News What will improve Republicans chances next time?

[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

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see what old white males have to do with the question and since the voting age is 18, there couldn't possibly be much change in separating out 18 year olds. High school grads and college grads voted exactly the same way.

 

[russ_watters]

DH, RE postgrad: Yes, I see it.

...?

 

[Mentalist]

Change the leaders of the party. But then again, I would never vote republican because all they do is rehash the most grating ideas for the country, "lower taxes, re-position educational programs, and increased military spending".

 

[CAC1001]

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.

This is a good point.

 

[mathwonk]

I suspect Republicans would be a lot more believable on "lower taxes" arguments if they would agree that high earners like Romney should pay at the same tax rate as middle class families pay, not half. if everyone pays his share, it lowers taxes for a lot of people. without that I think it is hard to make a case that Republicans care about anyone but the wealthy.

E.g. Mr. Romney asserted a desire to close loopholes in the tax code. If he would begin a campaign now, to close the many loopholes that he himself took advantage of, such as off shore accounts, sham charitable trusts that seem designed to leave "little or nothing" for the designated charity after his own withdrawals, and the many other tax dodges revealed in his own returns over the past few years, I believe he would gain a lot of credibility.

I may be naive, but these issues of fairness and responsibility seem in line with the traditional values Republicans espouse.

But I don't think this will be easy to do, since Republicans seem to derive much of their financial support from entities that benefit from financial inequities such as banks. For the same reason, looking at the lists of top donors above, it appears as if Democrats would have a hard time asking big beneficiaries of "non profit" tax exemptions, and government "research" grants, to pay their share as well, such as large universities. (You may favor research, but if like me you have actually generated some of those grants by your own work, you know much of the money goes into the "overhead" slush fund controlled by university research vice presidents).

 

[russ_watters]

So then you are just assuming that the loopholes he and other Republicans would close would not include the loopholes for the rich, right?

I also find it incredulous to suggest that Republicans are only interested in helping the rich, when the Bush tax cuts applied to everyone. The party trying to single out one group is the other one.

Also, your slicing of the groups is wrong: Obama is not just targeting the super-rich who have unusually low tax rates. He is mostly targeting the high end working professionals who already pay the highest rates.

Misleading caricatures don't provide a good basis for a discussion. It seems to me that this discussion is being harmed by people buying-in to the anti-GOP campaign rhetoric, not their actual positions and weaknesses.

 

[mathwonk]

Russ, the fact you find these things incredulous is the problem many Republicans seem to have, they just don't see the world as objectively as most others do. This is what Karl Rove exemplified when he doubted even the Fox news forecasters.

You didn't even read my post objectively. When I make a genuine suggestion as to how Romney could gain credibility, you assumed I meant to imply he would not do these things.

 

[russ_watters]

Objectively? Mathwonk, your facts are flat-out wrong. How is that objective?

 

[aquitaine]

I also find it incredulous to suggest that Republicans are only interested in helping the rich, when the Bush tax cuts applied to everyone. The party trying to single out one group is the other one.

Actually my parents, who were middle class at the time, didn't see even a penny from those cuts. Don't tell me it helped everyone, because it didn't.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see what old white males have to do with the question and since the voting age is 18, there couldn't possibly be much change in separating out 18 year olds. High school grads and college grads voted exactly the same way.

Beyond speculation on either side, it would be nice to see the demographics for age. The 2009 Gallup poll I posted did gender demographics.