News What will improve Republicans chances next time?

[rootX]

Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
[STRIKE]3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders[/STRIKE]
4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.

 

[Jim Kata]

I think they should move further to the right. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Evo]

Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders
4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.

But then they wouldn't be Republicans...

 

[rootX]

But then they wouldn't be Republicans...

They will surely be Republicans with 1 and 2 points. I forgot to remove #3 points also so I will do that now. I don't consider that to be important. However, I think #4 is important. They must adapt to changing demographics. I recall coming across articles about minorities growing faster than white population. And, I believe Bush and Obama didn't have any differences between how to handle illegal immigration. So either Republican or Democrat President you wouldn't have huge differences in how to handle the illegal immigration IMO. Republicans just shouldn't be too passionate about this anti-illegal-immigration topic.

 

[ParticleGrl]

For me personally to come back:
1. Own the policies republicans championed in the 90s. I like free market solutions to healthcare. The shift away from these policies ' 'Our healthcare is the best in the world!', etc) is largely why I stopped voting republican.
2. Stop signing Norquist's pledge- lawmakers NEED to be able to respond to changing situations, and being locked into "no tax hikes ever" prevents compromise.
3. Relax on social issues in favor of fiscal issues. I feel like Republicans and Democrats are really a sort of centrist hobson's choice on a lot of women's issues, HOWEVER, the Republican rhetoric is abhorrent.

 

[SixNein]

Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
[STRIKE]3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders[/STRIKE]
4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.

If anything, I expect them to go further to the right.

 

[Pythagorean]

Gay rights and women's rights. Gay rights just passed 50% approval. It's been steadily increasing for 40 years because there's absolutely no justification for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.

Dissociate with religion, too. Romney actually did a good job of that. I'm quite impressed (with America) that a Mormon did so well.

 

[CAC1001]

But then they wouldn't be Republicans...

Why not? If they'd just stick to the issues of limited-government, fiscal conservatism, free-market solutions, low taxes, and national security, I think they'd do a lot better among the groups they struggle with. The whole anti-gay, anti-choice, impose religion on people, agenda seems to be more due to the power of the Evangelical wing the party is beholden to.

 

[rootX]

Gay rights and women's rights. Gay rights just passed 50% approval. It's been steadily increasing for 40 years because there's absolutely no justification for denying people rights based on their sexual orientation.

Dissociate with religion, too. Romney actually did a good job of that. I'm quite impressed (with America) that a Mormon did so well.

Yes, I felt Romney was really good. But, he just failed to clarify his fiscal policies. He should have only and only focused on that.

3. Relax on social issues in favor of fiscal issues.

Exactly! This point summarizes everything I said the OP.

2. Stop signing Norquist's pledge- lawmakers NEED to be able to respond to changing situations, and being locked into "no tax hikes ever" prevents compromise.

Now you are really asking them to go non-conservatives

 

[CAC1001]

For me personally to come back:
1. Own the policies republicans championed in the 90s. I like free market solutions to healthcare. The shift away from these policies 'Our healthcare is the best in the world!', etc) is largely why I stopped voting republican.

What free-market solutions to healthcare are you thinking of though?

2. Stop signing Norquist's pledge- lawmakers NEED to be able to respond to changing situations, and being locked into "no tax hikes ever" prevents compromise.

Tax hikes are pointless though if spending is not at least controlled in the process.

3. Relax on social issues in favor of fiscal issues. I feel like Republicans and Democrats are really a sort of centrist hobson's choice on a lot of women's issues, HOWEVER, the Republican rhetoric is abhorrent.

I agree.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Now you are really asking them to go non-conservatives

No. I'm not asking them to advocate higher taxes, I'm asking them to be willing to be somewhat flexible. George H.W. Bush used a tax increase as leverage to squeeze out spending concessions- but he got attacked by the party for it. That can't keep happening.

Stand for a smaller welfare state and lower taxes, but recognize that some problems might require tax increases (Reagan raised taxes when necessary, as did H.W. Bush).

I stand by the Republican party that once was in trusting the market to find a way.

What free-market solutions to healthcare are you thinking of though?

Slowly push healthcare out of the employer market and towards individual exchanges, etc. Basically, the core ideas of the Gingrich/Romney/Obama plan that has passed. One of the largest reasons I used to vote republican and now vote democrat is that the solutions I thought were good ideas used to be advocated by Republicans and now are advocated by Democrats. Which is weird- because I'm not that old.

 

[MarneMath]

I grew up in a very republican house hold and I find that I'm inclined to like many of there ideas, but the problem I have is not so much with ideas but with attitude. So if I had to say what the Republicans need to do is adopt a better attitude. I would like to see a stop to "Welfare is for lazy minorities who all drugs", "Gays are bad", and "the world hates us because we're just to damn awesome!' mentality.

I understand not all republicans are like this, but from my day to day interaction with people who call themselves conservatives, this seems be prominent. It seems like the fiscally conservative but socially open people who at one time may have been republican decided it's better to leave the party than associate with the fringe.

 

[CAC1001]

No. I'm not asking them to advocate higher taxes, I'm asking them to be willing to be somewhat flexible. George H.W. Bush used a tax increase as leverage to squeeze out spending concessions- but he got attacked by the party for it. That can't keep happening.

Reagan was promised spending cuts for one of his tax increases, and the Congress reversed itself quickly on that. He signed a FICA tax increase to shore up Social Security. George H. W. Bush signed a tax increase with spending cuts promised, but they never materialized.

Stand for a smaller welfare state and lower taxes, but recognize that some problems might require tax increases (Reagan raised taxes when necessary, as did H.W. Bush).

Democrats need to also recognize that some problems require controls on spending as well.

Ridiculous. The whole point of a market based regulation is to create a market niche and let the market find a way to fill it! As soon as there is incentive, people will start work on developing carbon sequestration, and probably other ideas no one has thought of yet. The reason the technology isn't mature is that there isn't a market for it.

What you are arguing is that:
1. free market reform won't work for carbon cap-and-trade because in this one instance, markets aren't innovative enough.

I stand by the Republican party that once was in trusting the market to find a way.

Now you are the one who sounds like they have a little too much faith in the free-market! Just because you tax something doesn't mean the market will solve it immediately. That's like saying if they taxed highly internal combustion-engined cars, that the market would find a replacement. But what? Electric cars haven't been viable for one-hundred years now. We don't have a viable replacement for the incandescent light bulb. We don't have a viable replacement for petroleum even. Such policies need to wait for the technology to become viable. Just having faith that the technology will become viable soon if there's an incentive doesn't mean it will. We've been subsidizing solar panel technology for years now and it still isn't viable.

 

[MarneMath]

(interjection, but how are CFL and LED lamps not viable?)

 

[Mute]

Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
[STRIKE]3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders[/STRIKE]
4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.

I think respecting the state-church boundary is absolutely important. If I were to stay in the US long enough to think it worth it to acquire citizenship, I would be hard pressed to ever vote Republican if many of their policy decisions were still being made on the basis of the religious convictions of a portion of their membership. Perhaps I agree with too many of the Democrat positions on social, education and health care issues to really ever find myself firmly in Moderate territory, but I see pandering to the portions of the religious right trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the nation as one of the main barriers to me ever voting for the Conservatives in Canada or the Republicans in the US if I had American citizenship.

Maybe it's just too much of a stretch and I'm just asking Republicans not to be Republicans, though. :)

 

[ParticleGrl]

Reagan was promised spending cuts for one of his tax increases, and the Congress reversed itself quickly on that.

Source? According to the poli-sci book I have in front of me, the real rate of growth in federal spending fell from ~4% to ~2.5% under Reagan. Thats a materialized massive spending cut.

George H. W. Bush signed a tax increase with spending cuts promised, but they never materialized.

Yes, they did. H.W. Bush pushed through a mild tax increase BUT also pushed through the pay-as-you-go rules as part of the compromise after the government shutdown. The pay-as-you-go rules helped keep spending in check for years, until W. Bush and the Republicans suspended them.

That's like saying if they taxed highly internal combustion-engined cars, that the market would find a replacement

Yes, it would. Look at Europe- higher taxes on gasoline and autos than the US- what happens: more trains, rent-a-bicycle stations in cities, those tiny smart cars, more of those vespa scooters, etc. Also,if internal combustion cars were more expensive (because of taxes), electrical cars would obviously be more appealing at the margin.

If you cap-and-trade, then you allow the market to distribute who gets to emit the most. Places that can reduce their carbon output in simple ways (turning the lights off in the office at night, high efficiency appliances, more efficient deliveries to minimize miles driven etc) have an incentive to do so. Cap and trade doesn't force everyone to reduce their emissions- it allows the market to find those industries that can reduce.

 

[jobyts]

No major ideological change is going to happen. Unfortunately.

Marco Rubio will be the next vice-presidential candidate. That's it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Historically, one party gains power when the other either overreaches, or there is a strong negative event. For example, suppose we finally maxed out our national credit card and interest rates looked like 1981's in a year. Then the interest on the debt would move from 6% of the budget to 12% in the first year and 25% by election day. That would cause either massive service cuts, tax increases, or more likely both. That would cause a sea change.

 

[CAC1001]

Source? According to the poli-sci book I have in front of me, the real rate of growth in federal spending fell from ~4% to ~2.5% under Reagan. Thats a materialized massive spending cut.

In 1982, Reagan signed a tax increase with a promise from Tip O'Neil that they'd reduce spending by $3 for every $1 of increased revenue. One week later Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill that reneged on this promise and increased spending. Reagan vetoed it and the Congress over-rode his veto.

Yes, they did. H.W. Bush pushed through a mild tax increase BUT also pushed through the pay-as-you-go rules as part of the compromise after the government shutdown. The pay-as-you-go rules helped keep spending in check for years, until W. Bush and the Republicans suspended them.

Yes, but the spending cuts themselves never materialized (unless I am looking at the data wrong, but if you go to usgovernmentspending.com and look at the chart of U.S. government spending from 1990 on, spending continued going up and the deficit increased from 1990 to 1992). Although from my understanding, making any serious cuts would have been very difficult to do anyway as most of the easy cuts had already been made in the Reagan years. The Republicans should not have ended pay-as-you-go.

Yes, it would. Look at Europe- higher taxes on gasoline and autos than the US- what happens: more trains, rent-a-bicycle stations in cities, those tiny smart cars, more of those vespa scooters, etc. Also,if internal combustion cars were more expensive (because of taxes), electrical cars would obviously be more appealing at the margin.

Trains, bicycles, smart cars, and vespa scooters are not what I'd call viable replacements for the internal combustion engine, they are what happens when you do not yet have a viable replacement, and thus people must then sacrifice.

Also, you're missing the point about electrical cars: it's not just that they are too costly, it's that they're not viable period. They have too small a range and take hours to charge. The current hybrid electirc cars that have a small engine in them have a problem with catching fire when they get submerged in water. If electric cars get where hte charge will take you the same distance and/or last as long as a conventional engine will, and you can also charge it up in five minutes or less, then they will start to be viable.

If you cap-and-trade, then you allow the market to distribute who gets to emit the most. Places that can reduce their carbon output in simple ways (turning the lights off in the office at night, high efficiency appliances, more efficient deliveries to minimize miles driven etc) have an incentive to do so. Cap and trade doesn't force everyone to reduce their emissions- it allows the market to find those industries that can reduce.

Things like turning off the lights at night and high-efficiency appliances are small changes. Also high-efficiency appliances tend to cost more, so you are increasing the cost of energy for people and then forcing them to buy more costly appliances. Plus our energy needs are continually increasing as the economy grows.

 

[CAC1001]

(interjection, but how are CFL and LED lamps not viable?)

Because they don't naturally produce light of equal quality with incandescents and have their own share of problems that incandescents do not have. With CFLs, you have the problem of mercury in them, and also that they take awhile to light up and produce a harsh quality of light. They have ones with a soft quality of light that are very close to incandescents and which light up instantly, but those cost a lot more (and regular CFLs cost a lot more than incandescents).

LED lamps produce directional, very white light. An incandescent scatters the light naturally and produces light of the appropriate color naturally. To get an LED to do so requires a lot of complicated engineering and manufacturing. Since LED light is directional, they have to array individual LED lights within the LED "bulb" (as LEDs are technically electronics) in a circular fashion. But then there's the problem of getting the light to scatter up and down, which requires further engineering. Then there's the problem of the color. For this, they coat the interior of the light "bulb" covering with a material that, when it interacts with the LED light, produces a softer quality of light.

Point is, none of that is an improvement over a regular incandescent. It would be like saying a diesel-electric hybrid car that gets 100+ mpg (which I think they can make) would be an improvement in vehicle technology. If it costs the same as Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, and gets that, then sure, but right now, it's so costly, it wouldn't be a viable alternative. Or televisions. A television that was more (supposedly) energy-efficient, but got worse picture-quality than any modern TV and cost 4X as much I wouldn't call an improvement. With the light bulbs, not only is it questionable if they are even as energy-efficient as claimed, but their light-quality doesn't match that of a very cheap, simple incandescent.

A real improvement is something like modern computers over older computers: cheaper, much more powerful, and more and more energy-efficient.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Yes, but the spending cuts themselves never materialized (unless I am looking at the data wrong, but if you go to usgovernmentspending.com and look at the chart of U.S. government spending from 1990 on, spending continued going up and the deficit increased from 1990 to 1992.

You have to remember there was a recession at the end of the H.W. Bush's presidency. Recessions cause automatic stabilizers (unemployment, medicaid,etc) cost to go up. You need to unentangle the recession from the data to make ajudgement.

Trains, bicycles, smart cars, and vespa scooters are not what I'd call viable replacements for the internal combustion engine, they are what happens when you do not yet have a viable replacement, and thus people must then sacrifice.

I think you are misunderstanding what viable means. For some people, replacing your car with a bike is viable, so SOME people do it given the incentive. For others, downsizing to a smart car might be viable, etc. The increased cost of the car lead people to find other solutions for transportation. Because there is no invention that is EXACTLY THE SAME as a car, people didn't switch cars for this new invention. But instead, lots of niches open up. The short range car replacement, the low-horsepower/high-gas mileage car, the long range transportation option, etc.

If the replacement weren't 'viable' people wouldn't do it, and they'd be left with no transportation. If you live in Europe, it can be annoying that gas is more expensive but it rarely limits your ability to actually travel.

A tax on gas or automobiles reshapes how people travel in Europe, and probably increases some hard-to-measure "annoyance" index at the margin, but it hasn't eliminated people's ability to travel to work, or vacation, or wherever.

Also, you're missing the point about electrical cars: it's not just that they are too costly, it's that they're not viable period.

They're viable for some people, and not for others. I live in a city and bike to work- for me that was viable. I have a job near enough to where I live, and the weather here is about 70 degrees F all year long, so I'm not going to be freezing or covered in sweat.

The overwhelming majority of my car use is driving to the grocery store and back- if the cost of car ownership went up (lets say cost to park increased, or gas keeps going up), I'd consider taking the bus, or just using one of those Go-Car things I keep seeing around. For me personally, an electric car is very viable, but its too expensive. I know lots of people just like me who could make the transition pretty easily.

Should everybody switch? Of course not, but we should incentives switching at the margin. Thats how technology matures. At the start, niche technology is aimed at niche consumers, and the profit from that gets reinvested into making a better product. As the technology gets better, it makes more sense for people to adopt.

Things like turning off the lights at night and high-efficiency appliances are small changes. Also high-efficiency appliances tend to cost more, so you are increasing the cost of energy for people and then forcing them to buy more costly appliances. Plus our energy needs are continually increasing as the economy grows.

The whole point of cap-and-trade is to encourage those people who can switch to switch, while those can't won't. A lot of small changes can supply a steady stream of carbon credits to necessary industry. I trust a market to effectively distribute "carbon credits" to those with the highest need to emit.

Anyway, I think I'm repeating myself. I'm not going to respond again unless you have a new argument. You're just reiterating rephrased versions "markets can't work well enough to distribute carbon emissions.", and the thread is getting off-topic. Either way, I think we can agree cap-and-trade is a potential free-market attempt at managing global warming, and the Republican party should be big enough to include policy makers who believe that- as it was < 20 years ago.

 

[Containment]

I'v come to the conclusion that the republican party does not really even "want" to win the presidency. It's actually a smart move if you think about it and probably their best shot at keeping control of congress.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Relevant to this is the fact that in 2000 80% of muslims in America voted republican yet only four years later it was 4% and nothing much has changed since. An interesting account of one muslim republican's experience
http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/11/the-gop-and-me.html

 

[MarneMath]

Interesting read, and I think that blog sums up why it's so hard for the Republican party to be relevant. I can't cast a vote for a party that excludes people for religion or race. Even if I find I'm more inclined to agree with their economic policies, the social constraint and the ignorance bothers me. I guess it would bother me so much more because there exist no leader in the party who will say, 'NO, these people are Americans, different than the mainstream sure why not, but we have a common goal and common values.' Sadly, this rationalizism is sorely missing.

 

[m k]

Is it all over if Texas turns blue?

 

[russ_watters]

Would I like to see my party divorced from the religious right? Sure. But this election was so close that I don't think major changes are necessary. If Romney were a millionaire instead of a billionaire, with identical ideas, he probably would have won. I think people are focusing on their own personal wishlists instead of what is actually needed.

That said, there are two potential long-term troule areas:
-Women
-Latinas

People will vote on issues they are passionate about, even if those issues are irrelevant, like abortion. I think that's a mistake, but it is a reality the GOP will probably want to deal with. The best way is probably just to ignore it.

Latinas are a growing segment of the population. There are palteable compromises to be made there.

 

[AlephZero]

That said, there are two potential long-term troule areas:
-Women
-Latinas

Actually, you could reduce that to one trouble area: white males. There ain't enough of them any more, and the population trend is not going to change that any time soon.

Based on what happens in UK politics I would expect the GOP to spend the next 8 or 12 years reinventing itself as something completely different, and then returning into power. Both the main UK parties have done that within the last 30 years.

Paradoxically, Obama could probably speed up the process by being merciless with them over the "fiscal cliff". If they want to jump off the edge, let them, and spend the next 4 years hammering home the message that it wasn't the Democrats who wrecked the ecomony - again. Or if they want to tear themselves apart coming to some sort of compromise (entirely on Obama's terms) that would kick start the re-invention process.

But I suspect Obama is fundamentally too much of a "nice guy" to go down that road.

 

[russ_watters]

Relevant to this is the fact that in 2000 80% of muslims in America voted republican yet only four years later it was 4% and nothing much has changed since. An interesting account of one muslim republican's experience
http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/11/the-gop-and-me.html

Perception issues like this are baffling to me. Obama was viewed as strong terrorism in this election because he did virtually nothing different from Bush. Was the lip service he paid to closing 'Gitmo all it took to create this perception? Or was it his muslim background? If it is the latter, that advantage might disappear in 4 yrs.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding cap and trade: most people didn't notice, but carbon emission reduced itself, so this issue is pretty much irrelevant for right now, until people absorb that and reformulate their goals.

 

[russ_watters]

Re: white males. Pundits label white males as if they are a monolithic voting bloc, but the reality is that they are probably the most diverse, ideologically. So it is completely backwards to say the Republican party focuses too much on white males.

That's just a biased liberal media characterization people fall for.

 

[aquitaine]

Relevant to this is the fact that in 2000 80% of muslims in America voted republican yet only four years later it was 4% and nothing much has changed since. An interesting account of one muslim republican's experience
http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/11/the-gop-and-me.html

Given their small numbers I really doubt most people would view that as a significant loss, especially after Obama's mealy mouthed response to the Libya attacks.

 

[D H]

Hopefully not so hot topic, what changes would you like in Republicans other than them turning into non-conservatives?

Few things I would like, ordered in terms of importance:
1) Have a more clear job creation and economic growth plan
2) Kick out people who think there are different kinds or rapes or who cannot name news papers
[STRIKE]3) Be more aware of the global affairs and bit more diplomatic in dealing with outsiders[/STRIKE]
4) More welcoming to Hispanics and other growing minorities

Respecting state-church separation was also on my list but I don't think it's important enough.

5) Ban cell phones and recording devices from those private fund raisers. Keep those 47% remarks private.
6) Stop holding so many primary debates. These debates provide yet another source of statements that Democrats can turn into anti-Republican commercials. It's best if the general public doesn't know the true nature of the candidates put forth by the party. (Yes, this is a serious proposal by some in the Republican establishment.)
7) Move even further to the right. Get rid of those last few RINOs, and get rid of that big tent philosophy.
8) Make sure the 2016 presidential candidate makes Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan look like members of the far left. The Goldwater-style spanking that will inevitably result may finally make the Republican Party see the light of day.

 

[lisab]

Would I like to see my party divorced from the religious right? Sure. But this election was so close that I don't think major changes are necessary. If Romney were a millionaire instead of a billionaire, with identical ideas, he probably would have won. I think people are focusing on their own personal wishlists instead of what is actually needed.

That said, there are two potential long-term troule areas:
-Women
-Latinas

People will vote on issues they are passionate about, even if those issues are irrelevant, like abortion. I think that's a mistake, but it is a reality the GOP will probably want to deal with. The best way is probably just to ignore it.

Latinas are a growing segment of the population. There are palteable compromises to be made there.

Don't you mean Latinos, i.e. both males and females of Latin American decent?

And for people who have a uterus, abortion is far from irrelevant, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't you mean Latinos, i.e. both males and females of Latin American decent?

And for people who have a uterus, abortion is far from irrelevant, IMO.

I canot spel...in any language.

How many people with uteruses (uteri?) have abortions? How much about the legal issues surrounding abortion changed while Bush was in office? The issue is only relevant in that people with uteruses are passionate about it. It is not relevant insofar as affecting many peoples' lives or our vote affecting the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Quick correction: white men are actually not the least monolithic demographic, they are the second least behind white women.

 

[D H]

How many people with uteruses (uteri?) have abortions?

That's not the issue. The issue is that the freedom to have an abortion is important to some. It's a "there but for the grace of god" kind of issue.

How much about the legal issues surrounding abortion changed while Bush was in office?

That also is not the issue. The issue is that the Republican party very explicitly wants to change to legal status surrounding abortion.

The issue is only relevant in that people with uteruses are passionate about it. It is not relevant insofar as affecting many peoples' lives or our vote affecting the issue.

You perceive that issue as irrelevant because you don't have a uterus. You probably aren't called upon to advise a friend or a relative who is considering having an abortion, or to console one who did. People with uteruses tend to go to other people with uteruses for that advice and consolation. You are blissfully unaware of the internal conflict.

Most people, men and women, would prefer to be able to vote for a President on big picture issues. What's best for the country as a whole? However, special interests can dominate over those big picture concerns when one party does something exceedingly brilliant or egregiously stupid. The Republican party with it's post-2010 makeup has become egregiously stupid with respect to women's issues. The Republican party has become egregiously stupid about a whole lot of issues.

Obligatory xkcd: xkcd.com/1127

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not blissfully unaware, I'm dispassionate. What I know is this:

1. The choice of Romney vs Obama is much more likely to affect economic policy than abortion policy.
2. Economic policy directly affects everyone, but abortion policy does not.

I don't know if there is an opposite of "blissfully unaware", but if there is, it would be defined as reacting strongly to an issue because it is highly emotionally charged, even though it has little practical impact.

 

[ParticleGrl]

1. The choice of Romney vs Obama is much more likely to affect economic policy than abortion policy.

Even this isn't necessarily true. MA Mitt, the technocrat, wouldn't be much different than Obama in policy. Primary Mitt/campaign Mitt until the first debate would very different. Its hard to know exactly what he was running on because they never released detailed plans (what tax loop holes did he want to close?), and because he made so many conflicting statements.

Also- remember that it has been a republican strategy to pull out the base on issues like Abortion, gay-rights,etc, primarily because a lot of their economic policy is unpopular.

 

[russ_watters]

Particlegirl, the US carbon emission reduction has virtually nothing to do with the world economic situation. It is almost exclusively the result of tecnological advancements in methane extraction.

I should probably start a new thread on this because I don't think many people are aware of what has happened.

 

[Pythagorean]

For the people that may actually like Rep economic policy, but think human rights are more important, I think Reps could actually increase their base significantly if they stopped intruding (or enabling the intruders in their party) on gay/women's rights. It's a matter of principle.

There were a lot of example of ignorance with regard to pregnancy this election cycle, all Republican who were in office. Even if they're not representative, that's the impression the public is given.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, browsing the exit polls, it looks to me like another popular assumption is bunk:

-More educated people favored Obama? Nope.

I also think Republican economic policy is more popular than Democrats are willing to admit, but I'm going to need to research that.

 

[D H]

I don't think 'continue to create global depressions' is a long term strategy for reducing carbon emissions. If carbon were reducing because of actual shifts in output, instead of just less output, it might be meaningful.

Please keep in mind that anthropomorphic climate change is a forbidden topic at this site. The problem is that we don't have adequate expertise (or time!) on board amongst the mentors to properly handle the incredibly rancorous debates that inevitably arise on this topic.

Please continue discussing how to improve the Republican party, but at the same time, please do keep discussions on topics related to global warming out of the picture.

 

[Pythagorean]

Also, browsing the exit polls, it looks to me like another popular assumption is bunk:

-More educated people favored Obama? Nope.

Where did you get that? I'm seeing the opposite of what you say...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

 

[Pythagorean]

Strike that, it's 2008

 

[russ_watters]

?? Looks to me like it wasn't true in 2008 either.

 

[Pythagorean]

Looks like Romney's biggest supporters were old white religious males:

http://www.cbsnews.com/election-results-2012/exit.shtml?state=US&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=G

 

[Pythagorean]

?? Looks to me like it wasn't true in 2008 either.

To honestly answer the question, you'd have to separate the old white males (who would have had a chance to get a degree in the first place) from the younger people who haven't made it through college yet. I.e. what happens if we subtract the old white males from the education question... or do they control for that already?

It doesn't really seem like a straight forward analysis.

 

[Pythagorean]

Here's a gallup poll that shows increase in Obama support with education for 2009-2010 year. I wonder how many people like me didn't vote (because we know it doesn't make a difference) but prefer Obama over Romney.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125423/americans-postgraduate-education-back-obama.aspx

 

[D H]

?? Looks to me like it wasn't true in 2008 either.

Look at how postgraduates voted, Russ.

Even more striking is to look at how voting amongst college graduates (and even more striking, postgraduates) has changed over the decades. I'll try to dig up some detailed stats later. College graduates used to vote as a very reliably Republican block. By 2008 that very reliable Republican block had fallen to a 50/50 coin toss. Those with more than a bachelor's degree had switched from solidly Republican to solidly Democratic.

The perceived war on science by the Republican party is one many things the Republicans need to fix if they don't want to once again become the permanent minority party. My perception that this war is very real was one of the key reasons I switched from voting predominantly Republican to predominantly Democratic this time around.

 

[Pythagorean]

We should also consider.. money talks. Obama's top supporters are members of the following institutions:

University of California $1,092,906
Microsoft Corp $761,343
Google Inc $737,055
US Government $627,628
Harvard University $602,992
Kaiser Permanente $532,674
Stanford University $473,372
Deloitte LLP $430,084
Columbia University $411,894
Time Warner $408,512
DLA Piper $393,102
Sidley Austin LLP $377,133
University of Chicago $325,256
Comcast Corp $320,366
IBM Corp $318,645
US Dept of State $308,926
University of Michigan $308,410

Compared to Mitt Romney:

Goldman Sachs $994,139
Bank of America $921,839
Morgan Stanley $827,255
JPMorgan Chase & Co $792,147
Credit Suisse Group $618,941
Wells Fargo $598,379
Deloitte LLP $554,552
Kirkland & Ellis $496,722
Citigroup Inc $465,063
Barclays $428,250
PricewaterhouseCoopers $421,085
UBS AG $400,390
HIG Capital $385,500
Blackstone Group $360,225
Ernst & Young $293,067
EMC Corp $288,440
General Electric $287,495
Elliott Management $281,925
Bain Capital $279,220
Rothman Institute $263,700