General The Demise of the Republican Party are Greatly Exaggerated

[heavenlyboy34]

The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.

That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

 

[TheGrinch]

That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

Here you go

 

[Keith and stuff]

State Races:
I believe the Democrats netted one state house and broke even on the state senate races. In a surprise: Wisconsin put the Republicans back in charge of the state senate. Even with Obama on the ticket they couldn't get the Democrat turnout to win.

My count may be off but it shows Democrats winning control of 8 legislative bodies and Republicans winning control of 3 legislative bodies.

 

[Carson]

Witnesses Testify: ‘The Ayes Have it’ on the Teleprompter

PREDETERMINED: Photo proves DNC teleprompter loaded to affirm 2/3rds vote regardless outcome

Thread music?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Here you go

This is an unsatisfying answer:

A social issue (also called a social ill or a social problem) is a controversial issue that relates to people's personal lives and interactions. Social issues are distinguished from economic issues. Some issues have both social and economic aspects, such as immigration. There are also controversial issues that don't fall into either category, such as wars.

Economics are inherently social. Without society, there wouldn't be economics (well, there would be, but it would be irrelevant to politics otherwise). The specific issue list in that article is also open-ended. I am disappoint.

 

[TheGrinch]

This is an unsatisfying answer:

Economics are inherently social. Without society, there wouldn't be economics (well, there would be, but it would be irrelevant to politics otherwise). The specific issue list in that article is also open-ended. I am disappoint.

Point being that economics has to do with math and science. Social issues typically have to do with legislating morality, which is one component of why the republican party is a mess.

If you'rew looking at it any deeper than that, then you're looknig at it too deep. Social is jsut a word that's used in conjuction with specific issues that happen in society, not fiscal issues that are supposed to be looknig at the numbers involved without the question of morality or, for lack of a better descriptor, "social issues".

 

[acptulsa]

This is an unsatisfying answer: I am disappoint.

Well, you've blame the wrong people. The Mainstream Mafia have use the term 'social conservative' for years, and they have define the issues that get labeled 'social issues' as well. No one here has approve their selections; we have merely speak the American English that the vast majority of Americans have speak all this time.

At least I speak that until I was get to this post and decide to try to speak whatever your language might be...

 

[devil21]

That term always struck me as strange. What issue that politics deals with isn't a "social issue"? Perhaps you could explain it? Thnx.

You forgot to also bold the preceding operative word.

 

[CPUd]

 

[Republicanguy]

^LOL, what?

 

[klamath]

^ARE! No, that reads *IS*..........^

I have heard a non-stop barrage of claims that Republicans 'must change' or are 'not electable.' They are buttressing their argument with the results of the 2012 election.

I have taken a look at the results and find no significant ideological shift. Lets run through these races and see what we have:

Romney vs. Obama:

David Plouffe recently claimed that the Obama machine can't be transfered. This election was about Barack Obama, not policy or Romney. This isn't the only person saying this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/usa-campaign-obama-idUSL1E8M8LYY20121109

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...imply-Go-Away-When-Obama-Not-On-Top-Of-Ticket

When you get down to it a lot of Republicans just stayed home. Romney was in the wrong place at the wrong time. To claim his loss was a fundamental shift in the country, especially with what the Obama campaign is saying, is a stretch.

Senate:

Nobody is surprised by what happened:

Scott Brown lost in MA. Absolutely no surprise there.

Angus King won in ME. Again, no surprise there.

Mourdock lost in IN after making some full-retard statement about abortion and rape. That seat was his to lose and he lost it.

House:

Republicans held the house with a slightly smaller majority.


State Races:

I believe the Democrats netted one state house and broke even on the state senate races. In a surprise: Wisconsin put the Republicans back in charge of the state senate. Even with Obama on the ticket they couldn't get the Democrat turnout to win.


Governors Races:

Republicans picked up one state house: NC. This really isn't a surprise.

Of Note:

In Montana the libertarian candidate picked up 17k votes. More than enough to push Rick Hill (R) over the top.



Compare these results to 2010 when the Republicans, mainly with the support of the Tea Party, picked up 6 Senate seats, 63 House seats, 6 Governor seats, and 18 state House/Senate chambers. One of the largest turnovers in government in our history.

Overall, there was no fundamental shift in ideology at any level.

Why did I post this?

Two reasons:

1) The establishment Republicans, and the media, are pushing this narrative that the Republicans have to change. This is hugely beneficial to all people in the liberty movement as the establishment people will be more willing to accept moves in their platform. As would voters. Rural Republicans who stayed home are going to be more willing to join a more libertarian Republican party. The time to form a better coalition is now. People like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock prove that the Republicans position on abortion is very unpopular. Moderating that position may prove difficult, but getting candidates to shut up about it wont.

2) In the year of Barack Obama there was no big gain for statist progressives. To me this election was more a condemnation of big government than it was for or against any party. Almost 14 million people who voted in 2008 just stayed home.

Hope you enjoyed this!

You are making some big assumptions yourself. Mourdock and Akin lost because the issue was turned to Rape not abortion. Both candidates were leading with well known antiabortion beliefs until the tie to rape was added.
Polling on Abortions is Not monolithic aligned with the democrats. A majority call themselves prolife. Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.
Start breaking it down to 2nd and 3rd trimister abortions and abortions for economic reasons, monster majorities OPPOSE it.
I really believe the Republicans should change their plank to the appearance of brainwaves as the cut off point for abortions. The end of brainwaves is when life is deemed over so this would be a solid legal framework.
Personally I believe in life at conception but any innocent life saved is one hell of an achievement.

 

[cindy25]

I could see a scenario where the Dem is always black, and the Rep is always Hispanic. so each side gets "their" minority

 

[carclinic]

Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.

It's ironic that the latter two percentages are the smaller, yet more consistent people while the majority are hypocrites.

"I think abortion is wrong, but if the mother is raped, two wrong make a right. Of course!"

 

[Factushima]

You are making some big assumptions yourself. Mourdock and Akin lost because the issue was turned to Rape not abortion. Both candidates were leading with well known antiabortion beliefs until the tie to rape was added.
Polling on Abortions is Not monolithic aligned with the democrats. A majority call themselves prolife. Legal ONLY under some circumstances is 52% while legal under ALL circumstances is only 25%. 20% want it banned at all levels.
Start breaking it down to 2nd and 3rd trimister abortions and abortions for economic reasons, monster majorities OPPOSE it.
I really believe the Republicans should change their plank to the appearance of brainwaves as the cut off point for abortions. The end of brainwaves is when life is deemed over so this would be a solid legal framework.

I agree in part and dissent in part.

The mass majority of people agree with abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Saying that abortion shouldn't be legal is the case of rape isn't just a policy position. It is the richest must effective fodder yet that leftys can use to show Republicans as uncaring and out of touch; which Akin and Mourdock were. If Bachman had said that we may be in a different situation, or Palin. The bottom line is we can't be out there talking about nonsense like removing the rape exception to abortion laws. Period.

 

[Riyan]

As there are some very good points raised by Factushima about 2012 elections. Which clearly tells the story about clean sweep win by Obama. And also highlighted the total collapse of Romeny and the Republican party. But i think the situation will definitely turn in favor of Republican party in next election as they should be at a better position against Romeny.

 

[Badger Paul]

A lot of Republicans died between 2008-2012. You can't tell me a party that was so geared up to vote out Obama it would have voted for a trained seal as the GOP candidate suddenly decided on Election Day: "Nahhh...I won't vote." I think is a bit misleading.

 

[klamath]

I agree in part and dissent in part.

The mass majority of people agree with abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Saying that abortion shouldn't be legal is the case of rape isn't just a policy position. It is the richest must effective fodder yet that leftys can use to show Republicans as uncaring and out of touch; which Akin and Mourdock were. If Bachman had said that we may be in a different situation, or Palin. The bottom line is we can't be out there talking about nonsense like removing the rape exception to abortion laws. Period.

I do agree that Rape and abortion is a no win issue for republicans. Mourdock was set up for that and he didn't lie about his moral beliefs.
You can bet your bottom dollar that EVERY last Republican candidate WILL be asked specifically about Rape and abortion from now on. Rand is set up to take the very same hit that Mourdock did. Will he lie or will he not? I don't think he will.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The GOP can't win if it continues to brand itself the "war and religious social issues" party. Most of the calls for change in the GOP seem to be that the GOP needs to move to the left. I think this is wrong since both McCain and Romney were both left/moderates. The GOP needs to move to it's roots on the right and focus on the issues that every American can get behind. The Freedom message is popular. Abortion and bombing isn't, particularly with the aging population of the party and the GOP attempts to push the young people (us) out.

Depends on how you define "left". Traditionally, individualism and anti-state sentiment are "left", radical things. (Had Americans in the mid-18th century been "conservative" they would have been content being part of the British empire. Declaring independence was one of the most radical, liberal acts in history.) Remember, the Statists hijacked the word "liberal" long ago in order to manipulate public discourse and opinion.