What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Moiraine]

57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Democrats have a dream scenario here. Their numbers keep going up and republicans keep going down. And, republicans keep doubling down on what got them here. 
 

Unfortunately, I have little faith in them not f#&%ing it up. 

 

42 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Heh my faith sounds about like yours.  

 

 

 

The DNC pisses me off often but the system for federal elections is stacked against them. 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

The DNC pisses me off often but the system for federal elections is stacked against them. 

To a certain extent, that’s their own fault. They have not been successful in state politics enough to turn state politics in their favor. Gerrymandering is a major problem that needs fixed.  But, let’s not fool ourselves, the only reason Democrats now think it’s horrible isn’t because they are above using it. It’s because republicans have been more successful in state politics to be able to use it more.  
 

And, they have failed to appeal to rural America. 

[suh_fan93]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, they have failed to appeal to rural America. 

 

Yep.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

 

The more cynical take I read today on this (which had 49% Dem identifiers and 40% GOP) is the bolded from the USA Today article on the poll:
 

Quote

The report also noted a 6% increase in independents; from 38% in the fourth quarter of 2020 to 44% in the first quarter of 2021. It's the highest percentage since 2013, when 46% of survey respondents identified as independents. The rise correlates with the decline in Republican Party identification, just as in 2013, when the GOP saw a drop in the popularity during the government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act. 

 

The drop in GOP identification is just embarrassed Republicans not wanting to admit they're Republicans and calling themselves independents. They'll still be voting R. I suppose a few 

 

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

To a certain extent, that’s their own fault. They have not been successful in state politics enough to turn state politics in their favor. Gerrymandering is a major problem that needs fixed.  But, let’s not fool ourselves, the only reason Democrats now think it’s horrible isn’t because they are above using it. It’s because republicans have been more successful in state politics to be able to use it more.  
 

And, they have failed to appeal to rural America. 

 

Rural America could help itself a lot by shutting the Fox News off and pulling their heads out. 

 

Nothing the Dems do is going to appeal to a lot of them because they're conditioned by their media diet to blame Dems for everything.

[RedDenver]

 

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

To a certain extent, that’s their own fault. They have not been successful in state politics enough to turn state politics in their favor. Gerrymandering is a major problem that needs fixed.  But, let’s not fool ourselves, the only reason Democrats now think it’s horrible isn’t because they are above using it. It’s because republicans have been more successful in state politics to be able to use it more.  
 

And, they have failed to appeal to rural America. 

 

 

The last sentence is the most important and I agree, but it is highly related to what you are saying about state politics. If most of your voters are in the cities it is going to be harder to win a lot of state seats. It's more difficult mathematically to cut up a low population area into districts that favor you. I don't quite agree that's the only reason Democrats find it horrible though. There are certainly districts that were gerrymandered by the Democrats, but I don't think there is precedent for what happened in 2010, and now the GOP is entrenched in those places. Winning gerrymandered districts back is easier said than done.

 

That said, I think it's hard for a party that wants to be inclusive to reach rural America, especially in the last 10 years. Not because they don't want to include rural America, but because a lot of people in rural America hate the inclusivity "schtick" and they eat up anything Fox News says that makes it sound like an attack on White people and rural or midwestern or southern values. A lot of people in rural America get mad at things like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem or anything to do with equal rights because they see it all as an attack on White people, as if minorities getting equality somehow takes something away from them. I'm not sure how the DNC can approach this better. How do they create better messaging on how they're helping rural America and away from these perceived slights? They need to figure that out but I think saying they're f#&% ups is over simplifying it. They are facing a huge challenge especially when things are so ingrained and so many are glued to Fox News. 

I honestly think the Republicans are much bigger f#&% ups. I feel they have the opportunity to wipe the floor of Democrats if they'd just take it. They have a tight hold of rural voters so they have the advantage right now. Whoever gets the rural vote will always have an advantage in the Senate and the presidential election regardless of who's running. Instead of making any changes in 2008 they just went the gerrymandering route. Instead of making changes after Trump lost they are still sucking his teat. I feel there are easy changes on social policy they could make that would make them a lot harder to beat.

[TGHusker]

12 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, they have failed to appeal to rural America

And social conservatives.  I think if they had open their tent more to pro-life concerns, the GOP would have been a party of the past- like the Whig Party.

[TGHusker]

10 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I feel there are easy changes on social policy they could make that would make them a lot harder to beat.

 

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

And social conservatives.  I think if they had open their tent more to pro-life concerns, the GOP would have been a party of the past- like the Whig Party.

 

You and I are saying the same thing towards both parties - If the GOP became more open minded - they'd have a lock. If the Dems opened up their tent, they'd have a lock.

Both parties are stuck in their polarizing extremes and the first one to recognize this and take the risk to change, I think will grow in popularity.

[GSG]

Ad from The Republican Accountability Project. Supposed to be airing on Fox "News" next week.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marjorie-taylor-greene-in-her-own-words-video_n_606e9e8dc5b6c70eccadf534

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

12 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

And social conservatives.  I think if they had open their tent more to pro-life concerns, the GOP would have been a party of the past- like the Whig Party.

While this might be appealing to the social conservatives, the Dem base is not socially conservative. It's a complex issue, but 77% of Americans say they don't want Roe v Wade overturned, so the Dem party could actually lose more voters than they gain by becoming pro-life.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

You and I are saying the same thing towards both parties - If the GOP became more open minded - they'd have a lock. If the Dems opened up their tent, they'd have a lock.

Both parties are stuck in their polarizing extremes and the first one to recognize this and take the risk to change, I think will grow in popularity.

 

 

What do you think the DNC should change?

Edit - just saw what you wrote. But how should the DNC change on abortion? A lot of what is written about what they want on abortion is made up B.S.

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

What do you think the DNC should change?

I think the "pro-choice" purity test needs to dial back a bit.  A pro-life Democrat would have a fighting chance in some states.  

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

44 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I think the "pro-choice" purity test needs to dial back a bit.  A pro-life Democrat would have a fighting chance in some states.  

 

 

Oh I definitely agree with that. My mind was on overall messaging. But when Democrats on the coasts get all pissy about a midwestern Democrat being pro-life (or even not prioritizing the topic) it just makes them look stupid.

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, funhusker said:

I think the "pro-choice" purity test needs to dial back a bit.  A pro-life Democrat would have a fighting chance in some states.  

agree with this. -  Stop saying "We want abortion to be rare" than defend abortion even to the 9th month and at all cost (yes I know most late term abortions are for medical necessity reasons).  If they could recognize the life of the baby as well as the life of the mother to be as both valuable - and that there are valid reasons to support the life in the womb when there are no medically necessary reasons for an abortion.   Help elect pro-life Dems - start wt making pro-lifers welcomed at the table of discussion within the party.   Acknowledge there are alternatives to abortion if the mother carries the baby to term.  Adoption, financial assistance. etc. 

 

On the GOP side - they could start with helping with funding for contraception, education, etc.    Expand prenatal care, "welfare' programs to help the poor caught in an unplanned pregnancy, etc. Help make adoption less expensive for those who want to adopt a baby from an unplanned pregnancy. Reach out to the pro-choice side to find common ground to make "Abortion rare."   Abstinence education isn't the solution.  Guys will be Guys and Gals will be Gals and the Birds and the Bees are still flying overhead (by the way, How did birds and bees get associated with sex/pregnancy - but I digress) 

 

As a whole, I recognize that abortion #s are trending downward.  The GOP & the Dems however wants to keep it as a red meat issue for political reasons - thus it has been hard to find common ground as neither side wants to compromise.

 

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

What do you think the DNC should change?

see above