Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would the GOP start winning more elections and have a chance at the White House in 2016 if the party decided to leave social issues to the states and focused on a limited, but tough foreign policy and fiscally responsible economic issues?
Well, yes, I think it would. Worked pretty well for Eisenhower, after all. And Reagan, for that matter.
Are they going to? Probably not - the party is too much in thrall to the social-issues God-botherers.
I was going to say the same thing. And every time I think that the real loonies here on C-D, who consistently double down on the madness,* can't possibly be representative of the party as a whole -- the next day some Washington GOP politician does indeed do or say something equally stupid.
So I agree with squarian. They're too far gone, and with their particularly spectacular talent of misreading every single sign of the times around them, they will have to be dead and buried before they'll realize they were wrong.
* Following this will be dozens of posts proving the point.
The GOP has always had talking points about balancing the budget. In their 100+ year history, only one Republican President has balanced the budget. So yes, they always have talking points, but the country has seen their actions dont match the talking points.
Well, yes, I think it would. Worked pretty well for Eisenhower, after all. And Reagan, for that matter.
Are they going to? Probably not - the party is too much in thrall to the social-issues God-botherers.
Agreed. For 36 years, they appealed to the white people's basest instincts on racial and sexual matters in order to win elections. Now that demographics have turned the other way, it's time to pay the piper. We won't have a Republican POTUS for several more Presidential cycles.
Agreed. For 36 years, they appealed to the white people's basest instincts on racial and sexual matters in order to win elections. Now that demographics have turned the other way, it's time to pay the piper. We won't have a Republican POTUS for several more Presidential cycles.
The Southern Strategy came into the limelight big time with Nixon (initiated first by Goldwater), and then the Reagan years were the peak of the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy came into the limelight big time with Nixon (initiated first by Goldwater), and then the Reagan years were the peak of the Southern Strategy.
Then when they could no longer use Blacks as the the evil "Boogie Bear", George W and Karl Rove started their demonization of gays in the 2004 election. It's great to see that their hatred/indifference of others' rights will turn against them with the new demographics of this country.
Well, yes, I think it would. Worked pretty well for Eisenhower, after all. And Reagan, for that matter.
Are they going to? Probably not - the party is too much in thrall to the social-issues God-botherers.
Worked for Eisenhower, but Reagan was not fiscally responsible.
And I'm not sure if they'd win, but they'd have a much better chance. Sadly they won't, which is a shame, because I think only having one viable party is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Then when they could no longer use Blacks as the the evil "Boogie Bear", George W and Karl Rove started their demonization of gays in the 2004 election. It's great to see that their hatred/indifference of others' rights will turn against them with the new demographics of this country.
lols.
In 2004 George Bush came out in favor of gay marriage. He just wanted to call it civil union. He said this in public on several occassions.
Please note that he took this position publicly during an election. He was the first president to do so.
President Obama took the same position almost a decade later after he was safely elected.
Just proves people will believe whatever the want. Facts don't matter.
Worked for Eisenhower, but Reagan was not fiscally responsible.
Neither was Eisenhower, strictly speaking. "Fiscal responsibility" is a political slogan; like all other political slogans it exists to frame the brand. It's not anything like an actual budgetary program and never will be. But if we're talking effective new strategies for the GOP, one of the few issues on which they have any market traction is "fiscal responsibility", which some portion of the people still vaguely associate with the Republican Party.
Quote:
And I'm not sure if they'd win, but they'd have a much better chance. Sadly they won't, which is a shame, because I think only having one viable party is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Personally, I'm excited. I can't wait for the Harvest of Crazy, a.k.a the GOP 2014 Primaries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
