Does the GOP really want to win the presidency? Will the GOP ‘bring in the clowns’ as they did in 2012? Will we have real issues to decide on in the election? Questions may seem a bit off-beat but take a look at what has happened since the last election.
Days after Mitt’s loss to Obama were heard how the GOP just had to change their ways if they were to ever take back the White House….we have had an autopsy on the party and a whole new way of thinking (a bit of a stretch but they want us to believe it)…….
(Newser) – Republicans were pretty harsh on themselves in their much-discussed autopsy of the 2012 campaign, but did they actually get to the root of their electoral woes or propose decent solutions? “Unfortunately, the answer on both counts is, not really,” the National Review laments. The report concludes that Republicans are out of touch with young people, preach to the choir, and need to reach out to minorities. “There is truth in each of these, which is how they got to be platitudes.”
- The report’s take on outreach is “heavy on committee formation … and tokenism,” the Review complains; its top suggestion, for example, being that minorities take charge of minority outreach. “In reality, selling the Republican party’s appeal is more about the appeal than about the selling. … The heavy lifting is going to require imagination and an appetite for risk.”
- Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast agrees. “Back in the 1980s, the voters kept the Democrats out of power until they were persuaded that the party really had changed,” he notes, and Democrats responded by “jettisoning some longtime shibboleths.” Republicans need to do the same. Their problems with minorities run deep, and many voters believe their chief economic goal is to protect the rich.
- At the Washington Post, Dana Milbank notes that Reince Priebus’ speech skipped right over the report’s recommendations on gay rights and immigration. Priebus “took pains to avoid offending the conservative orthodoxy that is antagonizing segments of the electorate that Republicans need if they are to win.” At one point he said, to use Milbank’s paraphrase, that “All are welcome in the Republican Party—as long as they’re conservative.”
- Erick Erickson at RedState complains that the report’s recommendations to swap primaries in for caucuses and limit debates will benefit monied candidates like Mitt Romney. But the real problem with the report, he argues, is that it fails to realize that “sometimes there is nothing that can be done. Bad election years are bad election years.”
I agree that the GOP has changed nothing. They continue to grasp onto outdated views on today’s complex issues. But could it all be just a rouse?
The GOP does not need to win the national election. Surprise! They are getting everything they want by controlling state governments. Approximately 24 states are controlled by the GOP and 2016 could help that average. They could get just about everything they want by circumventing the Federal government and control society thought the use of states rights. Look at abortion for instance…..it is a legal right as a federal issue but states have found ways of seeing that that right is never used……I look for the same sex marriage thing to be the same…..SCOTUS will most likely vote that it is a states rights issue and kick it back down.
The GOP will continue to play the game with the hope that something or someone will fire up the electorate……but while they are doing that they will be working hard in the states for that is where they will get just about everything they want….
I’m not so sure Dr. Chuq. The demographics are already beginning to change where young people and minorities, who tend to vote Democratic, are already changing the electoral landscape in states that traditionally vote Republican with large blocs of white voters. There is actually a serious attempt to change Texas back to a blue state with its growing hispanic population that will see a plurality in this state in about 20 years.
Some Republicans are seeing this and trying to convince the power brokers in their Party to read the writing on the wall.
The Deep South will always be where rights go to die…….keep in mind that the states are where all BS legislation originates…
The GOP is finished as a national party. As the population of inner citer welfare recipients continue to grow they will vote for the party of handouts. It has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with laziness. More and more people are flocking to cities to get their welfare checks and food stamps. Look at the electoral maps by county and you will see it is the cities that are voting Democrats.
Even in “blue” states like NY, MA and CA you will see that the majority of the counties in those states voted Republican, it is only the heavily populated cities that carried those states nationally for Democrats.
FYI, there are plenty of whites living in cities also, not an ethnic thing.
One last observation. It is funny how the federal government has tried for 50 years to make seniors more and more dependent on the government, yet have been unable to get them to vote for dependency. Those with traditional American values continue to vote for more freedom and less government. We should listen to our wiser elders and follow their example.
Fl, I wish I could agree with you totally but I cannot……my problem is that my definition of “freedom” is not what most people say they believe in…….you know I think that if there was not a MSM giving everyone their talking points we might have a different electorate…..
To your first point, that is why the GOP was trying to change the awarding of electoral votes…..it could mean that a person could get the pop vote and still lose the election…..another reason I think it should be laid away in a filthy port-a-let…….
I wouldn’t count them out just yet. If the economy is bad in 2016, they’ll have a persuasive argument to make, even though it will be little more than their same ol’ BS.
Hansi, I do not count them out at the local level but I do not see them doing as well nationally….
We had a crappy economiy in 2012 and the sheeple still elected Democrats. As long as the MSM is there to put blame away from Democrats the GOP will loose national elections. The majority of voters no longer care about a healthy economy and will only vote for hand outs.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” – Alexander Tytler
And that argument is true and corporations get more handouts than most of the people…….
My favorite voting quote comes from Emma Goldman……”If voting really changed anything, they would make it illegal”.
I like that quote. Our government prefers to flood the ballots with ignorant voters to cancel out the well thought out votes. If that plan ever failed I would see them finding away for people to accept getting rid of voting all together.
Not sure if I agree with your unsupported comment about corporations. No doubt corporations get too many handouts, but I would be willing to bet that the greedy poor get more when comparing dollar for dollar in handouts.
Okay the greedy poor? Who would they be? I think that a corporate tax rate of about 15% or nothing at all are costing us more than those people that are on food stamps……like the oil industry, their subsidies are more than the people in my state get for subsistence….in Mississippi the poor are getting poorer with all this “less government”…….and what do they mean by less government? Is there a consensus or is it whatever they think the poor are getting? I hear many people use the term and not many can give me a definition that they all can agree on…….
Greedy poor are those that live off of welfare and food stamps with no desire to earn a living. There are also those that game the system to qualify for assistance when they do not qualify. Having lived in low income neighborhoods through out my life I have known many that did nothing but complain about what others have and never did anything to better themselves. They spent every penny they where given by the state and never contributed anything to the neighborhood.
Handouts are when the government takes money from one person and gives it to another with no expectation of return on investment. Look at the money given to GE, Solyndra, GM and other large corporations. When a company pays less in taxes that is not a handout, that is simply a centralized government “allowing” citizens to keep the money earned by those citizens.
I would expect the poor to get poorer with less government because they would loose their ability to receive handouts anonymously. When they have to stand in line and ask for assistance from their neighbors the sting of ambarassment would keep some from asking for help. Eventually it would cause some to lift themselves out of poverty and join the middle and upper income brackets through hard work. Those that really need help would be able to get it from their neighbors that are able to help.
“I hear many people use the term and not many can give me a definition that they all can agree on” You will never get one definition on any political view when you listen to numerous groups. I can only tell you what it means to me, it is a fool that says they can speak for other people’s political views.