Page 8 of 8

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:09 pm
by Defiant
Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?
How about...
Republican Party
/rəˈpəbləkən ˈpärdē/
noun
1. A political party that is primarily associated with blind support for Donald Trump. See Trumpism

2. (archaic) of, relating to, or constituting the one of the two major political parties evolving in the U.S. in the mid-19th century that is usually primarily associated with business, financial, and some agricultural interests and is held to favor a restricted governmental role in economic life

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:18 pm
by Smoove_B
I don't even know where to post this stuff anymore. Please do enjoy, comments from recently re-elected Representative Steve King:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
Amazing.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:22 pm
by Pyperkub
Smoove_B wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:18 pm
I don't even know where to post this stuff anymore. Please do enjoy, comments from recently re-elected Representative Steve King:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
Amazing.
sing-song "which one of these is not like the others?"

Dude's batting .333 - good in baseball, awful in History class.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:41 pm
by Skinypupy
King has always been a racist douche, so these comments are surprising at all.

What is disheartening is the fact that not a single other member of the GOP will call him out on it. Whether that's because they agree or because he's on "their side" doesn't make any difference. It needs to be called out.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:49 pm
by YellowKing
It's why I don't understand how NeverTrumpers like Bill Kristol can keep hanging on. I know they're probably thinking, "I can't fix my party if I abandon it" but come on. Your party is dead. Your'e not getting it back. There is no redemption.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:59 pm
by Pyperkub
Skinypupy wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:41 pm
King has always been a racist douche, so these comments are surprising at all.

What is disheartening is the fact that not a single other member of the GOP will call him out on it. Whether that's because they agree or because he's on "their side" doesn't make any difference. It needs to be called out.
But somehow it's AOC who is a complete idiot. They don't even bother anymore. :grund:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:01 pm
by Kraken
Republican Charlie Baker has come out with some bold (for a R) and forward-thinking policy proposals in the past few months, such as doubling the tax on new home sales to fund climate mitigation -- taxing real estate to protect real estate. Previously, he signed a payroll tax increase to pay for a generous new family leave benefit. This regular Globe columnist's essay made me think of this thread.
The most popular governor in America is essentially a man without a party to call home. He’s way too liberal for Republican primary voters, yet still much too conservative to get anywhere as a Democrat.
...
Baker’s no longer pretending this isn’t about revenue-raising. All it took was the confidence that comes with winning 1.7 million votes in last November’s gubernatorial election — and perhaps an acknowledgment that there’s absolutely no place for him anyway in today’s GOP. The party he signed up for is an ideologically rigid corpse, compliments of Trump and his crew of Republican enablers.
...
Still, when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried, someone will have to reinvent the party he destroyed. Why not someone like Baker? The country’s politics are already trending away from Trump’s base. According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, young people, including Republicans, are shifting left on social issues and on what they believe government should deliver. That next generation of voters will redefine both parties, or maybe decide to create a new one.

In the meantime, Massachusetts is an excellent laboratory for political experimentation, with maximum national exposure. Baker has not ruled out a third term. As he starts his second, he seems focused on building a legacy by trying to do right by Massachusetts.

Too bad his party wants nothing to do with that.
IDK if the R Party can ever be rehabilitated, at least not until my generation dies off...but if it can, people like Baker will come to the forefront.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
by pr0ner
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:34 pm
by malchior
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.
It often makes sense. It depends on whether they have national ambitions. If not, they can be very effective especially as centrists. If they get Presidential ambitions then the GOP centrist often turns into a ridiculous parody of themselves. See Chris Christie. He had the makings of a great governor until he got stars in his eyes.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:41 pm
by Enough
Why We Are Quitting RedState
For more than a decade, RedState was a solid voice in the world of online conservative commentary. Unfortunately, the allure of Trumpism has left the once great site a shell of its former self.
Though we continued on in the hopes the atmosphere might change, that approach is now untenable.

A cursory glance at the front page of RedState reveals the transformation that Salem wanted is now complete. There is no local editorial control. Decisions are made behind the scenes at Townhall and subject to its review.
We are conservatives. We believe in limited government, the free market, the Constitution, and protecting the rights of the unborn. We have therefore supported the Republican Party and believed in the Republican Party for years. But a healthy Republican Party cannot exist without a healthy conservative media; likewise, a toxic, poisonous conservative media is like a parasite for the conservative movement— and, make no mistake, it will eventually kill it.

We publish this with the hope that it serves to push the Republican Party and conservative media back to the ones we respected, admired, and believed in.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
by Kraken
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:51 pm
by Holman
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.
The question isn't whether a genuinely moderate/centrist Republican could win this or that state in the general but whether they could first win the national primary. It's hard to imagine that happening with today's GOP.

How could a Baker win the Southern and Western primaries?

An America in which Massachusetts gets to choose between Charlie Baker and (say) Kamala Harris is an America in which Trump's GOP has entirely ceased to exist.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:33 pm
by Kraken
Holman wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:51 pm
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.
The question isn't whether a genuinely moderate/centrist Republican could win this or that state in the general but whether they could first win the national primary. It's hard to imagine that happening with today's GOP.

How could a Baker win the Southern and Western primaries?

An America in which Massachusetts gets to choose between Charlie Baker and (say) Kamala Harris is an America in which Trump's GOP has entirely ceased to exist.
Well yeah, "when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried" was the premise.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:10 pm
by Holman
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:33 pm
Well yeah, "when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried" was the premise.
Not just Trump's GOP, but Limbaugh's and Hannity's and whichever fascist goon leads the alt-right.

The current crop of NeverTrumpers will literally be dead before the GOP retreats from fascism.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:21 pm
by Defiant

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
I know nothing about Baker, but IIRC, the average home state advantage for a Presidential candidate is like +5% (and tends to be more pronounced in smaller states). With Democrats typically winning MA in recent presidential elections by like 25%, I would be very skeptical unless he were winning in a landslide anyway.