patrick.net

Too little republicanism. Too much religious fanaticism.

This isn't really news. Its been fairly well discussed before and its now almost cliche'. The GOP needs to update the definitions of its target "consumers". Basically the reliable voters who have always voted for them and are also in the same demographic used to be able to win elections based on their numbers alone. Now even if 100% of that same demographic voted Republican, that is no longer enough to win. Thus they need to make themselves more appealing to other groups if they hope to win elections in the future. That means a dramatic shift in their party.

121212 says

The Republican Party did not lose last Tuesday's election. It was obliterated, crushed, slaughtered, massacred, squashed, annihilated — and, let’s hope, extinguished.

i hardly would call a 48% as a massacre.. what do you tell those who voted for the GOP in 2012 .. they will be back..and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Massacre is something like Mondale in '84 who carried only one state while the GOP carried the majority.

The bigger question for you is what happened to the 10 Million of 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him 2012. You do see the future ? You completely lost 10 million of your past supporters.

thomaswong.1986 says

and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Not really. Demographics are not in the Republican's favor. It's more likely that the GOP ranks will continue to decline in the forseeable future.

The GOP needs to learn. Young people love idealistic bullshit. They should add a few elements taken from Utopia. No need to deliver. Just blame the other party. :-)

121212 says

For the party of Lincoln

Post 1960s Republicans are not the party of Lincoln. The two major parties switched roles in the 1960s.

But why try to create a new Republican Party anyway? That party has become so corrupt and obscene, it's best to just let it end. Instead, we should let the Democratic Party (which is basically almost everyone who isn't a Republican religious nutjob or godless greedy financial parasite), to break up into several smaller, more organized parties. Then we would have real competition.

Of course, the only way to allow that is to have major structural reform in the way elections are ran.

Barry Goldwater would have been the best president ever.

thomaswong.1986 says

GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Not with the party's theocratic policies, which poll at or below 40% and falling. Romnesia campaigned on amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion even in cases of rape or incest (30%) and to prohibit same-sex marriage and even domestic partnerships (30%). (Opposition to same-sex marriage generally is around 40%, but amending the Constitution polls around 30%.) The GOP base is largely elderly religious voters, who (because they are elderly) tend to be dying off. Yet, they even lost Florida, which has a high % of elderly and religious voters. Democrats and Democratic policies are much more popular among younger voters, so the trend favors Democrats.

That could change of course. I suspect Republicans might campaign in 2016 on returning social issues to the states. That would mean reversing Roe v Wade to allow states to prohibit abortion, so it might corral enough religious fundamentalists to win, but it wouldn't prohibit abortion outright, so it might not energize opposition. Likewise marriage: Cheney's view was that the federal government should generally defer to the states on marriage, which was the law from the founding of the republic until 1996. So, Republicans can try to split the baby, campaigning on states' rights, and they might hope to get enough support in enough states to win.

I prefer Dan's solution though, because the GOP has become a fundamentally corrupt organization built around manipulating people into voting against their own interests. Meanwhile, the Democratic party has become a bloated unaffordable patronage network. Alas the way elections are currently structured, the major party system will remain binary unless someone like Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates decides to fund a viable movement.

thomaswong.1986 says

hardly would call a 48% as a massacre

Yes it was!

Obama First Since Ike to Win 51% Twice, Final Tally Shows
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Eisenhower-electoral-college/2013/01/04/id/470148
Obama 51%

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/mitt-romney-47-percent-vote-total/60613/
Romeny 47%

thomaswong.1986 says

The bigger question for you is what happened to the 10 Million of 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him 2012. You do see the future ? You completely lost 10 million of your past supporters.

Foolish idiot ,there is no bigger question, he won.

The bigger question for you is how on earth the Republicans can win every again!

Peter P says

The GOP needs to learn. Young people love idealistic bullshit

Yes they want moon bases and Newt

Dan8267 says

That party has become so corrupt and obscene, it's best to just let it end

No, according to
thomaswidiot.1986 the democrats should be worrying why 10 million voters didn't vote Obama, even after he won handsomely. Idiot