The generational thing is real, but I don't see it making much of an impact for quite a while due to the continuing exodus of young Pennsylvanians from our state. If anything, out here in Western PA we've been getting more and more conservative, and it's striking if you look at the county by county change in presidential vote from 1996 to 2012.
Rand Paul Op-Ed: How Republicans Can Win California
- Thread starter tsai3904
- Start date
The generational thing is real, but I don't see it making much of an impact for quite a while due to the continuing exodus of young Pennsylvanians from our state. If anything, out here in Western PA we've been getting more and more conservative, and it's striking if you look at the county by county change in presidential vote from 1996 to 2012.
Warlord
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,694
I know this is difficult for a concern troll to understand but Reagan was pro-life and won 49 states.
It does not matter if he's a superior candidate and Rand generally is.
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
Yeah, I live in NE Ohio along the PA border, and with the exception of Erie and Allegheny counties, all of W PA is red and every county along the Ohio River in OH//WV is red as well. It would have been interesting to see Buchanan run against Clinton in 1996. I think his anti-free trade stances could have won him the Midwest, certainly better than the moderate plutocrat Dole.
Austrian Econ Disciple
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,264
That was almost 35 years ago. Anyways, the pro-life position is not popular with women, so it will hurt more in states that have higher percentage of women voters. If he plays to libertarian policy positions, he can do well in traditionally Democratic States, provided these people haven't went full partisan. Still though, winning California is probably out of the picture for now, especially when the GOP image is still tarnished by theocratic wacko-birds and imperialistic ex-trotsky Neo-Cons. If the GOP is to win California our faction is going to have to win the internecine wars, which means that will take time, and to be honest, that's a very huge uphill battle itself. In time though as the theo's and neo's die off we'll take more slice of the pie, but that's a long-term solution.
It might be unpopular with single women but not necessarily with married women. The polls show that the Republicans usually win the majority of married women voters.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Pro-life is not good with SINGLE WHITE women in CA, when the demographics are parsed to target married women and black/latino women, the numbers favor the pro-life issue. Also, most voters are not single issue voters, whereas it is well established that among single issue voters who DO turn on the issue, it breaks 2-1 or 3-1 pro-life. A pro-life stance a net winner, and very helpful in a close election, besides being the right pro-liberty position as far as defending the essential rights to life, liberty and property goes. The theo's are not the problem, their being co-opted and mutated by the neo's is the issue.
Last edited:
american.swan
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,989
Trying to win CA at this point is pretty useless.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
"The way we’re going to compete is by running people for office who can appreciate some issues that attract young people and independents: civil liberties, as well as a less aggressive foreign policy, not putting people in jail for marijuana, a much more tolerant type of point of view. If you have Republican candidates like that then I think all of a sudden you’d find California back in play.”
Rand's solution is largely correct, but applied to the wrong goal. A state that is as entrenched Democrat as CA needs to be taken back by the liberty movement, not the GOP. This can be done primarily through taking over the Democratic districts by running liberty Democrats, since winnable districts for Republicans are sparse. In fact, most of the Republicans in office are part of the problem, not the solution. Don't build the GOP, leverage the lock Republicans and Democrats have demographically in the districts they control to get more liberty candidates elected, to either party, first and foremost.
Step 1, look for the toss-up districts that are winnable by either major party, defined as seats where the incumbent won the last couple of cycles by 4-5% or less. Concentrate on the open seats (less machine opposition) and winning the primaries (fewer people voting). Where Paulites have an organization or coalition, get a liberty Republican to win the nomination. Hedge your bets by fielding a LP or CP activist to run for the Democratic nomination, use the Liberty Democrat as leverage to keep the establishment GOP from forcing their hack candidate over the liberty Republican.
Step 2, in the districts that are hopelessly Democratic, run a liberty Democrat in the open seat races, period. Tolerate a bit of libertarian flexibility on the social issues (i.e., support for abortion or gay marriage if it's done on solidly libertarian grounds, not social liberal grounds) in exchange for the candidates being soundly anti-Fed, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and pro-Constitution. Over time, this will build a base of consistently pro-liberty elected officials that is independent of the two-party paradigm, even in CA.
Rand's solution is largely correct, but applied to the wrong goal. A state that is as entrenched Democrat as CA needs to be taken back by the liberty movement, not the GOP. This can be done primarily through taking over the Democratic districts by running liberty Democrats, since winnable districts for Republicans are sparse. In fact, most of the Republicans in office are part of the problem, not the solution. Don't build the GOP, leverage the lock Republicans and Democrats have demographically in the districts they control to get more liberty candidates elected, to either party, first and foremost.
Step 1, look for the toss-up districts that are winnable by either major party, defined as seats where the incumbent won the last couple of cycles by 4-5% or less. Concentrate on the open seats (less machine opposition) and winning the primaries (fewer people voting). Where Paulites have an organization or coalition, get a liberty Republican to win the nomination. Hedge your bets by fielding a LP or CP activist to run for the Democratic nomination, use the Liberty Democrat as leverage to keep the establishment GOP from forcing their hack candidate over the liberty Republican.
Step 2, in the districts that are hopelessly Democratic, run a liberty Democrat in the open seat races, period. Tolerate a bit of libertarian flexibility on the social issues (i.e., support for abortion or gay marriage if it's done on solidly libertarian grounds, not social liberal grounds) in exchange for the candidates being soundly anti-Fed, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and pro-Constitution. Over time, this will build a base of consistently pro-liberty elected officials that is independent of the two-party paradigm, even in CA.
Last edited:
Austrian Econ Disciple
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,264
We can parse the language all we want to make it look like the pro-life issue is a winning one with women, but the fact is it isn't...even in hugely pro-life states, it's about even. Anyways, as we know the sad as it is, the black vote is one of the hardest to peel away thanks to LBJ and the incessant media-driven narrative that GOP'ers are inherently racist against blacks. Anyways, the point to winning CA lies with changing the image of the GOP, and the winning image is the libertarian tolerant one.
I happen to take the Block approach to the issue, so I'm neither pro-life, or pro-choice, but anti-murder. So, to that I say that neither position (life/choice) is truly libertarian imho, but again, it's a very divisive and strained issue even amongst libertarians.
Also, the theo's are a huge problem and have always been so. If you don't think Huckabee, Santorum, Robertson, et. al legions are an issue, I don't know where the hell you've been the past 40 years.
JCDenton0451
Banned
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,521
What about gun control? This appears to be a major challenge.
JCDenton0451
Banned
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,521
He is a Republican. But uses the word "libertarian" to show that he is different kind of Republican: he is smarter then all those idiots and more hip.
Bastiat's The Law
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,439
The Ron Paul Senate candidate only had $5,000 in his campaign coffers. He couldn't even begin to get his message out.
RonPaulMall
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
No, it is essential. Not because we will win California necessarily, but because the things we need to do to win California are the same things we need to do to start winning again in places like Maine, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota. Romney won 60% of the white vote nationally. Yet he lost critical states in the northeast and midwest that are made up almost entirely of white voters. Why? Because the GOP brand has become too associated with white Southern Evangelicals, and that association is a huge turn off to more secular whites elsewhere in the country. The Southern Strategy that was so effective for decades is now becoming a liability. The GOP desperately needs to win back secular whites, or they are finished as a political party. The only way to do that is to change the brand. Rand must change the brand! To do that, you need to take high profile positions that run counter to the "Southern Bible Thumper" stigma that the media has successfully stuck us with. Such positions would include Marijuana/Drug Legalization, Peace, Civil Liberties, Internet Freedom (including the freedom of porn), and food freedom (raw milk, breast feeding, organic foods, ect). Can Rand pull it off? I don't know. Can he change the brand enough to win California? Probably not. But the potential to flip places like Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and a few others is certainly there.
alucard13mm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,454
We can play dirty and dig up dirt on competition...
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
same can be said abut colorado as well. If they do not suppprt medical and personal at the basic level(individual liberty). They will literally have 0 credibility with a majority colorado voter block. good news is the voters will be able to see through them if they try to ride the fence and flip flop!! ask romney
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
Libertarian Republican kinda reminds me of an oreo cookie, good on the outside and inside!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6Mpq_iufA<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6Mpq_iufA">
Last edited:
James Madison
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,121
The only way a real Republican can win in California is if everything within 20 miles of the Pacific falls into the ocean.
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
they have to run an honest and trust worthy republican with some balls!!!! which pretty much leaves them with one option Rand Paul 2016 unless the gop wants hillary to win.
Similar threads
