GOP: Too Old, Too White, and Too Male?

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

coolbeans90

The Green Party is never going to be particularly relevant. It basically exists to attempt to pull the democrats further left, like the libertarians pull the republicans further right.Abbeten

If people do not make enough money to survive, they will not work. $2 an hour is not enough to survive. The natural minimum wage is a wee higher than that - not too far below the legal one, considering the relatively small number of people who make minimum wage.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

TheWalkingGhost

It didn't alienate Bush - who, by the way, won the election twice. It was not a coincidence that in '04 he took 20% more of the Hispanic electorate than the nom in '96. It has also fallen substantially since. The GOP has broken its platform in recent history. Part of that has to do with Dem triangulation forcing them right - but the other part is that there isn't a mechanism to prevent the amount of stupid slowly creeping its way into the party platform. It's not a message delivery problem.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If people do not make enough money to survive, they will not work. $2 an hour is not enough to survive. The natural minimum wage is a wee higher than that - not too far below the legal one, considering the relatively small number of people who make minimum wage.

AdamPA1006

Good point about HS kids' jobs. Not sure how to resolve that. Maybe negative income tax mechanism.

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

coolbeans90

It didn't alienate Bush - who, by the way, won the election twice. It was not a coincidence that in '04 he took 20% more of the Hispanic electorate than the nom in '96. It has also fallen substantially since. The GOP has broken its platform in recent history. Part of that has to do with Dem triangulation forcing them right - but the other part is that there isn't a mechanism to prevent the amount of stupid slowly creeping its way into the party platform. It's not a message delivery problem.

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

coolbeans90

It didn't alienate Bush - who, by the way, won the election twice. It was not a coincidence that in '04 he took 20% more of the Hispanic electorate than the nom in '96. It has also fallen substantially since. The GOP has broken its platform in recent history. Part of that has to do with Dem triangulation forcing them right - but the other part is that there isn't a mechanism to prevent the amount of stupid slowly creeping its way into the party platform. It's not a message delivery problem.

[QUOTE="Nonstop-Madness"]The Republican party does have some severe issues like the Tea Party, Extreme Social Conservatism etc. We seriously need to accept things like same sex marriage, rights to our own body etc. You can't stop civil rights movements, its just a matter of time. jim_shorts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]You couldn't be more wrong. They can't lose what support they have and your immigration comment would alienate millions of voters of all ages they currently have. They need to sell their platform to more people and moderate parts of it without alienating their current base.whipassmt

It didn't alienate Bush - who, by the way, won the election twice. It was not a coincidence that in '04 he took 20% more of the Hispanic electorate than the nom in '96. It has also fallen substantially since. The GOP has broken its platform in recent history. Part of that has to do with Dem triangulation forcing them right - but the other part is that there isn't a mechanism to prevent the amount of stupid slowly creeping its way into the party platform. It's not a message delivery problem.

The party is farther to the right now then it was in 2000 and 2004, and I don't mean the candidates but the support base in general. Immigration was an issue in 2000 just not as big as right now, it has grown to be of bigger importance now then it was before. You need to calculate changes in the severity of the issues over the past decade. Meaning, the situation the Republicans find themselves in is not a good one. Most of their base is stricter on immigration which is taking the forefront more now then ever, while Hispanics as a whole are very lax. Go too far to left and it good alienate the right and still be a hard sell on the Hispanics they need. Not a good situation. And it is partly a message delivery problem, as that is one of things that killed Romney. Why do I not like his message? I have no clue what the hell it was...And it seems neither does he. He tends to talk without saying anything. TheWalkingGhost

The base hasn't changed that much, but you are right that immigration is more important, because if the GOP switch sides it dies - says the simple math. No reason why Jeb Bush couldn't make a push for it and hold the evangelicals. Romney had a supremely clear, one-word message, reiterated over and over ad infinitum: jobs.

The issue is the platform. End of story.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It didn't alienate Bush - who, by the way, won the election twice. It was not a coincidence that in '04 he took 20% more of the Hispanic electorate than the nom in '96. It has also fallen substantially since. The GOP has broken its platform in recent history. Part of that has to do with Dem triangulation forcing them right - but the other part is that there isn't a mechanism to prevent the amount of stupid slowly creeping its way into the party platform. It's not a message delivery problem.

TheWalkingGhost

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]The party is farther to the right now then it was in 2000 and 2004, and I don't mean the candidates but the support base in general. Immigration was an issue in 2000 just not as big as right now, it has grown to be of bigger importance now then it was before. You need to calculate changes in the severity of the issues over the past decade. Meaning, the situation the Republicans find themselves in is not a good one. Most of their base is stricter on immigration which is taking the forefront more now then ever, while Hispanics as a whole are very lax. Go too far to left and it good alienate the right and still be a hard sell on the Hispanics they need. Not a good situation. And it is partly a message delivery problem, as that is one of things that killed Romney. Why do I not like his message? I have no clue what the hell it was...And it seems neither does he. He tends to talk without saying anything. coolbeans90

The base hasn't changed that much, but you are right that immigration is more important, because if the GOP switch sides it dies - says the simple math. No reason why Jeb Bush couldn't make a push for it and hold the evangelicals. Romney had a supremely clear, one-word message, reiterated over and over ad infinitum: jobs.

The issue is the platform. End of story.

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yes. Bush was pretty good with Hispanics, and did try to push through immigration reform.

whipassmt

Bush's immigration bill would have let something like 12 million illegal immigrants stay in the country and obtain citizenship, and a bunch of republicans voted against itAbbeten

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]The party is farther to the right now then it was in 2000 and 2004, and I don't mean the candidates but the support base in general. Immigration was an issue in 2000 just not as big as right now, it has grown to be of bigger importance now then it was before. You need to calculate changes in the severity of the issues over the past decade. Meaning, the situation the Republicans find themselves in is not a good one. Most of their base is stricter on immigration which is taking the forefront more now then ever, while Hispanics as a whole are very lax. Go too far to left and it good alienate the right and still be a hard sell on the Hispanics they need. Not a good situation. And it is partly a message delivery problem, as that is one of things that killed Romney. Why do I not like his message? I have no clue what the hell it was...And it seems neither does he. He tends to talk without saying anything. TheWalkingGhost

The base hasn't changed that much, but you are right that immigration is more important, because if the GOP switch sides it dies - says the simple math. No reason why Jeb Bush couldn't make a push for it and hold the evangelicals. Romney had a supremely clear, one-word message, reiterated over and over ad infinitum: jobs.

The issue is the platform. End of story.

They won't lose conservatives over that issue. Raising taxes? Yeah. Banning guns? Yeah. Going pro-choice? Yeah. Fixing the broken immigration system? Nah, that won't hit too close to home for them to jump ship in droves.

Bush's immigration bill would have let something like 12 million illegal immigrants stay in the country and obtain citizenship, and a bunch of republicans voted against itAbbeten

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

coolbeans90

Who are you and what have you done with coolbeans?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

Former_Slacker

Who are you and what have you done with coolbeans?

Hi.

I am beans.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Bush's immigration bill would have let something like 12 million illegal immigrants stay in the country and obtain citizenship, and a bunch of republicans voted against itwhipassmt

Eventually the demographic crisis will force their hand. Now seems to be about that time.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Bush's immigration bill would have let something like 12 million illegal immigrants stay in the country and obtain citizenship, and a bunch of republicans voted against itAbbeten

Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. Abbeten

Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. Abbeten

Which brings us to the other problem: the Tea Party.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I think it was voted down by the Senate which was controlled by the Democrats, although many Republicans also abandoned Bush to vote against the bill (McCain and Obama voted for it).

whipassmt

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. whipassmt

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. whipassmt

Julian Castro vs Marco Rubio:

The battle for the Latino Vote

coming in 2016

:P

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. Bane_09

Julian Castro vs Marco Rubio:

The battle for the Latino Vote

coming in 2016

:P

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Maybe. Who would the Dems run in 2016? Although usually a party doesn't win three presidential elections in a row, the pattern seems to be two terms of one guy, get tired of him, switch to the other pary.

whipassmt

Julian Castro vs Marco Rubio:

The battle for the Latino Vote

coming in 2016

:P

Oh you

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] While the Democrats did have a majority in the Senate, they provided 33 of the 46 votes for the bill. 15 Democrats voted against the bill, as did 37 Republicans and an independent. Abbeten

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

Julian Castro vs Marco Rubio:

The battle for the Latino Vote

coming in 2016

:P

Bane_09

Oh you

I think it would be fitting to run a candidate named 'Castro' after eight years of a Hussein presidencyAbbeten

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. whipassmt

Likely Clinton, Biden, Cuomo and others. Parties usually only win 3 elections in a row if the previous president was extremely popular, as in a transformational president who changes the fabric of the country. Somebody like Reagan, or more appropriately, FDR. Obama could still very well become one. The bailouts, stimulus, health care, Dodd Frank, Bin Laden, Ending the war in Iraq, winning re-election with a clean sweep of all tossups with an unemployment rate above 7.2%, and, presumably, ending the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, drawing down the war in Afghanistan, passage of an immigration bill that grants amnesty, and an economy with an unemployment rate below 6% would, combined with the changing demographics, render Obama a transformational president who would significantly change the course of the country for a generation and alter it permanently.

ha ha Jill Stein lost.

whipassmt

She's still a winner in my eyes

Dems have some possibly good candidates in 2016 like Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. It's way too early for guys like Cory Booker and Julian Castro to run.

I think it would be fitting to run a candidate named 'Castro' after eight years of a Hussein presidencyAbbeten

hehe I was just thinking the same thing

I seriously doubt Biden or Clinton run. Abbeten

Just issue wise I liked Newt the best he seemed like he was 50x smarter than Romney and had a much clearer vision. I liked that he worked with clinton on some issues and both of them did to certain things to foster economic growth and the welfare reform.

Sadly his personal life is messed up no woman would vote for him and I dont blame them

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Which makes me wonder if they'll run Marco Rubio in 2016. Which would be hilarious to watch. Former_Slacker

Likely Clinton, Biden, Cuomo and others. Parties usually only win 3 elections in a row if the previous president was extremely popular, as in a transformational president who changes the fabric of the country. Somebody like Reagan, or more appropriately, FDR. Obama could still very well become one. The bailouts, stimulus, health care, Dodd Frank, Bin Laden, Ending the war in Iraq, winning re-election with a clean sweep of all tossups with an unemployment rate above 7.2%, and, presumably, ending the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, drawing down the war in Afghanistan, passage of an immigration bill that grants amnesty, and an economy with an unemployment rate below 6% would, combined with the changing demographics, render Obama a transformationalpresident who would significantly change the course of the country for a generation and alter it permanently.

As for Biden he might be too old by then and I think Clinton may be too liberal, plus I think the Benghazi attack weakened her popularity.

As for FDR the situation did change quite quickly with him, the Republicans did gain power soon enough in order to amend the constitution to include term limits.

Except he shut the government down because Clinton was mean to him on an airplane. Anyway, the fact that Clinton is taking a bunch of heat for Libya makes me think she's also ready to be done. Apparently there are rumors that she's going to retire from Secretary of StateAbbeten

Dems have some possibly good candidates in 2016 like Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. It's way too early for guys like Cory Booker and Julian Castro to run.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Maybe a better strategy would be for the Republicans to let the Dems keep the blacks and the Hispanics (except of course the Cubans) and concentrate on expanding their hold among whites as well as allying with Asian voters, particularly Chinese and Japanese but also Indians.

whipassmt

Or, each party could appeal to all people.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Or, each party could appeal to all people.

nocoolnamejim

I also have a cool name and you don't.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] That's an extremely un-nuanced explanation for the existence of poverty. And how strange of you to overlook the jobs-training programs that democrats also support in conjunction with welfare programs. But the fact that you think entitlements are about 'rewarding people for doing nothing' rather than making it suck slightly less for people to live in poverty as they attempt to claw their way out of it is telling. 'Pro-poverty' continues to be a meaningless label. I'm not sure you can find a single politician in either major party who thinks poverty is a good thing or that we could use more of it.

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

Laihendi

Having jobs paying $2 an hour sounds like such a GREAT idea.