Discussion: What Do Republicans Do Now That America Has Rejected Them? Where do we go from here?

[magickyleo101]

So, it's noteworthy that not only did Romney lose - Democrats kept their standing in the senate where their seats were picked up in 2006 (a Dem reach year, which Dems should have lost from).

So, what happens now? Where do we go from here?

I think Republicans have to drop a number of social issues they've been running thus far (e.g. gay marriage; no abortion after rape). But I also think they have to drop issues like the insistence that there be no tax increases whatsoever in tax rates on the rich, no matter what spending cuts accompany them.

I don't think Republicans are altogether unattractive to the American electorate. God knows, I was one before they went off the deep end in 2010. But Republicans have lost their way in recent years - become too doctrinal, too inclusive ("Rino" Republican comes to mind) - to win an election in the modern American electorate.

[issues]

They need to stop coddling the religious right.

[Aanker]

I have to partly disagree. I think most of the people who would potentially vote for the Republican party are primarily interested in their economic policies. The only thing the Republicans have to get rid of are their socially conservative tendencies which, as you say, do not reflect the times.

[Opus]

I think it is not so much as what the reps will do, but how the dems do. If the economy fails, then the republicans can come back and wouldn't even have to worry about facing Obama who I heard was a good speaker. I would differ, but it is popular opinion that counts.

[Dragus]

I agree entirely regarding the key being social issues. I believe that social conservatism is collapsing and vanishing from the United States. If the Republican Party can drop their socially-repressive stances and focus on their fiscal stances instead, I'm confident they would still be a viable party capable of winning in the United States.

Of course, the large portion of social conservatives that compose the Republican base (and determine who win their primaries) will perhaps make this transformation/reform difficult for them. And the longer they take, the more they will lose and the more those such as myself (individuals who are both fiscally and socially leftist) will take advantage of this.

Having said that though, the day when the Republicans cease to be socially conservative and instead become more libertarian I will still be very pleased, and their constituents will then have my utmost respect as human beings and as citizens.

[motiv-8]

I can't really say that America has rejected Republicans, so this thread is kind of awkward for me.

I mean, they still own the House, the makeup of the Senate is roughly the same, and the Republican candidate for President almost garnered a popular vote win.

[magickyleo101]

I can't really say that America has rejected Republicans, so this thread is kind of awkward for me.

I mean, they still own the House, the makeup of the Senate is roughly the same, and the Republican candidate for President almost garnered a popular vote win.

House and Popular Vote: We don't know yet and need to see how the west coast (largely irrelevant to the pres. campaign) comes in.

Senate: The main story here is that Dems kept the seats they picked up in 2006, which was a reach year for Dems. By all accounts, Dems should have lost seats this year, regardless of which party won the presidency. For the most part, that has to do with Rep. overreaching on issues like rape/abortion, and I doubt any Republican will ever be willing to touch that issue again. But overall, the Senate returns speak volumes - something is wrong with the current Republican pitch. There's something people don't buy.

Also: To Motiv-8 - I'm mostly full of blood lust. You're right to think that my OP wasn't entirely objective. A result of the campaign season, etc., if you will...

[motiv-8]

Also: To Motiv-8 - I'm mostly full of blood lust. You're right to think that my OP wasn't entirely objective. A result of the campaign season, etc., if you will...

Eh, fair enough. Republican until 2010 you say?

[justicar5]

I can't really say that America has rejected Republicans, so this thread is kind of awkward for me.

I mean, they still own the House, the makeup of the Senate is roughly the same, and the Republican candidate for President almost garnered a popular vote win.

I'd have to agree, if it had been a landslide, then that is a rejection, this, this is simply losing.

But I don't think Conon's arguement knew it.

I think its a fitting analogy. Iran's reckless behavior is a threat to world peace, downplaying the act of calculating and deliberating attacking the US military in an internationally sanctioned zone from what it truly is (different from the established norm) would be wrong.

Is shooting down a drone comparable with firing on a manned aircraft...or is it more akin to the laser dazzlers used on surveillance satellites, as China did in 2006? Destroy a surveillance capability without killing anyone. Not that #I likle the Iranian government, but as they are better than our 'allies' in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, calling them names is a touch hypocritical.

[Dick Cheney.]

I'd have to agree, if it had been a landslide, then that is a rejection, this, this is simply losing.



Is shooting down a drone comparable with firing on a manned aircraft...or is it more akin to the laser dazzlers used on surveillance satellites, as China did in 2006?

I think its more akin to this...
http://nyjtimes.com/cover/06-27-06/I...sUSCarrier.htm

Apparently the US did not shoot down the drone (international waters)... all the stuff about it being undetected is a bunch of horse dump.

[frozenprince]

Bipartisanship is still the name of the game.

Republicans lost the white house but kept the house and didn't lose much in the senate. So yea, not even close to dead yet.

[Misery]

Bipartisanship is still the name of the game.

Republicans lost the white house but kept the house and didn't lose much in the senate. So yea, not even close to dead yet.

No other president was reelected with such a high unemployment, this election was for Republicans to loose not for Democrats to win.

They lost two seats to Dems because of social issues, mainly birth control

[Surgeon]

It's just like when USA rejected the Democrats back in 2000 and 2004 and they had to all but scrap their policies!



Though to be fair they did make a 180 or two since then.

[DarthShizNit]

They need to get their together with latinos.

[magickyleo101]

They need to get their together with latinos.

I heard a quote from Lindsey Grahm to that effect. Something like "we're not losing all the minorities because we're not being big enough hard asses on poor people."

LEARN Republicans.

[tarvu]

I think it is obvious what they will do, two more years of trying to block any progress and drive our country into the ground in the hopes that it will get them elected.

I expect more debt crisis and more shameless conspiracy theories to appeal to the far right nutjobs that now form their most promising base.

As for the Democrats picking up seats in the senate, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Those Republicans were not exactly fit to be in the senate. People like Mourdock and Todd Aikin belong in the house with other freaks like Bachmann maybe, but even in a red state like Missouri the mainstream realizes they are not fit for such a high office. Republicans should enjoy their status as annoying pricks while it lasts though because demographics paint a very bleak future for their kind.

I'd say they will have to moderate to survive, but since social conservatism is an ideology of desperation losses like this probably just steel their resolve if anything.

Now if they could just achieve their party goals of voter suppression and taking the election of senators away from the people they could crawl back in the ring!

[DaVinci]

I think it is obvious what they will do, two more years of trying to block any progress and drive our country into the ground in the hopes that it will get them elected.

I expect more debt crisis and more shameless conspiracy theories to appeal to the far right nutjobs that now form their most promising base.

As for the Democrats picking up seats in the senate, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Those Republicans were not exactly fit to be in the senate. People like Mourdock and Todd Aikin belong in the house with other freaks like Bachmann maybe, but even in a red state like Missouri the mainstream realizes they are not fit for such a high office. Republicans should enjoy their status as annoying pricks while it lasts though because demographics paint a very bleak future for their kind.

I'd say they will have to moderate to survive, but since social conservatism is an ideology of desperation losses like this probably just steel their resolve if anything.

Now if they could just achieve their party goals of voter suppression and taking the election of senators away from the people they could crawl back in the ring!

Bold: Exactly.

This most worse politics of the GOP politicians might help Libertarians in future US (although many Republicans are pretty much Libertarians regarding economics), who on the other side are the last ones who can govern a modern state or a states union, as they have not a slightest clue of modern economics and society.

Dear US citizens, there are only the Democrats.

[Nietzsche]

Bold: Exactly.

This most worse politics of the GOP politicians might help Libertarians in future US (although many Republicans are pretty much Libertarians regarding economics), who on the other side are the last ones who can govern a modern state or a states union, as they have not a slightest clue of modern economics and society.

Dear US citizens, there are only the Democrats.

Good thing your opinion is about as worthwhile as nipples on a birdbath. I love all the Euro's singing Obama's praises. Until their country starts raining bombs from drones I guess they'll love him no matter what. No one won today. The can just gets kicked down the road again.

[DaVinci]

Good thing your opinion is about as worthwhile as nipples on a birdbath. I love all the Euro's singing Obama's praises. Until their country starts raining bombs from drones I guess they'll love him no matter what. No one won today. The can just gets kicked down the road again.

Bad thing, your "substancial" posts are about as worthwile as dirt under fingernails.

FYI, Nietzsche: Your country voted.
And one can only hope that Obama administration gets a chance to make politics with the House.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Bold: Exactly.

This most worse politics of the GOP politicians might help Libertarians in future US (although many Republicans are pretty much Libertarians regarding economics), who on the other side are the last ones who can govern a modern state or a states union, as they have not a slightest clue of modern economics and society.

Republicans are not "libertarian on economics" because the GOP supports central banks, Big Finance, subsidy programs for special interests and donors, and a military that polices the planet. As long as the GOP and Democrats get their money from the same place, they will continue to be separate in name only.

Dear US citizens, there are only the Democrats.

You mean the Liberal Republicans? My god, tripe like the above statement is truly ridiculous. Think. Obama has continued all of Bush's policies, expanded US presence in the Medieval East and North Africa, and nearly doubled the national debt and deficit. Gee, what a swell guy.

You have to examine the agenda of the evangelicals. It is at odds with the Tea Party and Libertarians. We need to simply drop evangelicals altogether except the occasional "Hiya" speech. Quit making speeches to a national audience that appease them. Quit bringing the social platform into the races. Isolate and marginalize the evangelicals as a voting bloc and reform the party platform to appeal to right leaning independents. The turnout this year was weak. Time to move on to a younger more energetic crowd.

The Tea Party is not Libertarian, neither is the former "at odds" with the Evangelical voting bloc. I've been to Tea Party meetings and I receive their emails. They are ultra-Conservative Republicans and Evangelical Christians high on Grover Norquist, romanticized history, and baseless focus group language.

I think it is obvious what they will do, two more years of trying to block any progress and drive our country into the ground in the hopes that it will get them elected.

The Democrats had nearly two years of supermajority control in Congress prior to the 2010 elections. Stop drinking the cool aid. "Driving our country into the ground?" Please. The country's been on a parabolic path to empire and collapse since the 1890s. You're catching the end of the show pal. You want to know why the country is a mess? Follow the money back to Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, and Congress.

"Block any progress?" That's a gem. Let's see, what have the Democrats done that would have or will prove so wonderful?

Cap and Trade(failed): A new system of energy taxes and hopelessly distorted markets.
Obamacare: Public healthcare? No. A giant subsidy program for insurance companies and healthcare providers. Tacking another doomed entitlement concept onto the sinking ship.
Nearly two uncontested years during which no budget was passed. A little conspicuous, eh?
Obama's latest budget: Huge tax hike while failing to come even close to CBO debt control targets.
Increased military presence in the Medieval East and Africa. Obama, a Democrat, did this?
Executive Order enabling the President to use military force against US citizens on US soil. Courtesy of Bush and Obama
Billions wasted on "green projects" in which former campaign donors pocketed the cash and ran.

....The list goes on and on. Looks to me like your Democrat heroes have been pretty busy. Aren't you proud?

I expect more debt crisis

Both parties spend money like coke addicts. Obama and Bush have spent more than all previous admins combined. Your Democrat heroes aren't exactly solving the problem.

As for the Democrats picking up seats in the senate, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Those Republicans were not exactly fit to be in the senate. People like Mourdock and Todd Aikin belong in the house with other freaks like Bachmann maybe, but even in a red state like Missouri the mainstream realizes they are not fit for such a high office. Republicans should enjoy their status as annoying pricks while it lasts though because demographics paint a very bleak future for their kind.

Shameless and completely uninformed partisanship such as yours grants me the comfort of knowing that many in this country will deserve the humiliation and suffering that will follow this experiment in civic self-destruction.

I'd say they will have to moderate to survive, but since social conservatism is an ideology of desperation losses like this probably just steel their resolve if anything.

Ugh. Try not to quote pundits, and if you do, at least cite them. The GOP tried to "moderate" in 2008. McCain didn't really work out. At all.

Now if they could just achieve their party goals of voter suppression and taking the election of senators away from the people they could crawl back in the ring!

Erm, rescinding the 17th Amendment would be a nearly impossible task, one, and two, this would merely restore some checks and balances to the Caesarian Democracy mess that the Progressive Party deliberately created (Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures, as a counter to the populist House; part of Great Compromise of 1787). How is that a bad thing?