Fundraising for 2020/2021: Currently at $1580. Fundraising has begun, see the global post for options. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

If they just opposed intellectuals and learning, this would be easy. But it's the Culture War, and ideology is way more persuasive than evidence.

It's not that conservatives believe knowledge is bad and ignorance is good; it's that they believe that what liberals call "knowledge" is really just propaganda and indoctrination, and that true knowledge comes only from trusted conservative sources like the church and right-wing media and [insert conspiracy theory here].
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 17001
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by coopasonic »

It's fair to say colleges are having a negative effect on the US in terms of student debt. Education isn't bad. Crushing student debt is.
-Coop

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 17001
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by coopasonic »

Holman wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:16 pm
If they just opposed intellectuals and learning, this would be easy. But it's the Culture War, and ideology is way more persuasive than evidence.

It's not that conservatives believe knowledge is bad and ignorance is good; it's that they believe that what liberals call "knowledge" is really just propaganda and indoctrination, and that true knowledge comes only from trusted conservative sources like the church and right-wing media and [insert conspiracy theory here].
There is absolutely indoctrination and propaganda. Is it called projection in politics too?
-Coop

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23610
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by noxiousdog »

coopasonic wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:52 am
It's fair to say colleges are having a negative effect on the US in terms of student debt. Education isn't bad. Crushing student debt is.
It's exaggerated.

The numbers are being skewed by graduate students. Master's students shoulder 40% of the total debt load despite being only 17% of the student population.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

IDK how to link/reproduce a FB post here, so Imma just quote the whole thing. IDK who this woman is, either, but I just followed her.


Heather Cox Richardson
·

November 6, 2019, (Wednesday)

Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.

In a democracy, if you want to advance policies that do not command a majority of voters, you can do one of two things. You can either change your policies to make them more attractive to more people, or you can game the system to cut voters who don't support you out of the process. Starting in the 1980s, the Republican Party went the second direction. Leaders began to challenge Democratic victories by claiming they were a result of "voter fraud," (investigations show that actual voter fraud is so rare as to be virtually non-existent). This led to voter purges and ID laws that skewed the electorate toward the GOP.

While this was a huge problem for the Democrats, of course, who lost voters, it created a deep systemic problem for the Republicans, even though few of them noticed it during the heady time when they won again and again. The problem was this: candidates no longer needed to appeal to moderates; instead, they had to be sure they couldn't be attacked from their right by primary challengers. So candidates moved rightward. When their increasing extremism alienated even more voters, they retained power through gerrymandering, carving up state districts to give themselves huge structural advantages. It was less important than ever to appeal to anyone but their base, and the party moved even farther rightward.

This system works until a party gets so extreme it loses even its original supporters. That's what we saw yesterday in Virginia, and here's where I find this moment of a party's history fascinating (and why this strategy has always seemed to me supremely dumb, aside from any questions of morality). When a party finally loses the majority despite all its gaming of the system, its opponents take over, and they are in a position to undo all the machinations that have kept them from power. They will, for example, undo gerrymandering and restore the vote to those who have been disfranchised. Suddenly, all those people who have felt unrepresented and cheated again have a voice, and they will not be using it in support of those who continued to get more and more extreme after cutting them out of the process. The backlash creates a political tidal wave.

Yesterday's elections sit on both sides of this mechanical divide. In Kentucky, a red state where the Democrat won by getting out the vote against a historically unpopular governor but where the GOP remains strong, Republican leaders have greeted the news of a Democratic victory as if they are still able to win by simply fiddling around with the rules. Governor Matt Bevin is contesting his loss. He claims his opponent won by cheating and suggests that he could still pull out a victory. “We know for a fact that there have been more than a few irregularities, they are very well corroborated,” Bevin said. (He did not provide any evidence for this allegation of voter fraud.) “The process will be followed, and in the end, we will have the governor that was chosen by the people of Kentucky, and that’s the way the process should work.” (Observers say that Bevin will be hard pressed to overturn his opponent's 5000 vote lead.) The Republican president of the Kentucky Senate had a different thought: maybe the election could somehow be thrown into the Republican legislature, where Republican members could choose who won. This has happened before... in 1899.

If what's happening in Kentucky looks like the old system, Virginia looks like the new. In Virginia, the GOP's extremism has finally alienated enough former supporters that Democrats have won control. This will launch the process of restoring the voices and votes of people previously disfranchised. The new Democratic legislature will be in charge of redistricting the state after the 2020 census. Republicans launched Operation REDMAP a decade ago to gain Republican control of state legislatures to guarantee gerrymandering would benefit Republicans. It worked brilliantly... but it also forced the party rightward. Now Democrats will undo that gerrymandering, and today's Republicans will have to try to attract voters from a position further right than a decade ago. It's going to be uphill work.

So what happens next? If the historical pattern holds, we will not have a normal back and forth between parties for awhile. Either the GOP will double down on minority rule and destroy democracy altogether in order to stay in power, or their opponents will take power and reopen politics to voices that have been silenced by voter suppression and gerrymandering.

Either will create a sea change in America. It is, as Ronald Reagan said in the speech that rocketed him to political prominence, "A Time for Choosing."

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18692
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Kraken wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:20 am
Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.
This is a massive overstatement for Kentucky. It's nowhere near being a "former red" state. The governor there was massively unpopular for all sorts of things which I won't go into here. But there were 5 other statewide offices on the ballot and Republicans won them all. Beat Mitch McConnell and then we can talk.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33302
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Remus West »

Grifman wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am
Kraken wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:20 am
Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.
This is a massive overstatement for Kentucky. It's nowhere near being a "former red" state. The governor there was massively unpopular for all sorts of things which I won't go into here. But there were 5 other statewide offices on the ballot and Republicans won them all. Beat Mitch McConnell and then we can talk.
Mitch being even less popular than Bevin gives me some hope there. Other than that I agree completely.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

Grifman wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am
Kraken wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:20 am
Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.
This is a massive overstatement for Kentucky. It's nowhere near being a "former red" state. The governor there was massively unpopular for all sorts of things which I won't go into here. But there were 5 other statewide offices on the ballot and Republicans won them all. Beat Mitch McConnell and then we can talk.
Yeah, if anything the results point towards the contrary, even with Beshear winning. The governor's race was a popular son of a popular former governor running against literally the most unpopular governor in the country, and he *barely* won. And Republicans won the other statewide races in a walk. And this is in state races, not federal races, in a context where Democrats have been more viable in state than federal elections.

It's weird to look at that and say "wow, Democrats are ready to dominate elections in Kentucky!"

Virginia's a better example, since Democrats really are literally taking over the state and are positioned to do consistently well in the future. I think it's fair to argue at this point that Virginia may be a blue state, maybe kind of akin to New Hampshire (generally will go democratic, but winnable for republicans in certain types of races and certain political environments). But even here the cause and effect is unclear - with Virginia this looks more like the general political realignment that states go through over time. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats consistently competed in Missouri and Arkansas, or that Republicans competed in California and Nevada. Right now states like Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, and maybe Texas / Georgia look to be edging leftward, but at the same time states like Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin look like they may be trending rightward.

User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3684
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

El Guapo wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:57 am
Grifman wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am
Kraken wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:20 am
Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.
This is a massive overstatement for Kentucky. It's nowhere near being a "former red" state. The governor there was massively unpopular for all sorts of things which I won't go into here. But there were 5 other statewide offices on the ballot and Republicans won them all. Beat Mitch McConnell and then we can talk.
Yeah, if anything the results point towards the contrary, even with Beshear winning. The governor's race was a popular son of a popular former governor running against literally the most unpopular governor in the country, and he *barely* won. And Republicans won the other statewide races in a walk. And this is in state races, not federal races, in a context where Democrats have been more viable in state than federal elections.

It's weird to look at that and say "wow, Democrats are ready to dominate elections in Kentucky!"

Virginia's a better example, since Democrats really are literally taking over the state and are positioned to do consistently well in the future. I think it's fair to argue at this point that Virginia may be a blue state, maybe kind of akin to New Hampshire (generally will go democratic, but winnable for republicans in certain types of races and certain political environments). But even here the cause and effect is unclear - with Virginia this looks more like the general political realignment that states go through over time. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats consistently competed in Missouri and Arkansas, or that Republicans competed in California and Nevada. Right now states like Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, and maybe Texas / Georgia look to be edging leftward, but at the same time states like Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin look like they may be trending rightward.
Virginia is definitely a positive story for Democrats, but Kentucky, not so much.

From what I read, polling data suggests that Beshear was actually poised for a much more decisive victory before the impeachment inquiry heated up. Once that happened, Bevin went all-in on nationalizing the election to make it a referendum on Trump. No one in KY seems to like Bevin. Like, no one. At Bevin’s campaign appearances, almost no one showed up with a Bevin sign or sticker or pin. Instead, it was just seas of Trumpsters in MAGA hats. The fact that Beshear beat this guy buy the smallest of margins actually shows how strong Trump’s support remains in Kentucky.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 20008
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

El Guapo wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:57 am
Grifman wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am
Kraken wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:20 am
Yesterday's elections in Kentucky and Virginia illustrate that we are in a major political realignment. In Kentucky, unpopular Republican Governor Matt Bevin lost his office to the state's Attorney General, Democrat Andy Beshear, by a razor thin margin of about 5100 votes. In Virginia, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the legislature and turned the state blue for the first time in 26 years.

These Democratic victories in formerly red states, and the reaction to them, are textbook illustrations of the mechanics of how a political party collapses in a democracy. Mind you, I'm not talking about the policies at stake here, but rather trying to shed light on an important systemic pattern that shows up really well in these two elections.
This is a massive overstatement for Kentucky. It's nowhere near being a "former red" state. The governor there was massively unpopular for all sorts of things which I won't go into here. But there were 5 other statewide offices on the ballot and Republicans won them all. Beat Mitch McConnell and then we can talk.
Yeah, if anything the results point towards the contrary, even with Beshear winning. The governor's race was a popular son of a popular former governor running against literally the most unpopular governor in the country, and he *barely* won. And Republicans won the other statewide races in a walk. And this is in state races, not federal races, in a context where Democrats have been more viable in state than federal elections.

It's weird to look at that and say "wow, Democrats are ready to dominate elections in Kentucky!"

Virginia's a better example, since Democrats really are literally taking over the state and are positioned to do consistently well in the future. I think it's fair to argue at this point that Virginia may be a blue state, maybe kind of akin to New Hampshire (generally will go democratic, but winnable for republicans in certain types of races and certain political environments). But even here the cause and effect is unclear - with Virginia this looks more like the general political realignment that states go through over time. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats consistently competed in Missouri and Arkansas, or that Republicans competed in California and Nevada. Right now states like Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, and maybe Texas / Georgia look to be edging leftward, but at the same time states like Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin look like they may be trending rightward.
While I agree about the fact that Beshear winning the Gov isn't any indication that Ky is in the middle of any sort of re-alignment, it *is* important to remember why he's so unpopular, and it all comes down to his Tea Party take on Pensions and Education, which is also what happened to Brownback in Kansas (who currently *also* has a Democratic Governor, also in response to the damage GOP Tea Party government did to the state).
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Kurth wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:01 pm
Virginia is definitely a positive story for Democrats, but Kentucky, not so much.

From what I read, polling data suggests that Beshear was actually poised for a much more decisive victory before the impeachment inquiry heated up. Once that happened, Bevin went all-in on nationalizing the election to make it a referendum on Trump. No one in KY seems to like Bevin. Like, no one. At Bevin’s campaign appearances, almost no one showed up with a Bevin sign or sticker or pin. Instead, it was just seas of Trumpsters in MAGA hats. The fact that Beshear beat this guy buy the smallest of margins actually shows how strong Trump’s support remains in Kentucky.
Funny enough after a little digging the problem is that the polling data was sparse and what existed except for one poll was fairly low quality. According to fivethirtyeght, one of them even had Bashear up 20 points a month ago. Up 20 points? In KY. Good work there, folks.

Interesting aside, there was a case for good polling science and fivethirtyeight's methodology to rank them. The Bashear +20 group had a D rating. One firm with a B+ rating had them in a dead heat on 10/16. So 1) they were pretty dialed in and 2) it still indicates that Trump had almost no effect on the election MAGA hats notwithstanding.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 40433
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

Remember what the polls said for the 2016 election?

Ah, good times. Good times.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

hepcat wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:08 am
Remember what the polls said for the 2016 election?

Ah, good times. Good times.
Well actually the polling was pretty solid. One of the enduring myths was the polls got it wrong. It was more like the data was good but the media analysis was all wrong. To be a little fair, the outcome came down to well inside the error of margin and was razor thin. It came down to a small number of voters in a few key states. So I agree...good times indeed.
Exit polling found that late-deciders in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin broke for Trump by double-digit margins as high as 29 points.
I wonder what news broke right before the election that pushed people strongly in this direction?

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6085
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Default »

In last Tuesdays "dogcatcher" elections, the Dems flipped three of the burbs counties, iirc. In the city, one of the council at large positions which normally would be a GOP position, the familiar name got his clock cleaned by a third party newbie. That was stunning!
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Default wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:41 pm
In last Tuesdays "dogcatcher" elections, the Dems flipped three of the burbs counties, iirc. In the city, one of the council at large positions which normally would be a GOP position, the familiar name got his clock cleaned by a third party newbie. That was stunning!
Yeah, that was fun!

And turnout was a new record for this cycle. Good sign.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6085
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Default »

Holman wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:05 pm
Default wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:41 pm
In last Tuesdays "dogcatcher" elections, the Dems flipped three of the burbs counties, iirc. In the city, one of the council at large positions which normally would be a GOP position, the familiar name got his clock cleaned by a third party newbie. That was stunning!
Yeah, that was fun!

And turnout was a new record for this cycle. Good sign.
I can hope to unclench my fists this time next year. ;)
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
Jaymon
Posts: 1970
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Jaymon »

America has been a two party system, as ya'll know, but its not always been these two specific parties. The republican party has chosen their hill to stand on, and that hill seems to be burning down, so to speak. I think the republican party as it exists today is going to fold up.

None of the existing alternate parties are going to fill the void, Thats not how these things work. I believe a new party will stand up, consisting of former republicans who realize that the GOP leadership went way to far left. A return more towards the center, to re-encompase their values so that large swaths of folks can once again declare themselves as conservatives, without needing to try and explain affiliation to the 12 thousand lie machine. I don't know what the new party would be called, but it would likely gain instant popularity, and leave those crazy far leftists behind them.
Bunnies like beer because its made from hops.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

Default wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:39 am
Holman wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:05 pm
Default wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:41 pm
In last Tuesdays "dogcatcher" elections, the Dems flipped three of the burbs counties, iirc. In the city, one of the council at large positions which normally would be a GOP position, the familiar name got his clock cleaned by a third party newbie. That was stunning!
Yeah, that was fun!

And turnout was a new record for this cycle. Good sign.
I can hope to unclench my fists this time next year. ;)
Do some voter registration / voter engagement / GOTV volunteering in the interim.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Jaymon wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:42 pm
America has been a two party system, as ya'll know, but its not always been these two specific parties. The republican party has chosen their hill to stand on, and that hill seems to be burning down, so to speak. I think the republican party as it exists today is going to fold up.

None of the existing alternate parties are going to fill the void, Thats not how these things work. I believe a new party will stand up, consisting of former republicans who realize that the GOP leadership went way to far left. A return more towards the center, to re-encompase their values so that large swaths of folks can once again declare themselves as conservatives, without needing to try and explain affiliation to the 12 thousand lie machine. I don't know what the new party would be called, but it would likely gain instant popularity, and leave those crazy far leftists behind them.
I generally agree. The GOP needs and deserves to die. America needs a true Conservative party that isn't based on white nationalism or the need to keep a religious-tinged thumb on the system. Those values are for better or worse changing. The country could do with some smart fiscal restraint especially in healthcare. There is common ground there I think. The ACA was generally that approach but the GOP was already out of the station heading downhill without brakes by then. We have big problems and need the GOP to die to begin picking up the pieces. Otherwise, this system will fail at some point.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 14270
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud »

The split will be Clinton Democrats vs. Bernie Democrats once the GOP withers. Likely even before.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

Stop it. The GOP is not going to wither anytime soon (next decade or so). For that to happen the GOP would have to suffer such an apocalyptic electoral defeat that they crater, and that's not going to happen given the disproportionate weight given to the GOP base under our current system (esp. in the Senate).

Main conditions for GOP ceasing to exist would be: (1) some type of ranked-choice voting implementation that makes third parties viable; and/or (2) something that causes rural voters to completely abandon the GOP. Maybe if Jesus descends from Heaven along with Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln to condemn Trump, and then only maybe.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:23 pm
Stop it. The GOP is not going to wither anytime soon (next decade or so). For that to happen the GOP would have to suffer such an apocalyptic electoral defeat that they crater, and that's not going to happen given the disproportionate weight given to the GOP base under our current system (esp. in the Senate).

Main conditions for GOP ceasing to exist would be: (1) some type of ranked-choice voting implementation that makes third parties viable; and/or (2) something that causes rural voters to completely abandon the GOP. Maybe if Jesus descends from Heaven along with Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln to condemn Trump, and then only maybe.
I agree it'll very most likely be a slow grind. There is only a very small chance they suffer a catastrophic collapse. Risk factors in front of them immediately are them losing the Presidency and Senate next year. If that unlikely event happens there will be some real repercussions for instance. The republic vs democratic "features" of the system reduce the risk to the GOP greatly but it really depends how much public mood swings on this. Let's say 55% of people support removal and the Republicans keep acting this way and it actually sticks to the brand...all bets are off for them. I don't see it happening but there is a chance.

User avatar
Default
Posts: 6085
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Default »

El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:23 pm
Maybe if Jesus descends from Heaven along with Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln to condemn Trump, and then only maybe.
"That Jesus looks Mexican to me, and Lincoln freed the n***ers. Reagan is ok." - GOP rural voters.
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 20008
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

malchior wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:23 pm
Stop it. The GOP is not going to wither anytime soon (next decade or so). For that to happen the GOP would have to suffer such an apocalyptic electoral defeat that they crater, and that's not going to happen given the disproportionate weight given to the GOP base under our current system (esp. in the Senate).

Main conditions for GOP ceasing to exist would be: (1) some type of ranked-choice voting implementation that makes third parties viable; and/or (2) something that causes rural voters to completely abandon the GOP. Maybe if Jesus descends from Heaven along with Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln to condemn Trump, and then only maybe.
I agree it'll very most likely be a slow grind. There is only a very small chance they suffer a catastrophic collapse. Risk factors in front of them immediately are them losing the Presidency and Senate next year. If that unlikely event happens there will be some real repercussions for instance. The republic vs democratic "features" of the system reduce the risk to the GOP greatly but it really depends how much public mood swings on this. Let's say 55% of people support removal and the Republicans keep acting this way and it actually sticks to the brand...all bets are off for them. I don't see it happening but there is a chance.
I think that the GOP in California is their future. If they continue on the current path, it will be faster. Essentially, Texas will flip again despite all the GOP shenanigans, and while they may end up with a perfect storm like what made Ahnold the Governator, it's a slow grind to bluesness. In the next 10 years? Maybe, but more like 20 to settle in.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 15231
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Skinypupy »


The share of Republicans who say presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about Congress and the courts increased 16 percentage points over the past year, from 27% in March 2018 to 43% this past July.
Image
For those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth »

It would also be so much better if the president's son just became the next president. Eliminate all that messy, time-consuming election stuff.

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33302
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Remus West »

They are not wrong. It is just that doing that wouldn't have the results they'd really like to see. I, for one, would have loved to see what an Obama administration could have gotten done without the Republicans in Congress blocking everything they could in hopes of keeping anything from getting done. I'm just not willing to destroy our nation's founding principals to see that.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 26372
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

Ask them that same question under a Democratic President. It's not just that they're hypocrites, it's that they KNOW they are hypocrites and they just don't care.

User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate
Fretmute’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Fretmute »

YellowKing wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:54 pm
Ask them that same question under a Democratic President. It's not just that they're hypocrites, it's that they KNOW they are hypocrites and they just don't care.
They did! The first set of data was under Obama.

Of course, just as many Democrats flipped the other way (on the transition).

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 20008
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

Scary thoughts:
Trumpism, Purified

Trump won’t be alive forever. But his legacy is secure. Trump proved the path to victory in the modern Republican Party is through an unflinching adherence to cultural conservatism. The traditional Republican economic and foreign policy agenda — lower taxes, less government, aggressive austerity, more wars— was never very popular, but Republicans ran on it anyway because what else was there? ...

...Trump, meanwhile, violated Republican orthodoxy left and right. He didn’t want to privatize your social security. He didn’t want to save NAFTA. He went to South Carolina, a very conservative state, and ridiculed Jeb for being related to the Bush who started the Iraq War. And he won every delegate! Republican pundits didn’t know what to do. The National Review hated him. Trump, though, did not give any ground on social and cultural issues. He spoke the patois of the aggrieved Fox News viewer, the sort of person who rails earnestly about wars on Christmas and Jesus Christ being a white man...

...The next Republicans understand this. Tom Cotton, a Harvard-educated veteran, is something of a mirror-world Pete Buttigieg, an academic over-achiever who went to war and always dreamed of becoming president. While Buttigieg is still struggling to connect with the base of his party — black voters of all ideological stripes — Cotton will have no such trouble. He is an ardent defender of Trump’s immigration crackdowns, including the severe curtailment of chain migration. He has said he believes Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.” He voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He boasts an A rating from the NRA. In 2016, he said that America, a country that imprisons more people than anywhere else on Earth, still doesn’t put enough people in prison...

...Cotton, and men like him, will lead the post-Trump GOP, a party beholden to the most revanchist, nihilistic elements of Trumpism, dedicated to cultural and economic conservatism of a radical degree we have yet to know. Shed of President Trump, this party will be freed from his sheer incompetence, which squandered an opportunity, with majorities in the House and Senate, to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act. The heir to Trump’s throne will not have his deficit of patience. The heir will lack his vulgarity, his absurd tangents, his addiction to social media, and his sparrow’s attention span. The heir will be Presidential, even relatively polite...

...This politician will also probably bring America closer to fascism than it’s ever come.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 63094
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

YellowKing wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:54 pm
It's not just that they're hypocrites, it's that they KNOW they are hypocrites and they just don't care.
Pyperkub wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:49 pm
an unflinching adherence to cultural conservatism.

And that is where I decided I could never turn back. I don't even know what cultural conservatism is as a definition but as the saying goes "I know it when I see it" and I don't want any part of it. Not evangelicalism. Not lift yourself by your own bootstraps. Not I got mine. Not stick it to 'em. And not the underlying bigotry. Charlatanism is a problem of both sides. But it's the norm of the power brokers and power seekers in the GOP and that norm is fed by whatever cultural conservatism is.

I'm not sure the electors know they are hypocrites and don't care. But I am fairly sure that there is generally a wall between them addressing their hypocrisy with any sort of introspection and the danger of this is like none I've seen in my few short decades in this nation on this planet.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

After voter suppression comes voter intimidation.
A Trump campaign adviser told prominent Republicans in Wisconsin that the party “traditionally” relied on “suppressing votes,” according to an audio recording obtained by The Associated Press.

Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to the Trump campaign, made the comment during a private meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter in November while discussing plans for more aggressive poll watching in 2020.

“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said in the recording, according to the AP. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
...
But Democrats say Republicans have repeatedly used poll watching as a voter suppression tactic. Earlier this year, courts lifted a decades-long consent decree that banned the Republican National Committee from using “ballot security” measures. The consent decree was put in place in 1982 after the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit claiming that the RNC “attempted to intimidate the minority voters” in a New Jersey governor’s race.

“The RNC hired off-duty law enforcement officers to patrol polling places in minority precincts,” the lawsuit said. “The officers wore armbands that read: ‘National Ballot Security Task Force,’ and some carried two-way radios and firearms.”
Ought to put a good dent in all that voter fraud, though.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

The GOP's Embrace of Hungarian Fascist Viktor Orbán.

This is really less a Trump story than of the Right's swerve towards nationalist authoritarians.
Trump’s oft-professed admiration for Orbán is not merely a cold calculation of national interest, as he and his allies sometimes rationalize Trump’s preference for autocrats over democratic allies. Trump genuinely respects and even envies Orbán’s methods of political control. “Viktor Orbán has done a tremendous job in so many different ways,” Trump told reporters last spring, while granting his Hungarian counterpart a cordial White House visit. “Respected all over Europe. Probably, like me, a little bit controversial, but that’s okay.” In June, David Cornstein, the U.S. ambassador to Hungary, told Franklin Foer, “I can tell you, knowing the president for a good 25 or 30 years, that he would love to have the situation that Viktor Orbán has, but he doesn’t.”

Trump’s admiration for Orbán is no mere personal idiosyncrasy, either. In recent years, a growing circle of right-wing intellectuals have defended Orbán’s illiberalism as a model they wish to import. Columns in the New York Post and the Federalist have praised Orbán for defunding progressive academic departments, and — temporarily forgetting their supposed concern about campus illiberalism — urged Trump to do the same in the United States. Representative Steve King has called Orbán the Churchill of Western civilization. Prestigious conservative journals like the Claremont Review and National Review have flattered the Hungarian strongman with lengthy, fawning profiles.
Tl;dr: as America becomes more diverse and plural, Republicans look to the racist authoritarians of the East and like what they see.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

Scholars who study fascism say it's time to take to the streets.
"The system is enabling Trump," Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor who wrote "How Fascism Works," told Insider.

"There need to be mass protests," he said. "The Republican Party is betraying democracy, and these are historical times. Someone has got to push back."

"The deeply worrying moment is when you start to become a one-party state," Stanley added. "The Republican Party has shown that it has no interest in multi-party democracy ... They are much more concerned with power, with consolidating power."

Stanley said recent actions by Republicans and Trump were "straight from the literature on authoritarianism."
...
"From the moment he entered the Republican primary in 2015 to his impeachment five years later, Donald Trump has ignored advice to moderate and change and, in his view (which is largely correct), won. He has tested the boundaries of people and institutions several times and found them to be bendable and weak," said Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia who's an expert on populism, extremism, and democracy.

"There is absolutely no reason for him to stop pushing," he added. "It goes against both his personality and his experience."

Mudde said the only question is whether there is still a breaking point for the Republican Party.

"Note that Trump has not changed the institutions, so the powers are still there," he said. "This is all about the courage and willingness of Republicans to stand up for the rule of law and to the president."
...
If Americans are truly concerned with Trump's "abuse of power," Ben-Ghiat said, the best strategy is for voters to mobilize and use "their electoral power to vote out these authoritarians while they still can."

But with a president who was just impeached on allegations that he solicited foreign election interference, and with Republican lawmakers who appear fully willing to enable his behavior, Stanley said he was not particularly optimistic about Election Day in November.

"I don't know what would happen in the absence of mass protests," Stanley said. "I'm not at all sanguine about the fairness of the upcoming elections."

He added: "As they've shown, they'll do whatever they can to hold on to power."
We're at the point where only Republicans can save the Republic. There's no way they're going to allow themselves to be voted out. We are done for.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 63094
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

"Note that Trump has not changed the institutions, so the powers are still there," he said. "This is all about the courage and willingness of Republicans to stand up for the rule of law and to the president."
This confirms my bias so it must be true.
But with a president who was just impeached on allegations that he solicited foreign election interference, and with Republican lawmakers who appear fully willing to enable his behavior, Stanley said he was not particularly optimistic about Election Day in November.
...
He added: "As they've shown, they'll do whatever they can to hold on to power."
...

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Mudde said the only question is whether there is still a breaking point for the Republican Party.
We've seen there is no breaking point. We betrayed allies and a couple of guys got upset (or pretended to be upset) and then defended the man. He's punished enemies and helped friends. He's robbing the taxpayer in plain sight. He is taking payments from foreign leaders. He should have been impeached and removed in his first year a few months in if this was a system in working order. Until I see Trump leave the White House on his own I won't believe we aren't currently in a dictatorship.

He doesn't have 100% control yet but nonetheless I believe we are. We'll know more about the limits of this new power in a few months but I expect it to be expansive. If you don't believe it, look at year 1 stories compared to now stories. It is clear we are way into uncharted territory. This isn't people complaining about Haig during Reagan or even Nixon. This is far beyond.

He is going to solicit and directly interfere in the elections at a minimum. He might disrupt them completely if he feels like he'll lose. No one is going to step up to stop him in the GOP. There is no reason to believe that *this guy* will relinquish power. He is an egomanic and may actually believe his own bullshit about being the only one to #MAGA. It doesn't matter why to be honest, he is simply an existential threat to the nation. We have to prepare for the worst case here.

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 29289
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

The reason, I think, that we don't have more people marching in the streets is that this administration has made people feel like it won't matter. There is no shaming them, no putting them in their place. People have all their hopes pinned on November. I think that it may lead to a larger turnout. I also think that if November goes overtly sideways, people will get desperate. Then you'll see the protests, and likely violence.
________________________________________
A last hope

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 18800
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:09 pm
The reason, I think, that we don't have more people marching in the streets is that this administration has made people feel like it won't matter. There is no shaming them, no putting them in their place. People have all their hopes pinned on November. I think that it may lead to a larger turnout. I also think that if November goes overtly sideways, people will get desperate. Then you'll see the protests, and likely violence.
Agreed

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

Unagi wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:15 pm
Blackhawk wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:09 pm
The reason, I think, that we don't have more people marching in the streets is that this administration has made people feel like it won't matter. There is no shaming them, no putting them in their place. People have all their hopes pinned on November. I think that it may lead to a larger turnout. I also think that if November goes overtly sideways, people will get desperate. Then you'll see the protests, and likely violence.
Agreed
Yup. November is our last firewall.

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 29289
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

And right now people are pissed. They are raging. They are also afraid. As Americans, though, we know that we have an outlet for that: the election. We have established that there is a right way for the public to address something like this.

Take that 'right way' away from people, and all that will be left is the fear and the rage. And that's scary.
________________________________________
A last hope

Post Reply