Current or modern politics in the United States

[9876543210]

blueballsdc,

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Another is the current Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McDonnell
This is a man to watch out for. He is another christian conservative but doesn't carry many of the negatives of Santorum and Paul. He is handsome, pertly coiffed, has a lovely family, is a great public speaker, and tends to not make stupid statments that will get him ridiculed.

Think I'll have to disagree here a bit. Gov. Ultrasound (McDonnell) has really ticked off a lot of women in Virginia with his abortion stances. Remember last year when he wanted to require all women wanting an abortion to first have a vaginal ultrasound prior to the abortion? He only changed his mind (very grudgingly) when it was pointed out to him that this could be considered as rape! Even with that argument he still wanted to go ahead with the law.

Rachel Maddow had a field day with Gov. Ultrasound:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...nd-probes?lite

I think he'll have real problems with the female vote and don't think he'll have much of a chance.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

blueballsdc,



Think I'll have to disagree here a bit. Gov. Ultrasound (McDonnell) has really ticked off a lot of women in Virginia with his abortion stances. Remember last year when he wanted to require all women wanting an abortion to first have a vaginal ultrasound prior to the abortion? He only changed his mind (very grudgingly) when it was pointed out to him that this could be considered as rape! Even with that argument he still wanted to go ahead with the law.

Rachel Maddow had a field day with Gov. Ultrasound:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...nd-probes?lite

I think he'll have real problems with the female vote and don't think he'll have much of a chance.

The issue the present Republican Party is up against is that it has been taken into the control of people whose core values are religious, and socially conservative; but they need to attract electoral support from a more independent-minded population. Americans hate being told what to do and how to live their lives; British history shows this. At present, it is the Republicans who seem to be the bossy-boots party. No abortion! No contraception! I'm going to stick a surcharge on your pizza because you dared to support Obamacare!

It's a bit UnAmerican, I would have said.

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Think I'll have to disagree here a bit. Gov. Ultrasound (McDonnell) has really ticked off a lot of women in Virginia with his abortion stances. Remember last year when he wanted to require all women wanting an abortion to first have a vaginal ultrasound prior to the abortion? He only changed his mind (very grudgingly) when it was pointed out to him that this could be considered as rape! Even with that argument he still wanted to go ahead with the law.

Rachel Maddow had a field day with Gov. Ultrasound:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/20...nd-probes?lite

I think he'll have real problems with the female vote and don't think he'll have much of a chance.

My friend, you forget that people have very short memories. His views were well known before the election (along with Ken Cuccinelli who is even worse) yet lots of women voted for him for governor. A lot of women supported him through the ultrasound nonsense and continue to support him now. If he spends the next couple of years campaigning, as I believe he will, people will forget (or ignore) what he has said and done before.

Of course, a lot will depend upon who else decides to run. I expect Rick Perry will throw his hat in the ring again (and probably miss) along with Paul Ryan. Marco Rubio is clearly being groomed for bigger and better things, although he may choose to wait a few years longer. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Ted Cruz may try his hand at a presidential campaign.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The issue the present Republican Party is up against is that it has been taken into the control of people whose core values are religious, and socially conservative; but they need to attract electoral support from a more independent-minded population.

Which brings up a question which I've been ruminating over for a little while now (and should maybe be its own thread). Is the Republican party dead or dying?

As I look around it seems to me they're on the edge of death. They're losing constituencies left and right to the point where the only reliable voting block they have are old white men and the Southern US.

They only had about 8% of the black vote in the last election.
About 27% of the latino vote.
About 45% of the women's vote.

The Republicans seem to be divided into two camps. The "middle" of the party which is almost nonexistent and disappearing quickly as they keep being "primaried" by their extreme right wing.

And then their extreme right wing which has no chance of winning a general election. Does anybody really think Rand Paul or Rick Santorum could get elected without stealing the election?

My guess is the Republicans will have to split. The moderates will have to either become Democrats or Independents (probably taking about half of the Republican party with them). The extreme right will hang around for a while (or maybe try and start a civil war when they realize they've been marginalized) but, as with all such movements, will eventually die out.

So the next few years will be interesting. I thought maybe they'd have a brief period of introspection when Bobby Jindahl told them they'd have to "quit being the stupid party" but its now obvious nobody listened to him. And the party's blind devotion to the gun manufacturers is probably going to cost them big time in the next election.

So, are the Republicans history?

[scoundrel]

About twenty years ago, the British Labour Party appeared to have painted itself into a similar corner. In Britain, the electorate had moved seismically away from socialism and left of centre beliefs towards economic liberalism and somewhat more militaristic principles. Many social attitudes were affected by the record of the Labour Party in office, when Britain was so badly misgoverned in the 1970s that the authority of the state was undermined; and by their pivotal decision in 1982 as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to withold support from the operation to retake the Falkland Islands from the invading Argentinians using force. That went down like a shit sandwich.

By 1992, Labour had collected two decisive election defeats and in 1992 it collected a third. It went into each campaign believing that the people needed and wanted a socialist-inclined alternative government. Each time they got beat, they merely concluded that they must try harder, that one last heave would do it. When they won in 1997, it was because they stopped relying on mere effort and listened to what voters were saying. Voters weren't voting Conservative because they liked the Tories. My own dad, who voted Tory every time, thought the Tories were upper-class pricks and said so, to the face of every Tory canvasser. He told Wilf Proudfoot MP, to his face, that his party was a bag of arse. But my dad voted in the national interest as near as he could figure out what that was; and that meant keeping Labour out, simply because Labour were incompetent. In 1997, people were so sick of the Tories it was like an emetic just to think of them (even my father admitted that); and finally, by abolishing the hardline socialist clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, the Labour Party had undertaken to respect capitalism and the mixed economy instead of nationalising the means of production, distribution and exchange. That was the thing which was undoing the Labour Party; it had wanted to micro-manage the economic life of Britain, even though it caused the collapse of the British economy in the 1970s by doing exactly that. To make itself electable, it had to show that it realised it had ruined the whole country last time and wouldn't simply dose the country with the same prescription again.

That's the challenge for the US Republicans now. Will they admit, even to themselves, that they misgoverned America so badly that the voters are actively afraid to allow them to govern again? Or will they continue to offer the medicine as before and tell themselves that next time they must try harder to sell the same old neo-liberal economic policies allied to tax cuts for the rich and spurious foreign wars, paid for by borrowing which future generations will need to repay? Will they continue to peddle social conservatism, guns, God, no abortion and knee-jerk reactionary little-America grand standing on issues such as immigration and citizenship? A lot of natural Republican bedrock supporters are very unhappy with these positions; many people who voted for Nixon and even Reagan feel like they don't recognise their own party any more. Many of the "Latino" community (I hate labels, but this one is an approximation which most people,"Latino" and non-"Latino", understand) were alienated by Republican immigration policies, but this didn't mean they were in favour of a free-for-all. They were in favour of rational immigration control policies and wanted an open discussion of what these policies ought to be. The Republicans weren't offering this; and a community which has staunch conservative values, has more than the national average of self-employed small business owners, a higher than national average rate of church attendance, voted 27% Republican. The Republicans have lost touch with their own natural constituencies.

One way to save the Republican movement (and actually I think US Democrats should want to save the Republican movement in the interests of plural democracy) would be to make it illegal for God botherers to run for office. Anyone who is a self-professed clergyman (eg the Reverend Pat Robertson) should be disqualified from public office, even as a dog catcher. Any church which donates to any political cause should lose its tax-exemption and be forced to render unto Caesar. These measures would weaken the sclerotic grip of God-botherers on the Republican movement and make it easier for electable candidates to get past the primaries. Romney and Ryan was an extremely socially conservative ticket and went down badly with the voters for precisely that reason; but Romney had a titanic struggle to get selected by Republican party members at grass roots level, who seriously contemplated selecting Rick Santorum. Until it reaches a stage where a candidate like Rick Santorum would be laughed at by the Republican grass roots, the Republican Party will struggle to reach out beyond its own grass roots and appeal to voters who have moderate conservative beliefs.

[DTravel]

The Republican Party has learned nothing from their losses and has no intention of making changes. Instead they want to rig the "game", breaking the current way of electing the US President.

http://news.msn.com/politics/gop-eye...-dems-are-wary

For those of you who don't know how we (the US) does it, the President here is not elected directly by the popular vote. Instead each state has a number of Electoral College delegates equal to the number of Senators and Representatives the state has. So whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a given state "wins" all of that state's Electoral College delegates. Then whoever wins a majority in the Electoral College wins the election. This tends to mirror the popular vote but theoretically can vary from it.

What the Republicans are proposing to do is change this, but only in states where they control the state government and Obama won the Presidential vote. Instead, again ONLY IN THOSE PARTICULAR STATES, they want the Electoral College delegates to be assigned by the vote of individual districts.

Basically, in states where they won the Presidential vote they want to keep the system as is but in states they lost they want to rig it so as to guarantee they get some of the votes and the Democrats can't get them all. Its a fairly blatant attempt to rig the next election.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

I realize it must sound preposterous to even think about the demise of the Republicans but, from watching their actions prior to and since the election, I'm beginning to think they may not be able to recover. Its interesting to see the correlations to the British Labour party and maybe the Republicans will turn things around. But they're showing no interest in paying anything other than lip service to their problems. Yes, a very, very few are saying they need to change but their actions belie their words. Just one example of how tone dead they are.

Only a couple of days after they were smacked down in the election, Ohio Republicans introduced a personhood amendment!

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-abortion.html

Originally Posted by scoundrel

That's the challenge for the US Republicans now. Will they admit, even to themselves, that they misgoverned America so badly that the voters are actively afraid to allow them to govern again?

I think thats what Jindal was trying to say with his speech. But, from his efforts this last week I don't think he believes it himself. He proved to almost everybody, again, that he's a typical Republican trying to destroy the middle class and working poor by getting rid of the Louisiana State income tax and replacing it with a sales tax. Republicans know nothing about progressive taxation other than they don't like it. So Jindal and the Republicans, again, prove they are no friends of the working class.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...uck-with-that/

Or will they continue to offer the medicine as before and tell themselves that next time they must try harder to sell the same old neo-liberal economic policies allied to tax cuts for the rich and spurious foreign wars, paid for by borrowing which future generations will need to repay?

See above. I think its pretty obvious to just about everyone that the same old, same old tax cuts for the rich and bible thumping is their way forward. The only currently elected Republican that "seems" to be bucking that trend is Chris Christie. And who knows how long that will last.

Will they continue to peddle social conservatism, guns, God, no abortion and knee-jerk reactionary little-America grand standing on issues such as immigration and citizenship?

I don't know if you get MSNBC over there but, if you do, try and check out Joe Scarborough in the early a.m. He's a prominent conservative who has been really unhappy with the current situation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns..._joe/#50663688

The Republicans have lost touch with their own natural constituencies.

Precisely. Many latinos are pretty conservative and should be aligned with the Republicans but the Republicans now in charge are just like Romney and Ryan; they look down on just about everyone unless they're bank account is in the millions.

One way to save the Republican movement (and actually I think US Democrats should want to save the Republican movement in the interests of plural democracy) would be to make it illegal for God botherers to run for office. Anyone who is a self-professed clergyman (eg the Reverend Pat Robertson) should be disqualified from public office, even as a dog catcher. Any church which donates to any political cause should lose its tax-exemption and be forced to render unto Caesar. These measures would weaken the sclerotic grip of God-botherers on the Republican movement and make it easier for electable candidates to get past the primaries. Romney and Ryan was an extremely socially conservative ticket and went down badly with the voters for precisely that reason; but Romney had a titanic struggle to get selected by Republican party members at grass roots level, who seriously contemplated selecting Rick Santorum. Until it reaches a stage where a candidate like Rick Santorum would be laughed at by the Republican grass roots, the Republican Party will struggle to reach out beyond its own grass roots and appeal to voters who have moderate conservative beliefs.

Great idea but isn't going to happen anytime soon. The "god botherers (like that term)" seem to own the primary process which is why we're seeing all of these incumbents retire and complete whacko's come into the general elections. They won a bit in 2010 but not as well last year. But they've gerrymandered the house districts so well that they should be able to keep the house until 2022 (if they don't totally go bananas).

So I guess the question is, can the Republicans survive if they can't win the Presidency and Senate? Only controlling in the House? Personally, I think they may be dead because they only have old white men and racists remaining. Not going to get far any longer with that constituency any longer.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,

I realize it must sound preposterous to even think about the demise of the Republicans but, from watching their actions prior to and since the election, I'm beginning to think they may not be able to recover.

It is not preposterous. The Republicans were originally created out of a massive schism in the former American Whig party over slavery. Slavery is a defunct issue today, but tension between conflicting regional interests is alive and well. The religious right are strongest in the South and South-West states, excluding California. But in places like Ohio, California, key swing states, the totemic God-botherer positions on abortion, contraception, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, the classic banners of mean-spirited social repression, play badly, as Todd Akin discovered. Away from Florida and the heartland of anti-Castro expatriates, the US blockade of Cuba doesn't impress the voters. Anti-immigration stances are a very double edged sword, even in bedrock Republican voter groups and they don't help candidates tryingto appeal to the centre ground. What happened in the 1850s could happen again; a schism based on regional interests. At the moment, I don't see what the touchstone issue might be which would create the fracture.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Slavery is a defunct issue today, but tension between conflicting regional interests is alive and well.

Sorry to say it but there are many people in the South (and other states such as Indiana) who wouldn't mind its return and don't think it was all that bad. Do a quick google search on "slavery a blessing in disguise" and you'll be amazed. Southern Republicans (not all but quite a few) would have no problem going back to pre 1865. Here's an example of a couple of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03unoBg06G0

"In a 2009 self-published book, Representative Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro calls slavery a “blessing in disguise” for blacks, who otherwise would have still struggled as “African tribesmen” instead of becoming the citizens of “the greatest nation” on earth.

“The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise,” Hubbard argues in Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative. “The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of this Earth.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/09/...aign-comments/

Those three are actually typical of many modern Republicans. And they're actually in some places you wouldn't expect. There was a time, only a few years ago, when the Ku Klux Klans largest membership was actually in Indiana! Not in a southern state.

The religious right are strongest in the South and South-West states, excluding California. But in places like Ohio, California, key swing states, the totemic God-botherer positions on abortion, contraception, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, the classic banners of mean-spirited social repression, play badly, as Todd Akin discovered.

It seems to me the only reason Akin and these other Republicans wind up losing is because they get caught and receive national attention. Please remember, Akin lost funding from the national Republican party for a while but, when the national party realized they still had a chance to win the seat they quietly restored his funding. So the Republicans really have few problems with racism if they think they can win a senate seat.

What happened in the 1850s could happen again; a schism based on regional interests. At the moment, I don't see what the touchstone issue might be which would create the fracture.

As far as the Republican schism is concerned its the social conservatives (who have taken the party over) vs. the mainstream Republicans mainly concerned with fiscal issues and small government (who are now cowering somewhere in the dark). The social conservatives vote in the primaries and win at that level. But they get slaughtered in general elections. Mainstream Republicans realize that but don't seem to be willing to do anything about (at least for now). Its the "god botherers" that are your touchstone.

[blueballsdc]

The Republican party is far from dead. Just look at their control of Governorships, state legislatures, and local municipalities. I'm not saying that the party won't change. I could very well imagine a split between the religious elements, the conservative elements, and the moderate elements of the party. There are many Republicans that are fiscal and social conservatives but not very religious. I can't see things ending up as multi-party because the politics in the USA are really only set up for two big parties.