GOP Rally The Base

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, so we've seen some of the GOP right just absolutely wacking out recently Whether it be Buchmann, the wierd GOP House budget proposal, this new "I have a list of Democratic Socialists" guy, or Rove calling Biden a fraud, people are trying to explain that it is just the GOP trying to speak to the base.

 

Here's my question:

At a time when your party has been largely obliterated in the last 2 elections, and could potentially take MORE hits in 2010, is the best strategy to solidify the base or try to make a wider coalition?

 

Why solidify a base of say... 30-35%, when you can try and grow your net to 50-55%, which can actually win you elections. If you can only rally 35% of the US, then you have little to no chance of winning an election, or a majority. Even if you piss off the FAR right while trying to gain more centrists, the odds are they will still vote for you because they'd rather have a center right representative than a center left.

 

Am i making any sense?

[NorthSideSox72]

The GOP is going to have a hard time reconciling the fact that their two core areas of policy support - small government, and social conservatism - have been tearing them in two for some time now.

 

Ultimately, the social conservatism is on the wrong side of history. Just look at gay marriage. A couple decades ago, there was so little support for making that OK, that it wasn't even a major topic of discussion. Then ten years ago, as the tide began to turn, the "Christian Right" began to fight against it. Now, states are toppling like dominoes to legalize it.

 

On the other hand, a push for smaller, more responsible government, and a renewed push for personal freedoms, are prime time for gaining more support. This would seem to indicate that they should place more emphasis on this small government, fiscal policy approach - and I think they will, because they have to, or risk becoming a regional party of the south (plus Utah).

 

But it will be a long, hard fight, because even though the religious right is waning in control of the party, they are still a huge force to contend with.

 

Fortunately for the Republicans, this Democratic Congress is so embarassingly bad, that the Dems will give them every shot at getting back in the game some time relatively soon.

 

[mr_genius]

2010 will be intersting, if the economy sucks and the GOP goes with some populist candidates they could knock off some big time dems. The Democrats are getting really corrupt and the bribes they have taken from the AIG's of the world could come back to haunt them.

 

I remember 2004 was when the GOP supposedly had completely defeated the Dems, never to lose again. The Democrats were thought to be only going their base. Didn't really work out that way.

 

 

[BearSox]

For over the past 100 years, people have identified themselves as democrats moreso than Republicans. There was this real good chart in my gov book that showed how much more people identified themselves as democrat than republican. With this knowledge, you'd assume Democrats would win everything, but Democrats are not as loyal to their party as Republicans are. With all these polls and such, most people do identify themselves as more moderate or conservative than liberal or progressive. So, IMO, elections basically come down not to party affiliation, but rather who people identify themselves with more.

 

As for the future, I think we will see a reverse of what we saw before (Republicans in the office, dems in the congress). I think Democrates will dominate the office for many years to come, but people will want balance and vote republican for congress.

Edited April 10, 2009 by BearSox

[lostfan]

For over the past 100 years, people have identified themselves as democrats moreso than Republicans. There was this real good chart in my gov book that showed how much more people identified themselves as democrat than republican. With this knowledge, you'd assume Democrats would win everything, but Democrats are not as loyal to their party as Republicans are. With all these polls and such, most people do identify themselves as more moderate or conservative than liberal or progressive. So, IMO, elections basically come down not to party affiliation, but rather who people identify themselves with more.

 

As for the future, I think we will see a reverse of what we saw before (Republicans in the office, dems in the congress). I think Democrates will dominate the office for many years to come, but people will want balance and vote republican for congress.

I did that, actually. House Dems are a joke, it was kind of a symbolic vote though because Dems win my district every 2 years in a blowout.

Edited April 10, 2009 by lostfan

[Rex Kickass]

Playing to their base worked for the Democrats. But because the Dem base has some pretty clear ideals.

 

The GOP has two sets of bases. They can play to fiscal conservatives, or they can play to social conservatives. However, it's very difficult to play to both. Especially because the social conservative base lately has had the heart of the party for so long and is so polarizing, its loathe to give it up.

[whitesoxfan101]

Playing to their base worked for the Democrats. But because the Dem base has some pretty clear ideals.

 

The GOP has two sets of bases. They can play to fiscal conservatives, or they can play to social conservatives. However, it's very difficult to play to both. Especially because the social conservative base lately has had the heart of the party for so long and is so polarizing, its loathe to give it up.

 

Very true. I am a fiscal conservative and a churchgoer to boot, but not a social conservative at all. I also grew up a republican and still consider myself as leaning to the right, but the GOP's tendency to use fear to try and gain votes and tendency to cater to the social conservative part of their party has really turned me away lately. And I imagine i'm not alone.

Edited April 13, 2009 by whitesoxfan101

[HuskyCaucasian]

Very true. I am a fiscal conservative and a churchgoer to boot, but not a social conservative at all. I also grew up a republican and still consider myself as leaning to the right, but the GOP's tendency to use fear to try and gain votes and tendency to cater to the social conservative part of their party has really turned me away lately. And I imagine i'm not alone.

I am the same, but in reverse. I am a church going social conservative, but fiscal liberal.

 

There is a reason I am an independent. It's hard to merge the two into any one party. One of the reasons I liked Obama is because I dont like the current GOP fiscal policy and I dont like their stance on universal health care. But at the same time, i dont like the Dem policy on Gay marriage... excuse me... "civil unions" and abortion.

 

So, in any election, I have to decide who i think is the best for the current situation in this country. Right now, I felt that fixing the economy was more important that trying to ban abortion and gay marriage. Both of which are already to of the bottle and would be hard to put away. In 8 years, if the economy i strong and i dont think a GOP president would screw it up, I'd vote for one.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[whitesoxfan101]

I am the same, but in reverse. I am a church going social conservative, but fiscal liberal.

 

There is a reason I am an independent. It's hard to merge the two into any one party. One of the reasons I liked Obama is because I dont like the current GOP fiscal policy and I dont like their stance on universal health care. But at the same time, i dont like the Dem policy on Gay marriage... excuse me... "civil unions" and abortion.

 

So, in any election, I have to decide who i think is the best for the current situation in this country. Right now, I felt that fixing the economy was more important that trying to ban abortion and gay marriage. Both of which are already to of the bottle and would be hard to put away. In 8 years, if the economy i strong and i dont think a GOP president would screw it up, I'd vote for one.

 

I hear you. I'm actually not even socially liberal as much as I am passive, such as I personally think abortion is wrong but should also remain legal.

[Jenksismyhero]

Put me in the camp of the fiscal conservative with an apethetic social view (unless it happens in front of me, or involves me personally, I really don't care).

 

My biggest issue with "my" party is that we're pandering to the extreme right for no good reason. They have no alternative. It's either the conservative or the extremely scary, socialism loving, gay supporting, fetus killing Democrat. To me that was the biggest failure of the McCain campaign - instead of working the middle, they grab a Sarah Palin to motivate the extreme right. They lost out on a lot of the undecideds by doing that and they gained nothing.

 

Really, IMO these social issues are so worthless. Abortion and gay marriage are the most overrated, over talked about issues in the history of the world. I cannot believe how much press has been given to these issues, at least on a national level. They're issues that are drummed up to be important because the country is generally stupid when it comes to true issues, so it's easier to pick candidate A from candidate B with some "moral" issue. [my only interest in the gay marriage issue is the legal aspect. I'm sick and disgusted at how a bunch of old geezers sitting behind a bench have the gaul to tell an entire state what is moral and immoral. Technicalities aside, the Iowa supreme court (and Colorado and others) have decided a social issue, not a constitutional one....and i come from the position of not caring either way about gay marriage]

 

And for the liberals poking fun/ridiculing/chastising the current "GOP strategy," the Dems did the EXACT same thing in the 2004 cycle. It was lots of pointing fingers, saying this move is the dumbest move in the history of the world, rallying the extreme base, and generally just being nasty. I think that's what every party does when they are out of power.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Put me in the camp of the fiscal conservative with an apethetic social view (unless it happens in front of me, or involves me personally, I really don't care).

 

My biggest issue with "my" party is that we're pandering to the extreme right for no good reason. They have no alternative. It's either the conservative or the extremely scary, socialism loving, gay supporting, fetus killing Democrat. To me that was the biggest failure of the McCain campaign - instead of working the middle, they grab a Sarah Palin to motivate the extreme right. They lost out on a lot of the undecideds by doing that and they gained nothing.

 

Really, IMO these social issues are so worthless. Abortion and gay marriage are the most overrated, over talked about issues in the history of the world. I cannot believe how much press has been given to these issues, at least on a national level. They're issues that are drummed up to be important because the country is generally stupid when it comes to true issues, so it's easier to pick candidate A from candidate B with some "moral" issue. [my only interest in the gay marriage issue is the legal aspect. I'm sick and disgusted at how a bunch of old geezers sitting behind a bench have the gaul to tell an entire state what is moral and immoral. Technicalities aside, the Iowa supreme court (and Colorado and others) have decided a social issue, not a constitutional one....and i come from the position of not caring either way about gay marriage]

 

And for the liberals poking fun/ridiculing/chastising the current "GOP strategy," the Dems did the EXACT same thing in the 2004 cycle. It was lots of pointing fingers, saying this move is the dumbest move in the history of the world, rallying the extreme base, and generally just being nasty. I think that's what every party does when they are out of power.

I agree except a couple of points, which I will go into detail about later. Gotta kid-sit for a while.

 

[lostfan]

And for the liberals poking fun/ridiculing/chastising the current "GOP strategy," the Dems did the EXACT same thing in the 2004 cycle. It was lots of pointing fingers, saying this move is the dumbest move in the history of the world, rallying the extreme base, and generally just being nasty. I think that's what every party does when they are out of power.

Yeah, you're right about this. At the time I was a registered Democrat. After Kerry's horses*** campaign and seeing there were no real leaders in the Democratic party, I got disgusted with them and registed independent and didn't pay attention to politics for a while. I started leaning libertarian and thought about registering Republican until I started paying attention and realizing that it was about conflicting ideologies and that they took their principles for granted (they still do although they claim to "get it" now, as a result the party is a disaster right now). As of now, I'm only concerned with basic competence.

 

People tend to not believe me, but I honestly would vote for a Republican for president if they weren't a stereotype whose beliefs and actions were disconnected from reality, e.g. we want to start a second simultaneous war so we're going to cut taxes because that doesn't at all sound completely ridiculous, oh, and this war will be easy. After the election I was thinking I wanted to see some leadership come out of the GOP and it's best for the country to have a strong conservative presence to counter liberals, and I still think that. But it's clear to me that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and they've literally tied their fortunes to the possible failure of Obama for 2010. So conservative leadership won't be coming out of the GOP, at least for the time being, what with their joke budgets and silly half-serious proposals. Therefore I'm really just hoping the party just dies, and a new brand of conservative party comes out of it; the latter isn't that farfetched and wouldn't take that long if the former happened.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, you're right about this. At the time I was a registered Democrat. After Kerry's horses*** campaign and seeing there were no real leaders in the Democratic party, I got disgusted with them and registed independent and didn't pay attention to politics for a while. I started leaning libertarian and thought about registering Republican until I started paying attention and realizing that it was about conflicting ideologies and that they took their principles for granted (they still do although they claim to "get it" now, as a result the party is a disaster right now). As of now, I'm only concerned with basic competence.

 

People tend to not believe me, but I honestly would vote for a Republican for president if they weren't a stereotype whose beliefs and actions were disconnected from reality, e.g. we want to start a second simultaneous war so we're going to cut taxes because that doesn't at all sound completely ridiculous, oh, and this war will be easy. After the election I was thinking I wanted to see some leadership come out of the GOP and it's best for the country to have a strong conservative presence to counter liberals, and I still think that. But it's clear to me that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and they've literally tied their fortunes to the possible failure of Obama for 2010. So conservative leadership won't be coming out of the GOP, at least for the time being, what with their joke budgets and silly half-serious proposals. Therefore I'm really just hoping the party just dies, and a new brand of conservative party comes out of it; the latter isn't that farfetched and wouldn't take that long if the former happened.

And I agree with this too.

 

I better put the computer down before the three year old destroys my house.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, you're right about this. At the time I was a registered Democrat. After Kerry's horses*** campaign and seeing there were no real leaders in the Democratic party, I got disgusted with them and registed independent and didn't pay attention to politics for a while. I started leaning libertarian and thought about registering Republican until I started paying attention and realizing that it was about conflicting ideologies and that they took their principles for granted (they still do although they claim to "get it" now, as a result the party is a disaster right now). As of now, I'm only concerned with basic competence.

 

People tend to not believe me, but I honestly would vote for a Republican for president if they weren't a stereotype whose beliefs and actions were disconnected from reality, e.g. we want to start a second simultaneous war so we're going to cut taxes because that doesn't at all sound completely ridiculous, oh, and this war will be easy. After the election I was thinking I wanted to see some leadership come out of the GOP and it's best for the country to have a strong conservative presence to counter liberals, and I still think that. But it's clear to me that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and they've literally tied their fortunes to the possible failure of Obama for 2010. So conservative leadership won't be coming out of the GOP, at least for the time being, what with their joke budgets and silly half-serious proposals. Therefore I'm really just hoping the party just dies, and a new brand of conservative party comes out of it; the latter isn't that farfetched and wouldn't take that long if the former happened.

 

That would be awesome, but unfortunately I don't see it happening for quite sometime.

[lostfan]

That would be awesome, but unfortunately I don't see it happening for quite sometime.

Unfortunately, I agree. But I think if the GOP just got disbanded today, by the time 2010 rolled around, the actual conservatives and old-school Republicans will be able to shed the weight of the religious right. Kind of like declaring bankruptcy. In any case I'm rooting against the GOP in its current incarnation.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, you're right about this. At the time I was a registered Democrat. After Kerry's horses*** campaign and seeing there were no real leaders in the Democratic party, I got disgusted with them and registed independent and didn't pay attention to politics for a while. I started leaning libertarian and thought about registering Republican until I started paying attention and realizing that it was about conflicting ideologies and that they took their principles for granted (they still do although they claim to "get it" now, as a result the party is a disaster right now). As of now, I'm only concerned with basic competence.

 

Actually there was good Democratic leadership after the 2004 disaster election.

It came from Democracy for America and Howard Dean.

They pioneered the 50 state strategy for the Dems.

And they realized and started to talk about a few things. In many, many cases - people support the liberal point of view on policy in this country. They were just afraid of the label - so they worked on taking it back.

 

I'm not a fan of Dean as an elected official. But as a party leader and party builder? Amazing.

 

[lostfan]

Actually there was good Democratic leadership after the 2004 disaster election.

It came from Democracy for America and Howard Dean.

They pioneered the 50 state strategy for the Dems.

And they realized and started to talk about a few things. In many, many cases - people support the liberal point of view on policy in this country. They were just afraid of the label - so they worked on taking it back.

 

I'm not a fan of Dean as an elected official. But as a party leader and party builder? Amazing.

Yeah, this is stuff I realized belatedly, but not at the time, I was so pissed off. I still wonder what would have happened had Dean been the Dem nominee in '04 though.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, this is stuff I realized belatedly, but not at the time, I was so pissed off. I still wonder what would have happened had Dean been the Dem nominee in '04 though.

 

It wouldn't have been close. Bush would have won with 350+ electoral votes.

[BearSox]

Yeah, this is stuff I realized belatedly, but not at the time, I was so pissed off. I still wonder what would have happened had Dean been the Dem nominee in '04 though.

I'm still wondering what would have happened if Jack Ryan didn't get busted for wanting kinky sex and having to withdraw from the senate election, which gave the seat to Obama. Jack Ryan was almost a virtual lock to win it, IIRC.

 

I wonder, who would be president right now? McCain? Romney? Hilary?

[DukeNukeEm]

I'm still wondering what would have happened if Jack Ryan didn't get busted for wanting kinky sex and having to withdraw from the senate election, which gave the seat to Obama. Jack Ryan was almost a virtual lock to win it, IIRC.

You're wrong. Obama won the Democratic Primary by 30% (Ryan only by 20%) and Democratic ballots outnumbered Republican ballots 2:1. The Republicans were probably not going to win that seat in 2004.

[lostfan]

I'm still wondering what would have happened if Jack Ryan didn't get busted for wanting kinky sex and having to withdraw from the senate election, which gave the seat to Obama. Jack Ryan was almost a virtual lock to win it, IIRC.

 

I wonder, who would be president right now? McCain? Romney? Hilary?

I think this is pure speculation, nobody really knows how that would've played out.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think this is pure speculation, nobody really knows how that would've played out.

Obama was showing well ahead of Ryan before that stuff even came out, so, the idea that Ryan was a "virtual lock" is kind of the opposite of true.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Its also kind of ridiculous to assume a guy who won the presidency couldn't outcampaign Jack f***ing Ryan.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its also kind of ridiculous to assume a guy who won the presidency couldn't outcampaign Jack f***ing Ryan.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous - every politician starts somewhere, learns, improves his approach and network. Obama was a lot greener then, and Ryan had money, smarts and connections.

 

But the premise that Ryan somehow had it in hand is just patently false.

 

[kapkomet]

I wouldn't call it ridiculous - every politician starts somewhere, learns, improves his approach and network. Obama was a lot greener then, and Ryan had money, smarts and connections.

 

But the premise that Ryan somehow had it in hand is just patently false.

IIRC when the scandal broke, Obama had just delivered his DNC speech? Or was it right before?