(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

We have factions in this country, not parties.

Before the thread moves too much farther, I just wanted to highlight this as being one of the better politically oriented comments I've seen in a thread here in quite some times. It deserved more attention that it got initially as the pace of the thread picked up about the same time & headed onto another tangent.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

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

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". For instance, right now, conservatives aren't happy with the direction of the GOP. However, if given a choice of generic Dem or generic Rep- it's going to be Rep every time. At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.

Also, I wonder what the numbers looked like in 1992-1996 and if there was a similar graph.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". For instance, right now, conservatives aren't happy with the direction of the GOP. However, if given a choice of generic Dem or generic Rep- it's going to be Rep every time. At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.

Also, I wonder what the numbers looked like in 1992-1996 and if there was a similar graph.

SI

Here ya go, I'll let you sort it out, my eyes are sort of crossing.
1940-94
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID.gif
1992-99
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID9299.gif

edit to add: I'm not sure that last one is even readable without the original colors.

editing again: here's one more you might like, congressional voting by party & year.
http://members.cox.net/fweil/VoteHouse3298.gif

[lungs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm curious how many people out there are "independent in name only". At the end of the day, how many people claim to be independent for an air of impartiality when really they just don't want to be associated with their true party of choice.

*raises hand*

I claim to be independent, but given the choice at this point in time, give me the D over the R.

But a few years ago I would have been flip flopped in that regard.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Here ya go, I'll let you sort it out, my eyes are sort of crossing.
1940-94
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID.gif
1992-99
http://members.cox.net/fweil/PartyID9299.gif

edit to add: I'm not sure that last one is even readable without the original colors.

Yeah, that second one is kindof tough to read

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

I think one of the biggest demographic shifts we are seeing is younger people wanting government to mind their own business.

Two issues here:

Marijuana - Why not push to legalize it? It's really not that bad for you and isn't a nuisance on society. It would be great for businesses and create jobs in this country. Make some of our streets safer.

Gambling - Lot of gambling is legal in this country and there are huge double standards. Come out and make it legal. Discuss all the great business opportunities it opens and jobs we can bring in.

Both of these issues are government over-stepping their bounds. I don't think it would hurt them badly with social conservatives but it would dramatically open the door for young voters in this country. Run on the stance that whether you like the two vices or not, the government should not be telling us what to do with our money or our body in our home. That it's a small government stance, not a pro-marijuana/gambling one.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

I love how it's written in stone that the Democrats are now in control for good. Aside from being the party than can never get their stuff together and on the same page, these things are cyclical. This happens and has happened over and over in history. Unless it's suddenly 10 years of super prosperity, we're going to be right back here sometime in the next decade or two talking about how the Democrats are marginalized and will never win again.

I took a political parties class in 2004, my last semester at KU. At the time, it was all doom and gloom for the Democrats. Evil gerrymandering from the 2000 census and draconian rules manipulation by the GOP were going to destroy the party. They had no leader and no plan. They couldn't get young people interested in politics and without that, there was no future. They couldn't raise money nearly as well as the GOP since they didn't cater to the rich and without money, you can't do a thing in politics.

Or at least that was the meme at the time. Not from the teacher but if you saw the news or read books or anything. That was barely 5 years ago and things are completely the opposite now. The one thing that my professor said that stuck with me (paraphrased), tho, is that it's hard to recruit good young talent to your party to run when they have a harder chance of winning. If you're trying to run for office in, say, Pennsylvania, since we keep mentioning it- what party do you want to be in if all you care about is gaining power (and, at the end of the day, that's a lot of these folks).

Soon, when the Democrats can't give everyone a pony, people will get sick of them and go back to the Republicans. In the end, there are a couple of things that keep this pendulum swinging. First is that people have short memories and they forget why they preferred one party to another so they'll just get mad at whoever is in power, even if it's the one they best identify with. Second, a housecleaning is always needed for the parties themselves. They get fat and complacent and forget that they do need to do some things of substance or reinvent their image/substance to get votes.

The one thing that is constant, however, due to our funding rules and structure is that there will almost always be 2 parties. The biggest change that will occur is that a party may die out but soon another would take its place as the big rival. Because we use a plurality voting system- we aren't going to see any long running third parties popping up any time soon. If one emerges, it will fairly quickly (a decade or two) just displace one of the current two. Any party that continually finishes third will get absorbed by one of the other two because there's no funding or power prize for participation.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think one of the biggest demographic shifts we are seeing is younger people wanting government to mind their own business.

Two issues here:

Marijuana - Why not push to legalize it? It's really not that bad for you and isn't a nuisance on society. It would be great for businesses and create jobs in this country. Make some of our streets safer.

Gambling - Lot of gambling is legal in this country and there are huge double standards. Come out and make it legal. Discuss all the great business opportunities it opens and jobs we can bring in.

Both of these issues are government over-stepping their bounds. I don't think it would hurt them badly with social conservatives but it would dramatically open the door for young voters in this country. Run on the stance that whether you like the two vices or not, the government should not be telling us what to do with our money or our body in our home. That it's a small government stance, not a pro-marijuana/gambling one.

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rain, if you don't think a push to legalize pot would cause the loss of the social conservative base, you really don't know them very well. And even the gambling one would lose anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of the (social conservative) base out of the gate & I don't believe it would gain anywhere near enough votes to make it up, it's not a strong enough single issue.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

I still think they can maintain an argument to keep the homophobes and closeted ones happy. If you had a law banning gay sex, that would be similar to gambling and marijuana. Marriage is a little different. I still think they should take a hands-off approach and just say it's up to the states to decide and not our business (not advocating it but not going against it).

I don't think gambling or marijuana are going to bring you issue voters. But I do think they would help transform the GOP into a party that just wants to do the basics and stay out of our business. The GOP's biggest problem is that they want to act as the moral police when they should be saying the government shouldn't have that power.

It's a message problem. When you come out and call those pro-choice people baby killers, it's not helping you get votes. But when you simply say "we feel it's a state issue", you are getting the same results without alienating women.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Rain, if you don't think a push to legalize pot would cause the loss of the social conservative base, you really don't know them very well. And even the gambling one would lose anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of the (social conservative) base out of the gate & I don't believe it would gain anywhere near enough votes to make it up, it's not a strong enough single issue.

If that's true, then the GOP is sunk. It's tough to advocate small government while having your voters want big government.

Perhaps that would be the case up front (although I don't see where those voters will go). But long term, it would benefit them. For them to recover, they have to get young voters in their corner (or at least dramatically reduce the gap). You can't have another generation enter the voting sector as Democrats and expect to be competitive over the next 30 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If that's true, then the GOP is sunk. It's tough to advocate small government while having your voters want big government.

You won't hear me argue that social conservatives are really proponents of small government. Heck, you won't often hear me argue that I'm a proponent of small vs big government, only what I consider an adequate & appropriate level of government.

Then again, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want minimal government, most just want it where they want it & not where they don't want it. If you get that (in theory) then it's neither big nor little, it's just like Baby Bear's porridge.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You won't hear me argue that social conservatives are really proponents of small government. Heck, you won't often hear me argue that I'm a proponent of small vs big government, only what I consider an adequate & appropriate level of government.

Then again, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want minimal government, most just want it where they want it & not where they don't want it. If you get that (in theory) then it's neither big nor little, it's just like Baby Bear's porridge.

If the GOP isn't small government, than what's the catch to bring people into the party? On social issues, they aren't going to win many national elections and are only going to see that gap widen as another generation hits voting age.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If the GOP isn't small government, than what's the catch to bring people into the party? On social issues, they aren't going to win many national elections and are only going to see that gap widen as another generation hits voting age.

Well the most obvious solution is to either do a better job of raising our children to have ... I'll try to stay neutral here and say "more compatible" values or else do everything we can to limit their participation in the voting process.

edit to add: Hmm, maybe we could legalize pot usage one day every couple of years

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well the most obvious solution is to either do a better job of raising our children to have ... I'll try to stay neutral here and say "more compatible" values or else do everything we can to limit their participation in the voting process.

edit to add: Hmm, maybe we could legalize pot usage one day every couple of years

But that's the thing, everyone has different views on how to raise their children. What you feel is right will be wrong for others.

I don't see the pendulum shifting back on social issues. Gays suddenly won't become scary figures, science considered blasphemy, and our laws based on a collection of stories written 2000 years ago. It's historically not happened in this country and I don't see that changing.

I understand taking a stance on your principles, but I just think that philosophy ends up shrinking the GOP and making them even less relevant than they are today. The party can't sit back and hope that we start regressing socially.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The party can't sit back and hope that we start regressing socially.

We've been regressing for decades, I'd love to see something that actually resembles progress for at least once in my lifetime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We've been regressing for decades, I'd love to see something that actually resembles progress for at least once in my lifetime.

What have we regressed in?

It's not a knock or a setup. I just seriously don't see the nostalgia over how we were socially 50, 100, or 200 years ago.

[Tekneek]

Hmmm... What could he possibly mean? What has changed in our society? Interracial marriage... The end of segregation... Women's suffrage... End of slavery... Which one of those do we need to undo in order to have "progress" now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Hmmm... What could he possibly mean? What has changed in our society? Interracial marriage... The end of segregation... Women's suffrage... End of slavery... Which one of those do we need to undo in order to have "progress" now?

Actually none of those were what I had in mind. The answer is really more general than that, simply regressing toward accepting the unacceptable, which covers a whole lot more ground than any specific point.

But your mention of the word "suffrage" does raise a point that is almost completely overlooked and has been for as long as I can really remember. The Constitution was a framework designed to operate with less than 20% of the population to be eligible to vote. The conditions for various segments of the population have changed & the criteria would need to be adjusted but I really can't think of anything that would benefit the nation more than heading back toward that point, the number of people with adequate discernment ability to have that responsibility place upon them simply doesn't exist in our society and really never has. A system that uses age as the primary eligibility criteria is a significant factor in how the turtle ended up on the fence post.

Rest assured I won't be holding my breath for it to happen as the inmates already have enough sway over the asylum to prevent it from happening except by force (and I believe we lack the collective will for that) but if I happen to run into a genie interested in granting a wish ...

[sterlingice]

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have

SI

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The conditions for various segments of the population have changed & the criteria would need to be adjusted but I really can't think of anything that would benefit the nation more than heading back toward that point, the number of people with adequate discernment ability to have that responsibility place upon them simply doesn't exist in our society and really never has.

Yep, we definitely need to go back to the time when only white landowners could vote.

edit: how silly of me to forget male
another edit: Just curious to what your voting eligibility criteria would be? Don't misconstrue my first line as what I think you think, just saying that's how it was in the past.
yet another edit: Wouldn't strict candidate eligibility be more feasible? Sort of the Iran style "democracy" where candidates need to be approved by the clerics. In this case, candidates would need to be approved by the Council of People That Think Like JIMGA.

I'd think that it would be a lot easier to screen a handful of candidates than millions of voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have

I actually picked it up elsewhere but found out from my wife that Neal Boortz used it earlier in the week as well.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Before the thread moves too much farther, I just wanted to highlight this as being one of the better politically oriented comments I've seen in a thread here in quite some times. It deserved more attention that it got initially as the pace of the thread picked up about the same time & headed onto another tangent.

"Factions, not Parties"

I agree with Foo's comment on this and it's interesting to see how this has happened over the past 20 years or so. I'd imagine that it's the influence of polling and better communication methods that have made so many Congresscritters cleave more to factions than support their party at every turn.

You saw this happen first in the House, where Reps with particularly strong districts banded with like-minded/like-supported Reps to push particular agendas. Arguably the first real "big" example of this was 1994, which was led by these kind of Reps and carried along a bunch of outliers in less-strong districts who eventually lost their seats (i.e. if you're in close to a 50/50 district, when Newt & the GOP loses steam, you don't have a lot to fall back upon and lose your seat).

For a while the Senate resisted this influx of reps with specific agendas, keeping its collegiate atmosphere, but turnover has caught up to it, and the Senate is now factionalized as well (though not nearly as bad as the House).

It's interesting to think that out of some of these factions will come third parties, but that's forgetting how many of the rules (local election rules to the rules of the House and Senate) favor, or are at least built for, a 2-party system. A lot of that would have to change first before these parties become really viable, nationally.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

While I hate to get this thread back on topic, this is fabulous stuff here. Arlen Specter now believes that legislation under Nixon would have saved Jack Kemp's life.

Specter Claims Kemp Would Be Alive if Congress Better Funded Medical Research - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

Also, some recent polling indicates that Spector would be in a dead heat with Tom Ridge if they ran against each other in the coming election despite the voter edge Democrats hold in Pennsylvania.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Yeah, I can't believe that no one is researching cancer cures.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hadn't heard the post turtle thing but thanks to the power of Google, now I have

SI

That term is chalk.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Yeah, I can't believe that no one is researching cancer cures.

I hear there's a swine virus to deal with first.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I hear there's a swine virus to deal with first.

Are you serious in thinking this or anything remotely close to this? I can assure you that A LOT of money is spent every year on cancer research. Unfortunately, cancer is not an easy problem and its even unlikely that we will ever find a "cure for cancer," but rather have to independently discover cures for multiple types of cancer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Also, some recent polling indicates that Spector would be in a dead heat with Tom Ridge if they ran against each other in the coming election despite the voter edge Democrats hold in Pennsylvania.

Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

[cartman]

I'm sure we'd be farther along in the treatment of cancer if we'd spent the "War on Drugs" money on the "War on Cancer" instead.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

Well Ridge won the Republican Governor primary in the 90s .

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Are you serious in thinking this or anything remotely close to this? I can assure you that A LOT of money is spent every year on cancer research. Unfortunately, cancer is not an easy problem and its even unlikely that we will ever find a "cure for cancer," but rather have to independently discover cures for multiple types of cancer.

Your sarcasm meter is broken. Fix it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your sarcasm meter is broken. Fix it.

Damn, I forgot that Specter's a Democrat now.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time.

I think that term really depends on whose Republican party you belong to. He might as well call you a RINO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think that term really depends on whose Republican party you belong to. He might as well call you a RINO.

I actually don't consider myself a Republican. I'm not registered to either party, which is much different than Specter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

problem is that the party elite would not let a strong hispanic governor get elected on a republican ticket. and certainly not put them up on a national ticket - not with having to answer to the far-right. at least not as the party stands now. it's going to take a die-off in the old-guard before that can happen.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I actually don't consider myself a Republican.

Heh.

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

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.

late to this party, but let me just make sure i understand your point in the top part - you're saying that the only way for the GOP to turn things around is for people to essentially stop caring about gay marriage, abortion, etc as electoral issues? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Because i think we can both agree that isn't likely to happen - if anything those trends are likely set to accelerate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Heh.

You disagree? As has been noted throughout the various political conversations, I'm extremely conservative when it comes to fiscal matters, but I side with Obama and the Democrats on many social issues. Now many of the political disagreements/discussions on this board are fiscal in nature, so I could see how you might believe that my negative reaction towards Obama is global in nature, but that's simply not the case.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Gambling and pot are places to start but I think you're still going to run into a party schizophrenia issue with gay marriage. No one goes to the polls to vote single issue on gambling. A few on pot. But it's hard to reconcile that you're ok with the government staying out of people's casinos and head shops but not their bedrooms. And that's one issue where young voters differ pretty strongly from older voters- the younger you get when polling, the higher the numbers in favor of civil unions and gay marriage. It's also a much stronger pull as a single issue vote.

The spot the GOP is in is that it's one issue they just can't change on without completely alienating half the base.

SI

which is some really poor planning by the big dogs at the top of the party. tying half of your power base, and essentially all of your electability then, to a single issue, especially when it's an issue where there are such broad demographic differences (particularly in age, but also in race, region, etc) is political suicide

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by 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

Just ... wow. My mind tells me that this is just political rhetoric written by some staffer designed to play to the lowest common intellect. But my gut tells me that whoever wrote this and approved this probably thinks that's exactly what checks-and-balances mean.

[Arles]

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)?

The same gameplan that worked for the past 30 years - wait for everything to go down the crapper and then take over when the people have enough ill will towards the party in power. From 1990-1994, the economy was poor and there was a ton of angst against Washington. Bush lost to Clinton while the republicans built up their ranks in congress. Everything was fine from 1996 to 2001 and the main party usually won (with Clinton's scandals + Gore's campaign performance allowing W to slip in). Then, 9/11 hit and the republicans started losing seats and the financial crisis sealed for Obama.

There was no real policy matter that decided the 1992-1996 congress switch republican (despite Newt's "contract for America" claims) and while Bush's tax increase didn't help, Clinton won because the economy was bad. Same goes for Obama and the current democrats. The voting public is not nuanced/focused enough to say that a slight shift on trade policy combined with a harder stance on foreign oil made them switch from Republican to Democrat. They look at their jobs, their wallet, the media and see who is in power. If times are good, they stay. But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

To behave like there's some kind of "mental awakening" in the American public to love one side (or hate the other) is just as foolish as when the republicans did the same from 1996 to 2001. Prosperity equals popularity for incumbents and that will be the same in 1985, 1995, 2005 or 2045. All this other gobbledygook just passes the time between elections

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

which is some really poor planning by the big dogs at the top of the party. tying half of your power base, and essentially all of your electability then, to a single issue, especially when it's an issue where there are such broad demographic differences (particularly in age, but also in race, region, etc) is political suicide

It looks like that coalition worked for almost 20 years, basically an entire generation. That's a long time in politics. Now it has to change. Purge the old leaders, give the party over to new blood, a new platform, and a new coalition. It's either that or the party dies and a new one takes its place.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

bushorchimp.com

{insert Democrat monkey comparison- don't have one readily available}

SI

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can Ridge win the Republican primary being pro-choice? Ridge is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and would be their best chance at winning that seat. I'm one of those who felt McCain had a shot at the general election if he had picked Ridge as his running mate.

It's not worth party resources to heavily back a canidate vs Specter in PA. Ridge probably wouldn't beat Toomey anyways, his position on abortion is too liberal.

Plus I think you still get some value out of Specter, even if he's in the opposing party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The same gameplan that worked for the past 30 years - wait for everything to go down the crapper and then take over when the people have enough ill will towards the party in power. From 1990-1994, the economy was poor and there was a ton of angst against Washington. Bush lost to Clinton while the republicans built up their ranks in congress. Everything was fine from 1996 to 2001 and the main party usually won (with Clinton's scandals + Gore's campaign performance allowing W to slip in). Then, 9/11 hit and the republicans started losing seats and the financial crisis sealed for Obama.

There was no real policy matter that decided the 1992-1996 congress switch republican (despite Newt's "contract for America" claims) and while Bush's tax increase didn't help, Clinton won because the economy was bad. Same goes for Obama and the current democrats. The voting public is not nuanced/focused enough to say that a slight shift on trade policy combined with a harder stance on foreign oil made them switch from Republican to Democrat. They look at their jobs, their wallet, the media and see who is in power. If times are good, they stay. But, if times are bad in 4-6 years, you could have a pack of cymbal-toting monkeys running with an (R) and they will probably get elected.

To behave like there's some kind of "mental awakening" in the American public to love one side (or hate the other) is just as foolish as when the republicans did the same from 1996 to 2001. Prosperity equals popularity for incumbents and that will be the same in 1985, 1995, 2005 or 2045. All this other gobbledygook just passes the time between elections

I do agree with you for the most part. Democrats didn't magically become better politicians. The shift was essentially the Republicans fucking everything up and people deciding they'll vote anyone but Republican in the election.

But I do disagree with the last part. I wouldn't call it a "mental awakening", but it's hard to deny that socially we've changed a lot. Two demographics (blacks and hispanics) are growing tremendously. Do you really see them voting Republican if things go bad? We have a young generation that doesn't have a problem with gay people. Do you see them voting Republican anytime soon? And ultimately a society that is becoming less and less religious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

late to this party, but let me just make sure i understand your point in the top part - you're saying that the only way for the GOP to turn things around is for people to essentially stop caring about gay marriage, abortion, etc as electoral issues? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Because i think we can both agree that isn't likely to happen - if anything those trends are likely set to accelerate.

Lemme see here, have to go back at look at the original context to refresh my memory.

You had said

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

Then I said

the part you're asking about

I'm not sure what you're asking me now exactly to be honest. Your contention was that changing demographics worked against them & they would have to "open up the party more" in order to be successful/more competitive/whatever.

I basically said that if you abandon the things that matter most then what's the difference whether you win or lose? Either the GOP stands relatively pat on it's positions or it isn't the same entity that we're talking about today. If it abandons those positions to bring in new voters then it loses a large chunk of what it has now, becoming effectively a different party even if the name remains the same.

We may have a small point of disagreement about what's likely to happen (I'm not entirely sure where you are on this), I believe a split is actually more likely than either a significant shift in policy or a shift in demographic voting patterns, barring an unexpected quick reversal of election results. On the other hand we agree that the social issues aren't likely to go away for a large number of voters.

Part of the current consistent GOP voters will believe they lose because the slate was too conservative -- socially, fiscally, or both -- another part will believe it's because they weren't conservative enough. Either way somebody ends up unhappy enough to be ready to break away. Sort of goes back to that "faction" vs "party" point made earlier in the thread.

Neither of the GOP philosophical blocs can win a national election without the other right now but if they aren't winning them with each other either then the compromise becomes less satisfying and each becomes more likely to at least lose with more of their values intact instead of losing with them compromised.

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total.

And I'd hate for us northerners to make the same mistake a second time of bringing you all back into the Union.

Maybe another General Sherman march through the south would be in order, but for god's sake, don't let them back in the Union.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.

That's still an extremely small percent of the population. Around 20% of Georgians. Much less if you polled Republicans outside that region.

I'm not knocking it as I think more parties and voice would be nice. But splitting up nationally means you guys maybe get 10% of the votes nationally and are essentially irrelevant. Although I guess you would caucus with the Republicans like Bernie Sanders does.

[Tekneek]

How quickly they would change their mind once they realize they lost a benefit they would love to have, though... The ultimate combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Texas was loving the idea of joking about leaving the Union and such, but now they are demanding "their share" of the "national stockpile" of swine flu treatment. Why not just leave the damn USA and find your own stockpile, bitches?