Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-04-2020, 03:44 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,563

What are realistic solutions for the GOP to address its demographics problem?


In this thread, I would like to ask that we set the "Democrats = good, Republicans = bad" mindset aside for a moment and just look at the issue from a problem-solving lens.

We've heard, for many years, that the Republican Party has a demographics problem, primarily due to age (older = generally more conservative, younger = generally more liberal) and also race (immigrants, growing minorities, etc. = tend to be liberal.) In upcoming decades, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to contend politically on elections that are anywhere except in solid-red territory (which, even then, will be shrinking.)

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.)

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

Last edited by Velocity; 04-04-2020 at 03:45 PM.
  #2  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Boot the bigots. Abandon the fundamentalists. Focus purely on promoting business and national security.

Problem is that the bigots and fundamentalists together might be as much as 10-20% of the country or so, and without them, the Republicans would have to majorly cut into Democratic voters, and dominate independents, to have a chance. But I don't think there's any chance of Republicans gaining more than a tiny portion of minority voters as long as the bigots and fundamentalists (who are closely tied together -- descendants of the original Democratic constituency of white Southern racists) are welcomed in the party.
  #3  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,829
They will do as usual, and as they have admitted: voter suppression, Jim Crow laws.

They could nominate someone who isnt a bigot.
  #4  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:17 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,854
Game the voting system. In the 2000 election, the Ohio Republican government moved several hundred voting machines from black neighborhoods of Cleveland where they were desperately needed to rural areas where they weren't. Some people had to wait until midnight to vote and I am sure many were discouraged and went home. Enough to swing the state and therefore the nation? Maybe. So now we are in two unwinnable wars 18 years later.
  #5  
Old 04-04-2020, 05:32 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, setting partisanship aside, just looking at the issue as if the GOP hired you and paid you a lot to be its "demographic strategist."
For starters, they could convince all their hyper-religious members to stop having mass-meetings every Sunday during a global pandemic that is likely to kill a bunch of their followers 2-4 weeks later...

Last edited by Broomstick; 04-04-2020 at 05:33 PM.
  #6  
Old 04-04-2020, 06:02 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,190
Blacks and Hispanics aren't especially liberal. They are much more religious on average than the average American. So, if they dropped the subtle and not-so-subtle racism and bigotry, they could get a larger portion of those demographics on board.
  #7  
Old 04-04-2020, 06:04 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,470
I'm not sure any practical answer exists. The demographic groups that vote heavily blue are also the ones that are most attacked or most ignored by the reds. They've heard the message for decades so avoiding Republican politicians is completely rational behavior.

What could the Republicans possibly do while that message of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry blares out 24/7? What could they possibly offer that would overcome the blatant voter suppression? Do you expect the Republican party to become "woke"? They hate the word, they hate the notion, they hate the people who espouse it.

Take a look around you right this moment. Democratic governors, mostly in states with large urban populations with great diversity, are acting one way while Republican governors, mostly in rural states with largely white populations, are acting diametrically opposed. There's your answer. There are no programs or positions that are 90 degrees off from those that form a complete party philosophy.
  #8  
Old 04-04-2020, 06:28 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,594
The modern GOP was born as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement and welfare state espoused by the Democrats in the '60s. Some of the rich (e.g.: the Koch brothers) opposed the welfare state and white nationalists/fundamentalists opposed the Civil Rights movement and found common cause. The rich thought they could use white nationalists/fundamentalists as foot soldiers/useful idiots. The Tea Party seems to have been the foot soldiers realizing that they had more power within the party than the rich guys so they could take over the GOP. With the election of a black president and gay marriage, they had better do something now because they were losing ascendancy so now we've got Trump.

So they're not going to stop the bigotry; The bigotry is the point. Any scenario that involves the GOP doing better by shedding its bigotry is like those scenarios where the Nazis do better if they shed their anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; We're not talking about the same entity anymore.

Gerrymandering, voting fraud, filibustering and other Tricky Dick dirty tricks are what they're going to increasingly rely on. When they get really desperate, there will be an increase in violence.
  #9  
Old 04-04-2020, 07:35 PM
split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Blacks and Hispanics aren't especially liberal. They are much more religious on average than the average American. So, if they dropped the subtle and not-so-subtle racism and bigotry, they could get a larger portion of those demographics on board.
This is why Biden is making a big mistake with the female VP thing. Its going to backfire on him.

You can expect low turnout for Black and Latino voters because of this.
  #10  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:02 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
This is why Biden is making a big mistake with the female VP thing. Its going to backfire on him.

You can expect low turnout for Black and Latino voters because of this.
He's running against Trump. Biden doesn't have to woo Black and Latino voters. They're going to come to him.
  #11  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:23 PM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
and also race (immigrants, growing minorities, etc. = tend to be liberal.)
No, they do not. Most are about as conservative as your average right winger. They are just not going to support a party that openly despises them and uses them as a boogey man.
  #12  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:48 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Blacks and Hispanics aren't especially liberal. They are much more religious on average than the average American. So, if they dropped the subtle and not-so-subtle racism and bigotry, they could get a larger portion of those demographics on board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
No, they do not. Most are about as conservative as your average right winger. They are just not going to support a party that openly despises them and uses them as a boogey man.
Right. Those of us who are part of that population know that is so -- if not "most" in the sense that people on these boards in this age think of current right-wingers, at least very many of them are as conservative on social issues as your classic old-school traditionalist.

The Georges Bush were very much into bringing in the Latino voters. Alas the white nationalist faction were much more highly motivated to do whatever it took, and here we are. As mentioned upthread, there is a problem in that the current Republicans rely too much on that faction. BUT a retreat from pandering to white nationalism and return to a proper conservative party would have a good chance of picking up a goodly share of minority vote.

As to demographic predetermination regarding liberalism, I have always been a skeptic. I've been hearing "the young generation with their open minds will change the world for the better" since I was in grade school at the end of the 60s. Now I'm in some definitions of middle age and still waiting. Maybe it's just that Conservatives tend to have more children and most people stick with the values they learned from their parents.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 04-04-2020 at 08:51 PM.
  #13  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:51 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They will do as usual, and as they have admitted: voter suppression, Jim Crow laws.

They could nominate someone who isnt a bigot.
Where could you find such a person within the GOP, and how could you get Rupert Murdock to back them with his propaganda machine?

Stranger
  #14  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:59 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,517
nitpick: Rupert Murdoch rather than ...dock
  #15  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Where could you find such a person within the GOP, and how could you get Rupert Murdock to back them with his propaganda machine?
Mitt Romney. Not a bigot, and has ethics.

I dont care for his politics, but he is ethical.
  #16  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:17 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
We've heard, for many years, that the Republican Party has a demographics problem, primarily due to age (older = generally more conservative, younger = generally more liberal) and also race (immigrants, growing minorities, etc. = tend to be liberal.) In upcoming decades, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to contend politically on elections that are anywhere except in solid-red territory (which, even then, will be shrinking.)

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.)

Again, setting partisanship aside, just looking at the issue as if the GOP hired you and paid you a lot to be its "demographic strategist."
I don't like social conservatism (at least the way it's normally portrayed), but I read a good opinion piece by a Canadian Conservative who decided to support a social conservative cause (specifically the family) without being openly homophobic. (I just do not understand how conservatives can think gay marriage is destroying families. It's not impacting their families, probably.)

He talked about the success formula. Getting an education, getting married (not just common-law) and having kids after those previous steps were taken. Marriage is in decline (which has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage, which increased marriage rates somewhat) and single parents (who have a high rate of poverty) and blended families are more common. This would mean putting some effort into reducing teenage pregnancy rates (which are often the result of rapes). Of course fighting crime is generally a conservative strength. Indeed, Democratic weakness on crime gives the Republicans lots of ammunition (no pun intended).

The UK Labour Party voted in a new leader today, who is a left-winger, but by the standards of his party is a moderate (unlike the previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn). His pledges don't exactly align with Democratic party values but there's some overlap. The list of pledges are here:

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

Quote:
1. Economic justice

Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Toriesí cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations.
The Tories are the Conservative Party (somewhat similar to Republicans). The Republicans could portray this kind of "tax the rich" policy as a tax on success. I'm actually somewhat opposed to corporate tax increases, especially on small businesses, as I feel they hamper job production. I'm all in favor of taxing CEOs though and not letting multinationals avoid paying taxes.

Quote:
4. Promote peace and human rights

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.
I doubt the Democratic Party would introduce a Prevention Act because, to be blunt, sometimes wars have to be fought. Enforcing human rights is an emotional topic, but I don't think any American leader could get China to respect them. (Every Canadian leader has done the verbal equivalent of mailing China a sternly worded letter on human rights.) I think a lot of Americans are sick of being the world's policeman as well and don't want to be a force for international peace.

Quote:
5. Common ownership

Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
The NHS is the National Health Service, the common government-paid healthcare. Many Americans would be opposed to government ownership of rail and energy. (I'm pretty sure most American mail and water is delivered by governments, however.) As for Obamacare, the Republican's desperation to tear down that law has to go. Even if they succeed in the newest serious court challenge, a Democratic majority would create a similar law that creates such a marketplace in a different way, as the idea is more popular than some polls indicate. Many people who don't like Obamacare say so because the law doesn't go far enough for them eg it's not Medicare For All. (Maybe the Democrats would go Full Bernie if they had to do this again.)

Quote:
6. Defend migrantsí rights

Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarlís Wood.
This is an explosive topic for the Republicans. Obviously "EU nationals" aren't something Americans would spend any time thinking about, just immigrants to America in general. A "points" system is pretty popular and even somewhat logical. From what I've heard the US already has a points system, but Republicans generally try to stop family immigration and would rather have skills-based immigration (points-only) instead. Or the racists who want no immigration (or at least no non-white immigration, or want to exclude as many Muslim immigrants as possible) but said people have to exit the party, one way or another.

(This is probably Keir Starmer's weakest area. The British public supported Brexit in higher numbers than in previous decades due to freedom of movement allowing immigration of people from poorer EU countries willing to work for less. This is almost the equivalent of Republicans constantly foaming at the mouth about Mexican immigration. And then came the wave of Muslim migrants. While an EU politician invited them, EU laws did not prevent the British government from controlling the borders. Starmer was a Remainer, and while he's realistic that he cannot overturn Brexit, this does seem an attempt to cut out the heart of Brexit.)

Quote:
7. Strengthen workersí rights and trade unions

Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.
The Democratic Party loves unions, and the Republican Party hates them. For some reason unions are unpopular, even though unionized workplaces are far more likely to have pensions and better healthcare plans. IMO the main reason that unions have lost popularity are unions not sticking to their role. Their job is to improve worker's conditions, not promote causes outside the workplace or come up with unrealistic demands. In Canada the autoworkers unions actually lost popularity among their own members, because the pay increases they fought for simply led to layoffs of the vast majority of their workforce. A few wealthy workers don't vote the way many middle class workers vote.

Quote:
9. Equality

Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 Ė we must build on that for a new decade.
BAME stands for "Black and Middle Eastern". Obviously the individual laws mean nothing in the US. The Republican Party fought against affirmative action for minorities, a topic as explosive as immigration since some opponents of affirmative action are blatant racists. (Starmer didn't actually say he supported affirmative action, incidentally, but I suspect Republicans will not become more honest in the future.)

In addition, I'd expect Republicans to fight against over-the-top political correctness and more limits on welfare. If environmental protests stop the US from drilling more oil or piping it somewhere (like in Canada, where even programs that have majority public support and the support of all the native bands whose territory the pipelines travel through), I'd expect Republicans to jump all over that. They won't actually win votes from semi-green voters unless they acknowledge that human-caused climate change is real, but I suspect they'll downplay the effects. Some of the public thinks the discourse is "alarmist" and the Republicans want all those votes.
  #17  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
This thread starts with a fatally-flawed premise. White Christian Nationalism is the party's identity now. In 2013, they were urged to appeal more to Latino voters. They went in the opposite direction, and they validated that right turn by winning the elections of 2014 and 2016. They're not going back now.
  #18  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:34 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
This is why Biden is making a big mistake with the female VP thing. Its going to backfire on him.

You can expect low turnout for Black and Latino voters because of this.
I don't understand why you say this. There are numerous black and latino female politicians and the vast majority are Democrats. It's true that black votes didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton but that's because she wasn't Obama more than she was a woman. Biden does extremely well with black voters and there's no reason to think they'll avoid him just because he names a woman as running mate. And what if he names Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams?
  #19  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:55 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Mitt Romney. Not a bigot, and has ethics.

I dont care for his politics, but he is ethical.
And totally marginalized by the GOP leadership. Iím shocked that they havenít revoke his member card and attempted a public shaming of him.

Stranger
  #20  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:00 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,896
Mass murder
Mass disenfranchisement through felonization of the "wrong sort"
Mass deportation
Quiverfull strategy, outbreeding the opposition

or, the simplest
Fake the election results

All of these have been attempted to varying degrees.
You don't have to change yourselves. You just have to rig the game.
  #21  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:13 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,896
Would I actually advocate for mass murder if hired on?
Well, anything else I would say would be ignored, so what difference does it make?

I grew up in the GOP. The leadership is basically Charles Koch & his sycophants. They're not going to become environmentalist, ever; they're not going to support workers' rights; they're not going to advocate for a humane society even for white people let alone for anyone else. There are versions of conservatism that are sane; Mr. Koch's money won't support those; he wants to burn the world.

If I advocated for mass murder, I'd at least be an agent provocateur & have a very small chance of provoking a counter-assault from believers in democracy & human rights.

So, yeah. There it is.
  #22  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:48 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This thread starts with a fatally-flawed premise. White Christian Nationalism is the party's identity now. In 2013, they were urged to appeal more to Latino voters. They went in the opposite direction, and they validated that right turn by winning the elections of 2014 and 2016. They're not going back now.
Both parties have been in constant flux since their inception. To say that one party is now set in stone is...short sighted? Wishful thinking? Political parties are always one lost election from change.

I didn’t say improvement, just change.

Last edited by Loach; 04-05-2020 at 12:50 AM.
  #23  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:56 AM
chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,115
Currently both parties are moving too far into the extremes coupled with some unwritten mandate that a "true blue" or "true red" American voter must support his party and 100% of their ideals.

I think many voters like myself find this very unappealing but in a two party system we choose the lesser evil, which for the last two decades plus has been the dems.

You are right about the GOP problem and as their core elderly supporters pass on, they must appeal to more moderate voters.

I do not hate all GOP policies as some here do, but when you have a POTUS who both has the IQ of and acts like a 10 year old, cannot stop lying on an epic scale and the whole party thinks global warming is a a hoax, it is both hard to take the party seriously and i often question the intelligence of those that not only support but believe the same.

Now I understand there are republicans that maybe acknowledge global warming and that Trump is a scumbag but believe more strongly in lower taxes, the religious right or the rights of an unborn fetus/life. And to those people we can agree to disagree without me thinking they are - literally - stupid AF.

All that said... put a Romney type candidate up against a Bernie? That would bring many centrists into the GOP fold.
  #24  
Old 04-05-2020, 06:49 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
And totally marginalized by the GOP leadership. Iím shocked that they havenít revoke his member card and attempted a public shaming of him.

Stranger
Romney probably decided he is not running again in 2024 when he's 77 so he can do and say whatever he wants. And if he does run again in deep red Utah he will likely win again. He could have a primary fight.
  #25  
Old 04-05-2020, 09:20 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,249
The GOP could slow its decline over the next decades by running candidates with 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Gen Xers and minority voters can be won over by dropping the racist dog whistling and advancing reasonable, science-based programs that address the country's needs in an intelligent manner. However, they won't be able to bring themselves to do this for a while, at least until the Silents and the Stupids are of an insignificant number, and will hope to maintain a hold on the Senate (with the help of some Trump judges) to prevent any meaningful progress. After they lose a couple of elections, a new Republican Party will regenerate out of necessity. They will never be completely out of the picture as long as the Democratic Party is as poor at politics as it currently is.
  #26  
Old 04-05-2020, 09:34 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,249
Oh, and I completely forgot the voter suppression strategy. For decades to come, they'll have a court more supportive of their efforts than they ever could have reasonably hoped for. Vote by mail? Ha ha. Need to take away a couple of thousand voting machines in urban areas? Sounds good to us! Gerrymandering? Oh, we can't do anything about that. Shame.
  #27  
Old 04-05-2020, 09:46 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Mitt Romney. Not a bigot, and has ethics.

I dont care for his politics, but he is ethical.
I agree about Romney. I also feel that John McCain and George W. Bush weren't personally racist. But they were all willing to appeal to racist voters in order to get elected.
  #28  
Old 04-05-2020, 09:50 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Currently both parties are moving too far into the extremes coupled with some unwritten mandate that a "true blue" or "true red" American voter must support his party and 100% of their ideals.
I disagree. The Democrats have been seeking the moderate vote ever since the Republicans abandoned it. They have been moving away from the extreme.

Now, I'll grant we've started to see a counter-movement in the Democratic party with Bernie Sanders being its most visible leader. But the fact that Biden beat Sanders shows that the moderates are still in control.
  #29  
Old 04-05-2020, 10:50 AM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree about Romney. I also feel that John McCain and George W. Bush weren't personally racist. But they were all willing to appeal to racist voters in order to get elected.
When you wrestle with a pig...

Stranger
  #30  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Both parties have been in constant flux since their inception. To say that one party is now set in stone is...short sighted? Wishful thinking? Political parties are always one lost election from change.

I didnít say improvement, just change.
The core of their party is focused on demographic change -- in the reverse. They're going to focus on more restrictive immigration policies. They will restrict voting so that it disenfranchises more and more people of color. Their goal is to turn back the clock to 1924. They've already radically changed the dynamics of immigration. Imagine what this situation will look like 4-8 years in the future.
  #31  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Oh, and I completely forgot the voter suppression strategy. For decades to come, they'll have a court more supportive of their efforts than they ever could have reasonably hoped for. Vote by mail? Ha ha. Need to take away a couple of thousand voting machines in urban areas? Sounds good to us! Gerrymandering? Oh, we can't do anything about that. Shame.
This is exactly what they will do, and they'll do it in places that disproportionately impact people of color because it's the easiest way to distinguish voters most likely to vote against them. They can't predict which white men and women will vote against them, even in left-leaning districts. But they know that Latinos outside of Florida and Blacks generally are very likely to vote against them because of their political positions in the past. So those are the voters they will try to disenfranchise first and foremost.

You have to understand that the more things change in this country, the more they stay the same. Anytime the oligarchs in this country have ever been threatened with reform, they've repeatedly gone to a tried and true strategy: create a sense of whiteness; create a white middle class that sees itself as separate and distinct from others. Because that way, lower class whites have a special role in society, which is to police and pin down (and more importantly divide) the rest of the working class. A divided working class is weak and ineffectual against the oligarchs.

When wealthy white colonists were confronted with protests and ethical questions about indentured servitude, they adapted to this problem by creating positions of hierarchy within the slave system: the overseers.

After the civil war, farm owners and industrial plant owners broke the labor movement by negotiating with white unions and essentially turning white laborers against black laborers. And in places where industrialists wanted cheaper labor, they threatened to hire black "scab" workers, which white laborers then went out and slaughtered.

The strategy is long-term. It's to turn the races against each other, but the most likely way to make that happen is to give white working class voters a place in society over everyone else.
  #32  
Old 04-05-2020, 01:37 PM
chargerrich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I disagree. The Democrats have been seeking the moderate vote ever since the Republicans abandoned it. They have been moving away from the extreme.

Now, I'll grant we've started to see a counter-movement in the Democratic party with Bernie Sanders being its most visible leader. But the fact that Biden beat Sanders shows that the moderates are still in control.
That is a fair point, but as a moderate I have to say that it certainly does not feel - even remotely - like that is the case (despite Biden's lock on the nomination). That crazy, ultra progressive arm seems to be gaining traction not losing it.
  #33  
Old 04-05-2020, 04:15 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Both parties have been in constant flux since their inception. To say that one party is now set in stone is...short sighted? Wishful thinking? Political parties are always one lost election from change.

I didnít say improvement, just change.
I've mentioned before how we can look back at American history and see the counter-argument for this. For around a hundred years, there were several states in which one party ran things. Once they had established themselves in power, they used that power to make sure they were not challenged. They could even allow a token opposition to exist as long as it remained irrelevant.

As you note, a political party is motivated to change as a result of losing elections. If a political party has achieved a system where it doesn't lose any elections, it has no motivation to change. Indeed, it is highly motivated to prevent any changes less those changes inadvertently ruin the system that keeps it in power.

To get back to our historical example, the one party that was in power never sought to reform itself. It only did so when the federal government intervened and imposed change upon it. If a one party system controlled the federal government, then there would be no higher authority to impose change. At that point, you're looking at a static regime that stay in power and avoids all change until it's overthrown by a revolution.
  #34  
Old 04-05-2020, 05:06 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 610
I visited the Gerald Ford Library in 2018 and if he was around now he would not be a republican. He was talking about the threat of a shift too far to the right in the 1980s and 1990s.
  #35  
Old 04-05-2020, 05:14 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 19,601
I'm not sure about "distinctly different," but in my formative years, Republicanism stood for (at least purported) fiscal responsibility, strong military, limited social programs, smaller government, less multinationalism ... Sure, the details were often problematic on a case-by-case basis, but there was a perceived distinction.

I think they could stake out that end of the continuum without relying as much on their appeal to bigots and religious fundies. Would the GOP remain the GOP if they backed purple candidates? What if they actually supported limited spending and smaller government, rather than simply claiming to?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #36  
Old 04-05-2020, 05:21 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
In this thread, I would like to ask that we set the "Democrats = good, Republicans = bad" mindset aside for a moment and just look at the issue from a problem-solving lens.

We've heard, for many years, that the Republican Party has a demographics problem, primarily due to age (older = generally more conservative, younger = generally more liberal) and also race (immigrants, growing minorities, etc. = tend to be liberal.) In upcoming decades, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to contend politically on elections that are anywhere except in solid-red territory (which, even then, will be shrinking.)
The age thing tends to normalize. As the society moves to the left the AOC's of the world will pull the Democrats even further left and the Republicans will chase the middle and vice versa.

Immigrants are not liberal. Most of the world is WAAAAAYYYYYYY more conservative than the USA. If the Republicans weren't so racist, almost all the "American Dream" immigrants would be at least open to them. But right now they can't turn their backs on the racists because that is what is winning them elections right now. They will shift when the cost of racism outweighs the benefits.

Quote:
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.)

Again, setting partisanship aside, just looking at the issue as if the GOP hired you and paid you a lot to be its "demographic strategist."
I would try to figure out how to placate the racists (who don't actually believe they are racist) without doing things that will offend most fair minded minorities. For example, they could replace race based affirmative action with socio-economic based affirmative action.

They could expand on their current populist momentum.
  #37  
Old 04-06-2020, 03:41 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193

What are realistic solutions for the GOP to address its demographics problem?


Realistic? There's realism and then there's likelihood. A "realistic" GOP solution is mass deportations and executions to rid the nation of bothersome opponents. A "likely" move is just more and more suppression and disenfranchisement. As is, 80% of US senators represent ~50% of the population, and 50% of senators represent ~20% of the population. GOP will do all possible to retain control with minimal popular backing.

IOW the GOP can't and won't escape its death spiral. Will it take the nation down with it?
  #38  
Old 04-06-2020, 06:22 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I visited the Gerald Ford Library in 2018 and if he was around now he would not be a republican. He was talking about the threat of a shift too far to the right in the 1980s and 1990s.
To be fair, he was not disinterested. Ronald Reagan, who was the leader of the Republican party's conservative wing, had challenged Ford for the 1976 nomination.
  #39  
Old 04-06-2020, 06:23 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Their goal is to turn back the clock to 1924.
I think their long-term target is more around 1824.
  #40  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:04 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think their long-term target is more around 1824.
That would be before a standing army, with the nation still reliant on a "well-regulated militia" for security. I doubt the military-industrial complex will go for that.
  #41  
Old 04-07-2020, 06:45 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
That is a fair point, but as a moderate I have to say that it certainly does not feel - even remotely - like that is the case (despite Biden's lock on the nomination). That crazy, ultra progressive arm seems to be gaining traction not losing it.
As a moderate Democrat in some ways I agree that the movement is away from moderation, however, I don't think it is quite there yet. But speaking with someone who agrees with some but not all of the extreme progressives' viewpoints, there are many flavors of radicalism which not every progressive takes, and so any one of those viewpoints is going to be a minority even within the Democratic party.
  #42  
Old 04-07-2020, 07:41 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 4,238
The Republican party has essentially embraced fascism, so most likely is that they will try for fascist solutions. Suppression of dissent, eliminating voting, muzzling the press, 'cleansing' of opponent groups.

I have to wonder if the coming devastation of some of their major voting bloc -- old males in areas with poor medical access run by pretend-the-virus-away republican leaders -- is going to shift any minds, or just remove them from the voting rolls.

The imaginary Democratic move away from 'moderate' is in fact just a readjustment toward values the Democratic party always stood for but had drifted to the right of, in the general lurch in that direction. If you compare Democratic platforms over the last forty years or so you will see this.
  #43  
Old 04-07-2020, 09:21 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 2,982
Well, I think it's obvious that Trump is making some feeble attempts to reach out to the black community. Any small percentage counts. He certainly doesn't rail against them as much as some other minorities.

I think, after Trump's gone, you could begin to see Latino outreach again. Bush was not hostile to latinos at all.

Even minor bumps to either could keep Republicans competitive.
  #44  
Old 04-07-2020, 10:24 AM
BrickBat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: US
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
The Democratic Party loves unions
Well, at least during campaign mode, and on election day.

Now, back before the third-way traingulation politics era, that's a different story.
  #45  
Old 04-07-2020, 10:38 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
That would be before a standing army, with the nation still reliant on a "well-regulated militia" for security. I doubt the military-industrial complex will go for that.
They could disband the armed forces but keep writing checks to the executives of defense contractors. They'd actually increase their profits if they didn't have to spend a portion of the money they receive on delivering goods, so they'd go for it.
  #46  
Old 04-07-2020, 10:48 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,415
The conservative platform since the late forties has been built around defying enemies. And if an enemy didn't exist that seemed threatening enough, they built one up.

Their current problem is they've backed themselves into a corner. They've defined themselves as the party that defends old white men from everyone who isn't an old white man. Their "us" has gotten so small that "them" is now a majority.

To break out of this dilemma, they need to invent a new scenario. They need to start talking about how they're defending all Americans from some foreign enemy. Maybe the Chinese.
  #47  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:02 AM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,195
We found out the answer to the OP's title question yesterday: Get the GOP majority of a state supreme court to bar the governor from postponing the election in the face of a contagious pandemic, then get the GOP majority of the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an extension of absentee balloting in the same election. Combine the well-known advanced age of most election volunteers with greater population density in Democratic cities. Et voila: Mostly-white GOP-leaning rural voters more willing to vote because they won't be lined up by the hundreds, while Dem-leaning more diverse Milwaukee city residents face the dilemma of massive lines at five polling sites (versus about 180 usually!) or not voting. Served cold, serves to stave off electoral loss hunger for about four years.

As was said to another Republican from Wisconsin: At long last, have you left no sense of decency? In this case, to make your neighbors, your fellow Americans, your fellow Wisconsinites, have to choose between voting and risking their health? This time, we're getting an answer to the rhetorical question: no.
  #48  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:44 AM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
We found out the answer to the OP's title question yesterday: Get the GOP majority of a state supreme court to bar the governor from postponing the election in the face of a contagious pandemic, then get the GOP majority of the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an extension of absentee balloting in the same election. Combine the well-known advanced age of most election volunteers with greater population density in Democratic cities. Et voila: Mostly-white GOP-leaning rural voters more willing to vote because they won't be lined up by the hundreds, while Dem-leaning more diverse Milwaukee city residents face the dilemma of massive lines at five polling sites (versus about 180 usually!) or not voting. Served cold, serves to stave off electoral loss hunger for about four years.

As was said to another Republican from Wisconsin: At long last, have you left no sense of decency? In this case, to make your neighbors, your fellow Americans, your fellow Wisconsinites, have to choose between voting and risking their health? This time, we're getting an answer to the rhetorical question: no.
Wisconsin happens to be one of the whiter states in the US, but generally this is absolutely correct. Besides taking advantage of the health crisis to try and steal a WI state supreme court seat, what the GOP just did in Wisconsin, whether intended or not, is definitely a trial balloon for their 2020 strategy. In the likely event that they can keep conservative courts aligned behind their voter suppression tactics and their own base doesn't turn against them for it this will be the strategy in November, and especially in the many swing or slightly leaning states where demographic shifts have endangered their elecotoral chances.

Hopefully coronavirus has died down by this fall and we don't have to find out what actually happens, but in all likelihood the federal government is not going to do what it needs to do which is put in legislation to require a mail-in federal election in 2020 now, and we'll get a patchwork of incomplete state measures with possibly a too-little-too late attempt at the last second from the federal government. In states like Florida that could easily swing and have GOP state governments, there is going to be an intentional effort to prevent necessary steps to having a fair election.

Hopefully this a unique case, but the GOP learning how far they can go, and that they can keep their base of support in line even when blatantly admitting that they have to prevent fair elections to win.
  #49  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:27 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Hopefully coronavirus has died down by this fall and we don't have to find out what actually happens, but in all likelihood the federal government is not going to do what it needs to do which is put in legislation to require a mail-in federal election in 2020 now, and we'll get a patchwork of incomplete state measures with possibly a too-little-too late attempt at the last second from the federal government.
The flaw in your thinking is that it is the STATES that run and regulate elections, not the Federal government. We have always had, and barring a constitutional amendment, will continue to have a "patchwork" of state measures because that's how the system is set up.
  #50  
Old 04-07-2020, 01:54 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
The flaw in your thinking is that it is the STATES that run and regulate elections, not the Federal government. We have always had, and barring a constitutional amendment, will continue to have a "patchwork" of state measures because that's how the system is set up.
This is actually not true. What the constitution says is that the states can run their own federal elections with autonomy except in cases where the federal government chooses to regulate how they run them:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution, Article 1, Section4, Clause 1
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
A practical example of what this would look like in this case would be Ron Widen's Vote By Mail bill.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 04-07-2020 at 01:55 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 04:42 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