Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:59 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,491
If I may junior mod a bit..........

1. Discussion of election law and procedure is not what this thread is about. Also,

2. I am asking about what ethical measures the Republican Party could use to solve its demographic problems. Saying things like, "Disenfranchise minorities, steal votes, voter suppression, etc." are not good-faith answers to the question. That would be like me asking, "The Cleveland Browns are always losing, what can they do to become a winning team?" and then people jump in with answers like, "Cheat! Bribe refs! Use illegal equipment! Take performance drugs!"
  #52  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If I may junior mod a bit..........

1. Discussion of election law and procedure is not what this thread is about. Also,

2. I am asking about what ethical measures the Republican Party could use to solve its demographic problems. Saying things like, "Disenfranchise minorities, steal votes, voter suppression, etc." are not good-faith answers to the question. That would be like me asking, "The Cleveland Browns are always losing, what can they do to become a winning team?" and then people jump in with answers like, "Cheat! Bribe refs! Use illegal equipment! Take performance drugs!"
Ok, you make a good point.

The answer is then- none. Because:

1. In reality, they'd need to abandon two of their core groups, and they are unwilling to do that. Bigots and the Evangelicals are two important core groups. What would be left are the Plutocrats, and there arent enough of them.

2. The GOP has no ethics.

3. The GOP thinks (or claims) that Disenfranchising minorities, voter suppression, and Jim Crow laws ARE ethical things to do, since clearly, preventing 100000 minority citizens from voting to prevent one illegal from voting is a Good Thing. This proving my point 2.
  #53  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:19 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If I may junior mod a bit..........

1. Discussion of election law and procedure is not what this thread is about.
Sorry for the tangent/hijack. That discussion does probably deserve its own thread.

Quote:
2. I am asking about what ethical measures the Republican Party could use to solve its demographic problems. Saying things like, "Disenfranchise minorities, steal votes, voter suppression, etc." are not good-faith answers to the question. That would be like me asking, "The Cleveland Browns are always losing, what can they do to become a winning team?" and then people jump in with answers like, "Cheat! Bribe refs! Use illegal equipment! Take performance drugs!"
The one thing I'll say to this before actually trying to answer the question, is that it's more like asking what the Houston Astros can do to win. The point is not just that the GOP is looking at a future where with the current political landscape they will have a tougher and tougher time winning elections; it's that we already know they cheat to win elections, especially in states where changes either in ethnic demographics or urban/rural divides have swung the voter-base more towards the Democrats.

As for what to do ethically, the choices are either to look for a middle ground where they keep the majority of their current base of support, and find inroads into traditionally democratic leaning demographics, or to abandon their traditional base and try to find a sizeable chunk of voters across demographics that are looking for a new coalition to represent them.

I think if the GOP could reform their image and really prove that they mean it they would have some inroads into socially conservative minorities. I think in order to do this they would need to commit to that for several years because at the moment they not only have a problem of current policies targeting minorities, they've had these policies for long enough that they have a trust/credibility issues with large numbers of minorities.

A bigger problem for them is that while I don't think it's anywhere near a majority, there is a sizeable portion of out-and-out racists in the GOP base and you can't pick up minority voters while keeping the racists, at least in large enough numbers to matter. Possibly more problematically is that the GOP has been extremely effective at targeting a larger group of white voters who aren't overtly racist but can be susceptible to dogwhistles that hit them at an instinctive or emotional level. I think most of these voters just have anger and dissatisfaction that needs to be vented somewhere and there are other ways to pick them up, but the GOP doesn't want to go from dominating this group to having to find new inroads and compete more with the Democrats for them.

In the extreme long-term, as long as heavily-white states remain that way and the demographic changes continue to be regional, the GOP will at least have a shot at being a majority party in the Senate and many state governments. Obviously they don't want to be permanently just hanging on without a real possibility of controlling Congress and the White House, so the best thing for them long-term would be to either somehow find a middle-ground where they can slightly adjust their base to include more minorities, or reach a point where they hit rock bottom with their current trajectory and are forced to completely realign similar to what they did after FDR - and find a swathe of minority voters who don't feel adequately represented by the Democrats and white voters who they hadn't been reaching before.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 04-07-2020 at 02:22 PM.
  #54  
Old 04-07-2020, 02:38 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Ok, you make a good point.

The answer is then- none.
Yes. Of course. Haven't we been saying that from the very beginning?

Velocity, what is our reality could make you think there is another answer?
  #55  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:58 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Thread: > What are realistic solutions for the GOP to address its demographics problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
2. I am asking about what ethical measures the Republican Party could use to solve its demographic problems.
First you wanted realistic. Now you want ethical. It's like the kid saying, "Mom, I want to grow up and be a rock musician." Her response: "Now dear, you can't have both."

The GOP have demonstrated their complete lack of ethics for decades. Their "ethical" solution would be mass suicide, but I don't see that as realistic. As I said, the "realistic" solution is mass murder to break the demographic wave, and I hope that's unlikely. But I recall seeing KILL LIBERALS truck mud flaps. That's the GOP core (young edition).

But wait! There's another solution! Chemtrails of bleach, turning everyone old and white! Should include enough opioids, crack, and waffle syrup to change mental attitudes, too. That might make up for all the rednecks and faithful who'll succumb soon. (cite)

Last edited by RioRico; 04-07-2020 at 11:58 PM.
  #56  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:43 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
One thing Republicans can do without sacrificing their "values" is to embrace a reasonable, science-based approach to climate change, an issue where even their own younger voters are at odds with the party. There's nothing really "conservative" about denying the reality of it, whatever the belief in its cause. They also need to drop their hysterical positions against LGBTQ persons -- where else are their voters going to turn if they do? -- and devise a 21st century policy on health and reproductive issues or they're going to lose another huge demographic permanently: women.

If Republicans are counting on today's Millennials to turn more conservative as they enter late middle age, simply as a matter of human nature, well, that ship has sailed with that generation.
  #57  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:10 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
As for what to do ethically, the choices are either to look for a middle ground where they keep the majority of their current base of support, and find inroads into traditionally democratic leaning demographics, or to abandon their traditional base and try to find a sizeable chunk of voters across demographics that are looking for a new coalition to represent them.
The problem, as I noted in a previous post, is that the Republican party has become a party of people who feel they are superior. They're white people who think they're better than non-white people, men who think they're better than women, old people who think they're better than young people, Evangelical Christians who think they're better than people who aren't Evangelical Christians, straight people who think they're better than gay people, English speakers who think they're better than people who speak other languages, rich people who think they're better than poor people, people from rural communities who think they're better than people from cities, People whose ancestors came from Western Europe who think they're better than people whose ancestors came from anywhere else - and all of these groups want a party that recognizes their superiority and agrees that they are entitled to special treatment.

For the Republican party to reach beyond its base, it either has to say that some of the demographic groups outside of its base are just as good as the groups inside its base - which would alienate the people in its base - or it has to try to appeal to those outside demographic groups by offering them second-class status to what it offers its favored groups - and that's not an offer that's likely to draw many people from those outside groups. Because the Democrats are offering the people in these groups equal status.
  #58  
Old 04-08-2020, 10:00 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
One thing Republicans can do without sacrificing their "values" is to embrace a reasonable, science-based approach to climate change...
That will never fly because reality has a liberal bias. Insightful intestines trump science.
  #59  
Old 04-08-2020, 10:26 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Now, what are practical ways in which Republicans could solve their demographics problem while still remaining distinctly different from the Democratic Party? (in other words, if they totally jumped a 180-degree and turned themselves into a carbon copy of the Democrats in every way, then sure, they could get those votes, but then they'd cease being the Republican Party. They have to still present themselves as being distinctly different from the Democrats in order to be a meaningful rival.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
One thing Republicans can do without sacrificing their "values" is to embrace a reasonable, science-based approach to climate change, an issue where even their own younger voters are at odds with the party. There's nothing really "conservative" about denying the reality of it, whatever the belief in its cause. They also need to drop their hysterical positions against LGBTQ persons -- where else are their voters going to turn if they do? -- and devise a 21st century policy on health and reproductive issues or they're going to lose another huge demographic permanently: women.
How is that not a 180-degree turn from their present policies?
  #60  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:55 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,199
That's not turning themselves into a carbon (heh) copy of the Democrats in every way. You can agree with them on some issues while differentiating yourself on others. For instance, on trade/internationalist issues both here and in the UK, some people are against some globalization initiatives because they are right-wing isolationists, while some are against them because they feel they hurt domestic workers, but that doesn't mean that pro-labor and pro-nativist politicians are exactly like each other in every way.
  #61  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:20 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
How is that not a 180-degree turn from their present policies?
Yeah. Without those kinds of mean-spirited policies, the GOP has to fall back on Reaganomics and hawk foreign policy, both of which are popular with small groups but not broadly popular since the 2008 crash and the Iraq war.

Note how both Brexit and Trump happened in countries with large financial sectors and who were the main participants in the Iraq war. When limited government and hawkish foreign policy are no longer popular, conservatives have to fall back on xenophobia.
  #62  
Old 04-09-2020, 01:39 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
One thing Republicans can do without sacrificing their "values" is to embrace a reasonable, science-based approach to climate change, an issue where even their own younger voters are at odds with the party. There's nothing really "conservative" about denying the reality of it, whatever the belief in its cause.
As I understand it, Republicans' denial of climate change is entirely in line with "conservative" values, because combating climate change requires regulation that conservatives reflexively loathe. They realize it makes no sense to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change while fighting regulations that would stop it, so the only logical course is to deny reality.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #63  
Old 04-09-2020, 02:03 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
As I understand it, Republicans' denial of climate change is entirely in line with "conservative" values, because combating climate change requires regulation that conservatives reflexively loathe. They realize it makes no sense to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change while fighting regulations that would stop it, so the only logical course is to deny reality.
I think Republicans believe in minimally necessary regulation, not no regulation. The brand of rapacious capitalism we're drifting towards right now is an abomination even for them. This thread is asking what the GOP can do to head off the demographic time bomb heading its way and I think I've suggested something that they can do.

Failure to do anything will marginalize them for decades to come.

Have any conservatives chipped in to this conversation?
  #64  
Old 04-09-2020, 02:28 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I think Republicans believe in minimally necessary regulation, not no regulation. The brand of rapacious capitalism we're drifting towards right now is an abomination even for them. This thread is asking what the GOP can do to head off the demographic time bomb heading its way and I think I've suggested something that they can do.

Failure to do anything will marginalize them for decades to come.

Have any conservatives chipped in to this conversation?
Your distinction between "minimally necessary regulation" and "no regulation" is technically accurate, but I haven't seen much evidence that rapacious capitalism has become abominable to true conservatives. Name one environmental protection the current GOP hasn't tried to cripple.

That said, in the spirit of the OP, I would say the GOP could win many environmentally minded younger voters by championing market-based initiatives to generate cleaner energy instead of denying that they're even necessary.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #65  
Old 04-09-2020, 02:34 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I think Republicans believe in minimally necessary regulation, not no regulation. The brand of rapacious capitalism we're drifting towards right now is an abomination even for them.
It's an abomination they're willing to vote for when push comes to shove.

Many Republicans may not be bigots & kooks but when they have to choose between siding with bigots & kooks or people who'll raise taxes, they side with bigots & kooks the vast majority of the time.
  #66  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:03 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Sorry for double post; Brain didn't brain right


Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I think Republicans believe in minimally necessary regulation, not no regulation. The brand of rapacious capitalism we're drifting towards right now is an abomination even for them.
Emphasis mine.

You use the word "drifting" like we're at sea and going towards rapacious capitalism thru no human agency. We're not drifting towards it, we're being driven towards it. And who's doing the driving in that direction? Republicans.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 04-09-2020 at 03:04 PM.
  #67  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:17 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
As I understand it, Republicans' denial of climate change is entirely in line with "conservative" values, because combating climate change requires regulation that conservatives reflexively loathe. They realize it makes no sense to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change while fighting regulations that would stop it, so the only logical course is to deny reality.
I've said before that there's two tiers in the modern Republican party. At the top you have businessmen; they want a program of government support, tax cuts, and deregulation - not in general but for themselves. And these guys insist on results not promises.

But they're not numerous to win elections. They needs a separate base of supporters to pump up the vote counts. So they find groups that can be manipulated with fear or resentment and make them promises. These promises are pretty meaningless. The Republican leadership wants to keep these people voting and actually addressing their problems might interfere with that.

So the Republicans aren't going to address climate change. It's not an issue that can be used to scare the base and it is an issue that might cost the leadership some profits.
  #68  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:19 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,707
If I were the GOP, I would look to courting the fast growing Asian American population. The overt and covert racism coming from the right has traditionally targeted Blacks, and Hispanic groups, and more recently Middle Easterners. There hasn't really been a big push to target Asians generally (although the recent COVID-19 stuff seems headed that direction).

Consequently, I would surmise that the average Asian American isn't predisposed to reflexively reject the GOP on racist terms. Demographically, they are frequently socially conservative, business owners, and value family values and education - most of these are all smack dab in the GOP wheelhouse.

So, I would invest a lot in courting this group as it is growing, younger, and not already tainted.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #69  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:32 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
If I were the GOP, I would look to courting the fast growing Asian American population. The overt and covert racism coming from the right has traditionally targeted Blacks, and Hispanic groups, and more recently Middle Easterners. There hasn't really been a big push to target Asians generally (although the recent COVID-19 stuff seems headed that direction).

Consequently, I would surmise that the average Asian American isn't predisposed to reflexively reject the GOP on racist terms. Demographically, they are frequently socially conservative, business owners, and value family values and education - most of these are all smack dab in the GOP wheelhouse.

So, I would invest a lot in courting this group as it is growing, younger, and not already tainted.
Texas Republicans do a better than average Republican job at courting Hispanic voters, who are generally a conservative group and who Texas pubbies will absolutely need in elections to come. This is of course relative.

You folks disparaging the idea of Republicans continuing to run away from climate change might be forgetting that they're at odds with their own younger voters on this issue. Whatever small percentage of young voters who gravitate to the right will continue to grow the number of Republicans who are willing to face climate change realistically. It's either that for the GOP or risk losing two generations of voters -- which will soon become the two largest generations of voters -- by the same margins they currently lose black voters. At which point they become the Irrelevant Party.
  #70  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:39 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I've said before that there's two tiers in the modern Republican party. At the top you have businessmen; they want a program of government support, tax cuts, and deregulation - not in general but for themselves. And these guys insist on results not promises.

But they're not numerous to win elections. They needs a separate base of supporters to pump up the vote counts. So they find groups that can be manipulated with fear or resentment and make them promises. These promises are pretty meaningless. The Republican leadership wants to keep these people voting and actually addressing their problems might interfere with that.

So the Republicans aren't going to address climate change. It's not an issue that can be used to scare the base and it is an issue that might cost the leadership some profits.
From what I've read, that's similar to how large plantations owners motivated foot soldiers to fight for slavery, "to defend our traditional way of life". They're still saying that today, whether it's idolizing the pre-civil rights '50s or making America great again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
If I were the GOP, I would look to courting the fast growing Asian American population. The overt and covert racism coming from the right has traditionally targeted Blacks, and Hispanic groups, and more recently Middle Easterners. There hasn't really been a big push to target Asians generally (although the recent COVID-19 stuff seems headed that direction).

Consequently, I would surmise that the average Asian American isn't predisposed to reflexively reject the GOP on racist terms. Demographically, they are frequently socially conservative, business owners, and value family values and education - most of these are all smack dab in the GOP wheelhouse.

So, I would invest a lot in courting this group as it is growing, younger, and not already tainted.
They tend to be educated in live in large cities. The trend has been for college graduates to increasingly vote Democrat*.

Asians tilt Democrat more than the religiously unaffiliated, post-graduate women and Jews**. I really hope they try to turn secular Jewish women with masters & PhDs though.



* https://www.google.com/search?q=educ...Zl-l-jyYJ_rZxM

** https://www.google.com/search?q=educ...yaPELWobbu4IeM
  #71  
Old 04-09-2020, 03:41 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I've said before that there's two tiers in the modern Republican party. At the top you have businessmen; they want a program of government support, tax cuts, and deregulation - not in general but for themselves. And these guys insist on results not promises.

But they're not numerous to win elections. They needs a separate base of supporters to pump up the vote counts. So they find groups that can be manipulated with fear or resentment and make them promises. These promises are pretty meaningless. The Republican leadership wants to keep these people voting and actually addressing their problems might interfere with that.

So the Republicans aren't going to address climate change. It's not an issue that can be used to scare the base and it is an issue that might cost the leadership some profits.
But they don't just not address climate change -- they actually turn their denial of it into a rallying cry for the base! They've managed to create a narrative in which regulatory bodies are nothing more than bureaucrats out to hurt business and stifle job creation. So the people most likely to be directly impacted by environmental deregulation -- not just from long-term climate change but also by immediate damage to the ecosystems where they live -- are the ones on social media calling climate change a hoax.

So to attract a younger, more environmentally conscious demographic, they'd have to not only address climate change but admit to their base that they've been bullshitting them all along.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #72  
Old 04-09-2020, 04:04 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
To paraphrase David Frum, once conservatives realize that they can't win with their ideas democratically, they will not abandon their ideas, they will abandon democracy.
  #73  
Old 04-09-2020, 04:49 PM
tampora is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 51
This is how ridiculous the OP is; utter nonsense.


Quote:
In this thread, I would like to ask that we set the "No murder = good, murder = bad" mindset aside for a moment and just look at the issue from a problem-solving lens.

We've heard, for many years, that murderers have a demographics problem...

Now, what are practical ways in which Murderers could solve their demographics problem while still remaining distinctly different from the non-murderers? ...

Again, setting right-and-wrong aside, just looking at the issue as if the murderer hired you and paid you a lot to be its "demographic strategist."

Last edited by tampora; 04-09-2020 at 04:49 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017