans really pushed the Christian vote that year by using some of Clinton's policies against them. There were also a lot of Democratic scandals similar to what we saw in 2006.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?

That's fine if the goal is to become irrelevant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

That's fine if the goal is to become irrelevant.

See my addendum.

[larrymcg421]

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

But "qualified" remains in the eye of the beholder. For that matter so does "smart" to some extent.

And as a totally random aside, wouldn't we traditionally prefer a judge to be known as "wise" than "smart"?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But if you give up on the things that actually matter to you then what's the point in gaining control for the exception of those that are just power hungry?
Not necessarily arguing the point you're making, just pointing out why it really doesn't matter much if they do or don't.

What has to change for it to actually be meaningful is a reversal in the direction the voting public has taken. If that doesn't happen then the only difference is in pale shades of grey.

It does matter though if they do. Would you rather have a guy in power that you agree with on 75% of the issues or 25%? That's what the Republican Party doesn't see right now.

Lets take Pennsylvania for instance. It's a Democratic state with a massive voter registration advantage for them. Now there are a lot of conservatives who want Toomey to get the nomination because he is a staunch conservative. The problem is that Toomey will get slaughtered in the general. Tom Ridge would be a much better choice, would agree with the party on most of the issues, and actually has a decent shot at getting elected in Pennsylvania. But they won't run Ridge because of one issue, abortion.

I guess what I'm saying is that the demographics of this country are changing. Hoping that those demographics shift backwards is just a bad solution. So why not aim to put the guy in power who you agree with 75% of the time over the guy who you agree with 25% of the time? It's like going to an ice cream shop in hopes of getting chocolate ice cream. Seeing they are sold out and opting for the piece of dog shit outside the store instead of vanilla which is at least edible.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't remember 1994 being much of a surprise to independent observers, to be honest. The Democrats, especially in the House, had an increasing number of scandals in the years leading up to 1994 and Clinton pretty much got off on the wrong foot, PR-wise, almost immediately after being inaugurated.

Even though Clinton was "fresh air" as the first Democratic President since Carter, most of the country thought the Democrats in Congress were a pretty lousy lot. When Clinton fumbled through his first year, I think it solidified a lot of preconceived notions and swung the balance the other way.

It's important to note, however, that the key thing was that the Republicans had not held a majority in the House for 40 years, I think, so it was a pretty epic shift that way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

I think that hurts the party more. It ensures you never win another Presidential election again. The D's would win the blue states and the two Republican parties would split up the red states. The only way the 3rd party works is if it is moderate enough to grab a lot of D's too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So why not aim to put the guy in power who you agree with 75% of the time over the guy who you agree with 25% of the time?

You say that as though there's actually someone who hits the 75% of the time consistently.

A lot of voters have already been settling for a candidate that they weren't all that thrilled about on a daily basis -- whether it's social moderates voting for social conservatives or social conservatives voting for candidates with different priorities -- at some point it gets rather pointless.

On your ice cream analogy, at some point it becomes a matter of going to a different store altogether. Eating whatever is on the street in front (and I'll resist drawing an analogy between your theoretical dog shit & McCain) isn't the only choice.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You say that as though there's actually someone who hits the 75% of the time consistently.

A lot of voters have already been settling for a candidate that they weren't all that thrilled about on a daily basis -- whether it's social moderates voting for social conservatives or social conservatives voting for candidates with different priorities -- at some point it gets rather pointless.

On your ice cream analogy, at some point it becomes a matter of going to a different store altogether. Eating whatever is on the street in front (and I'll resist drawing an analogy between your theoretical dog shit & McCain) isn't the only choice.

Settling is just how politics is done. Hardcore conservatives don't win much in blue or purple states. If this was Alabama, I completely understand not wanting to compromise. But ultimately, you have to make a decision as a party as to what candidate you can put up that can win and agrees with your views the most. The Democrats did it well by putting in guys like Webb and Tester in right leaning states.

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that hurts the party more. It ensures you never win another Presidential election again.

With firm enough control of Congress, having the White House isn't nearly as critical. And in that scenario control of the White House becomes a possibility through the Electoral College if you can just split enough votes to prevent an outright win and throw the election to the House.

The only way the 3rd party works is if it is moderate enough to grab a lot of D's too.

If there are indeed as many voting moderates as some here claim, then it seems likely that this would occur, with these moderates splitting roughly down the middle between the R's who chose that route and the D's (who would first try to hedge the middle to prevent the vote loss).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

Or you turn it on it's ear and play for an actual win. At some point, it's better to lose and keep your principals than abandon them almost completely & win a meaningless victory.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Settling is just how politics is done. Hardcore conservatives don't win much in blue or purple states. If this was Alabama, I completely understand not wanting to compromise. But ultimately, you have to make a decision as a party as to what candidate you can put up that can win and agrees with your views the most. The Democrats did it well by putting in guys like Webb and Tester in right leaning states.

When your views fall in the minority, you sometimes have to take what you can get.

The independent spike in the middle of that chart above is a reflection of people leaving politics entirely.

We have factions in this country, not parties.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

here's a good graphic to show my point about the number of "center to center-righters" that just do not identify with the republican party. This is from FiveThirtyEight, and is a rough average of percentage of people who identify themselves as a member of a particular party over the last couple years.



Notes: The Democratic Party slightly drops, a couple points, but we're looking at about a 10 point drop in Republican-side identification, with the corresponding increase in the independent line.

I'm glad to see that green line go up. I hope that trend continues, at the expense of both parties.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

With firm enough control of Congress, having the White House isn't nearly as critical. And in that scenario control of the White House becomes a possibility through the Electoral College if you can just split enough votes to prevent an outright win and throw the election to the House.

How do you control congress? The Republican Party is already at a huge disadvantage in voter identification.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If there are indeed as many voting moderates as some here claim, then it seems likely that this would occur, with these moderates splitting roughly down the middle between the R's who chose that route and the D's (who would first try to hedge the middle to prevent the vote loss).

I think much of this country is moderate. If you picked a random guy off the street and asked them their views on a number of issues, they'd probably fall in the middle somewhere with a slight lean in one direction or the other.

The best chance at a 3rd Party would be something that is moderate with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. The Libertarian Party is too extreme for it at the moment. But the upcoming generation has libertarian leanings and I think a 3rd party could take advantage of that. Get them to identify with the party early on and see it reap the benefits in the next 20 years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or you turn it on it's ear and play for an actual win. At some point, it's better to lose and keep your principals than abandon them almost completely & win a meaningless victory.

Principals are fine, but letting the greater of two evils win an election on principal is just self-destructive.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Principals are fine, but letting the greater of two evils win an election on principal is just self-destructive.

I had to decide which principle I cared most about. Was it my desire for conservative fiscal policies? Was it my desire to have a government free from religion? Or was it my desire to have a government that promoted science? I chose the candidate that was trying to offer 2 of the 3, over the GOP candidate that was (at best) offering 1 of the 3.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

One thing I expect to see is more nonsense where the nominee is required to abandon judicial ethics and state how they rule on several cases, specifically abortion and I bet gay marriage will be asked now. The fact is that the president's nominee should get through if they are experienced, smart, and qualified.

I'd agree with that if you were talking about political appointees, but not about SC judges. The fact is that a judge will be on the bench for years after the President is out of office and regardless of how much we want to deny it, a judicial nominee does have a set of beliefs that will influence their rulings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I had to decide which principal I cared most about. Was it my desire for conservative fiscal policies? Was it my desire to have a government free from religion? Or was it my desire to have a government that promoted science? I chose the candidate that was trying to offer 2 of the 3, over the GOP candidate that was (at best) offering 1 of the 3.

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

It is information that is interesting to know, but I don't believe it determines whether someone is "qualified" for the job. It may very well determine whether someone would like to see them confirmed or not, but their political views do not determine their qualifications.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?

Curious to hear this too.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I had to decide which principal I cared most about.

It was between Belding and Skinner for me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is information that is interesting to know, but I don't believe it determines whether someone is "qualified" for the job. It may very well determine whether someone would like to see them confirmed or not, but their political views do not determine their qualifications.

What are the qualifications? The Constitution leaves that up to the President and the Senate. We generally expect an established, respected legal mind and I'd bet that at least hundreds of people would meet that requirement. What's left, and what really matters in term of what the Court does, is the underlying beliefs upon which the Justices see the world.

Not only do I not see it as verboten to ask the nominee their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, but I think it;s essential for that information to be made public before a person is given a lifetime seat on a team of nine. Isn't it obvious that the reason they don't want to answer these questions has far less to do with bias and far more to do with providing as little material for opponents as possible?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Which one of the three was the GOP candidate offering?

At best, conservative fiscal policy (but I wasn't really sold on that either).

You also hit at the problem with the GOP, from my point of view.

The Libertarian Party lost me this time, for the first time since 1992. I was not readily in Bob Barr's camp due to his history (pro-Drug War, pro-Patriot Act, anti-gay marriage, to name a few problem areas). Also, his VP candidate professing admiration for Sarah "We'll promote Autism research, so why are we spending money on fruit fly research?" Palin really hurt them with me.

I could have voted for a LP candidate that I was not completely behind, or I could vote AGAINST McCain/Palin and get a candidate who was at least interested in promoting science and not feeling obligated to turn this into a theocracy. So I went with Obama.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It was between Belding and Skinner for me.

Hah. I should go edit that now.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What are the qualifications? The Constitution leaves that up to the President and the Senate. We generally expect an established, respected legal mind and I'd bet that at least hundreds of people would meet that requirement.

Yes, that determines the "qualifications." These are relatively objective. At least 1 of Bush's nominees was so woefully unqualified that it did not really matter what her views were on anything.

Not only do I not see it as verboten to ask the nominee their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, but I think it;s essential for that information to be made public before a person is given a lifetime seat on a team of nine. Isn't it obvious that the reason they don't want to answer these questions has far less to do with bias and far more to do with providing as little material for opponents as possible?

I said that information can certainly be used to determine whether someone is confirmed or not, but that it has little or nothing to do with their "qualifications" for the job.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: By the end of the next election cycle you'll either see a reversal or you'll see the GOP split into it's relatively distinct factions over the following decade. Oddly enough, that might actually be the start of a 2+ party system that so many (here at least) seem to want. It wouldn't be a system that could take the White House outright any time in the forseeable future but might theoretically be enough to deny the D's a chance to get anything except the most lukewarm legislation through Congress. Still a long time in the making but I might actually call that one of the more likely scenarios.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen either. Southerners have proven to be pretty fickle when it comes to party loyalty, but they still generally stay together. I could see something similar to a Democrat/Dixiecrat split for an election cycle or two before things get realigned.

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by lungs

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

Which, given the history of civil rights in this nation, still blows my mind.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree with that if you were talking about political appointees, but not about SC judges. The fact is that a judge will be on the bench for years after the President is out of office and regardless of how much we want to deny it, a judicial nominee does have a set of beliefs that will influence their rulings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Senators to ask questions about beliefs and I wish the media would stop acting like those questions are out of bounds.

I think it's even more improper with judges than for political appointees. The fact is people want to know these days how the judge is going to rule on Roe v. Wade and other issues. They want to know that beforehand. I think it's highly unethical for a judge to reveal their views on an issue they know is going to come before the court.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How do you control congress? The Republican Party is already at a huge disadvantage in voter identification.

Like I mentioned earlier, I also tend to self-identify as an independent. And a series of McCainesque candidates would pretty much end national GOP identification in the South, absent anything else among the choices (which polls often offer as Dem, Rep, or Ind. with the occasional Other thrown in there), you'd see a significant decline in GOP self-identification. Hell, that has already anecdotally happened with people I know.

I think much of this country is moderate. If you picked a random guy off the street and asked them their views on a number of issues, they'd probably fall in the middle somewhere with a slight lean in one direction or the other.

I'd argue a sigificant lean in one direction or another if you ask the right questions (and by that I just mean enough questions to get a solid read). And those moderates are the least likely to go vote, which renders them less important when it comes to electing candidates.

The best chance at a 3rd Party would be something that is moderate with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

I tend to assume that one of the GOP splits would basically end up as what you describe here. Or at least that was one of the flavors I was referring to.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

Oddly, given how blacks have voted on gay rights and polled on gay rights, this might in fact be the future match for the current socially conservative wing of the GOP.

I don't think gay rights is a big issue in the black community though. They may not be for it, but I don't think they'll be voting for politicians based on it.

To get the black vote, it would take a complete overhaul of their stance on a lot of issues. The Southern Strategy that started back with Nixon is still being used to some degree. You have candidates for party offices sending out songs on a CD called "Barack the Magic Negro" while party rallies have no diversity and at times bordered on KKK rallies in content. Not to mention policies that are not as helpful to their situation as Democrat ones.

Going the social conservative route is stupid. They should have been going the small government, stay out of everyone's business route to rebuild the party.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, the last major regional party change happened in the South (disaffected Democrats broke off to form a 3rd party but eventually migrated to the GOP) so it's not without precedent.

Of course one could argue that this is already underway, in another region. In the Mountain West & Plains, which have typically been GOP territory, we're seeing inroads made by moderate Democrats with common-sense approaches to policy. If such a trend continues, the GOP ends up as basically a South (really Southeast + Texas) regional party. Then, if they were to solidify as a social conservative party, they'd only further a descent into a regional party. If, on the other hand, the fiscal conservative/social moderate wing wrests control back, they start to lose the South (perhaps to independent, social conservative candidates?) and fight back in the heartland, but will they have lost too much ground?

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I mention that I don't see a realistic roadmap back to electoral strength, right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They should have been going the small government, stay out of everyone's business route to rebuild the party.

But if you're right about the role of demographic shifts then that doesn't accomplish anything in the end either.