The Republicans control the House their candidate for president got 47% of the vote. They don’t need rebranding. This election didn’t go as well for them as they hoped but that sort of thing happens in politics. Next election that there is not an incumbent running against them so there might be a couple of legitimate candidates in the primaries and the press will have something to talk about besides the wing nuts.
Libertarianism is nothing like as appealing to the vast majority of people as libertarians expect it to be. Most people (on the left and right alike) realize that in a world of unrestricted competition, they would be among the losers. Both the traditions and family values beloved of conservatives and the welfare state policies beloved of “liberals” are designed to protect people from this situation. If the Republicans went libertarian they would lose most of the support they now have (i.e., actual conservatives), and gain very little.
And may I say: OMG I agree with OMG! What is happening to me? :eek:
Your solution is to become a moderate version of the Libertarian party? This would amount to an ideological about-face unseen since the progressive takeover of the Democratic party in 1896. You’re going to need more than one senator. It would take a strong grassroots movement decades long to shift the platform that much. I wish you well, but you’re starting in the wrong place.
Yeah, it’d be easier to start from scratch. None of the socially reactionary baggage, and you’re basically creating a whole new constituency.
That said, the NLRA does need an update (not a repeal). Maybe you should start a thread about that.
There is not a chance in Hell that the Republicans will support abortion. Very close to half the country agrees more-or-less with the Republican position, and for a large number of those people, it’s a Very Big Deal. You just can’t throw all those single-issue voters under the bus.
They could soften their position, and could probably gain some ground in the process. For instance, give up on contraception entirely, and stop equating contraception with abortion. Yeah, that’s an important issue for some people, too, but not for nearly as many. Oh, yeah, and stop being knuckle-dragging idiots about rape, too. You’d think that would be obvious, but apparently not.
One of the more serious issues about the GOP’s policy is its staunch support of anti-intellectualism. Whether it be climate change, biological evolution or stem cell research; the party line has been to adhere to the ideology that scientists are inherently liberal and against their policies and are thereby wrong. This has been proven out time and time again.
There is nothing good about ignorance.
Running a country upon a principle that ignorance is good is inherently illogical.
But, that is merely my opinion. I am but a scientist.
I read a good article today, and I forget who wrote it. It basically said that the GOP only has one problem: Hispanic voters. All of the other so called “extreme” positions are held by a wide cross section of the population: Less government, lower taxes, pro-life, anti-SSM (or at least the social issues won’t preclude a large cross-section from voting for them).
The only tweak is on immigration. Should the GOP adopt a policy tomorrow saying that we are building a border fence and once it is completed, we will give amnesty (and the column said to use the word “amnesty”) to those residing here. No citizenship, but legal residency. Then all would be fine.
Hispanics are concerned that the Tea Party will have them rounded up, or that even Romney would force them to go back to a hell hole because of policies that would make them unable to get a job.
It was a close election. Nobody (seriously) said after the 2004 election that the Dems needed to become pro-life and conservative on economic issues lest they fall into oblivion. If the GOP just becomes “DEM lite” then what’s the point? I would rather have full flavor…
Nice theory, but it conveniently forgets that women voters haven’t consistently voted Republican yet this century, and, last I checked, they formed half the population. If GOP strategists are willing to continue believing that women secretly support them while voting for Democrats over Republicans by double-digit percentages, they’re they’re welcome to lose for a few more election cycles. Creating a just-so story that happens to fit their worldview just isn’t going to cut it against reality.
Then, as a Liberal Democrat, I have nothing to worry about, because none of that is gonna happen. The right wing base would sooner give themselves abortions with an Obamaphone than settle for anything less than rounding up 12 million illegal aliens and frog marching them back across the border.
This rebranding stuff sounds like it is coming from Dilbert’s pointy haired boss. If your product has just killed someone, or has gotten a reputation for being cheap crap, and you don’t want to actually fix it, then you rebrand. Just like Chimera said - you change the packaging, you change the ads, you get a new slogan, but you don’t actually make your product any good.
You know what the Republicans were doing when they had more black faces on the stage at their convention than in the seats? Rebranding. They can rebrand all they want, but someone is going off script and say what he really thinks, and then they are screwed again.
Bush sincerely tried immigration reform, and got run over by his own party. Romney tried to rebrand himself, and he real thoughts came out in the video. Rebranding that works is going to require more control of the message than any political party can muster.
They lost the popular vote in the house, they only won in the number of seats by massive gerrymandering put in place last time the lines were redrawn. Sorry, they lost the senate and the presidency both with popular margins and only won the house strategically. What they’re doing is not working.
Of course efforts to reform the party are likely to alienate their base. It’s hard to tweak a platform that is sold as scripture with any variation being a sign of devil-worshiping.
(Of course that platform being antithetical to their favorite guy JC will always be funny)
While this is a good certain to a certain extent, I disagree with axing the minimum wage position and becoming pro-legalized abortion. Its one thing to allow for pro-choice politicians in the party, depending on where they are running for office but its another to adopt a pro-choice platform.
I don’t think Rand Paul is a good example to use or his father for that matter (although I respect them for their honesty)-better ones are Jon Huntsman, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and so forth.
Some other things I might add are:
-Accepting Obamacare. Once healthcare coverage expands greatly under Obamacare, the nation as a whole will be for it and Republicans might as well jump on the bandwagon early.
-Expanding nuclear power. While President Obama and the Democrats have largely emphasized alternative energies, they have focused mostly on solar and wind leaving a large gap here. A Republican Party that carries out a campaign of education regarding nuclear power can help American lessen dependence on energy.
-Cutting military spending. This will show that Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibility as technological advancements and strategic shifts make this a viable option.
Some of my preferred options would also include commiting to a manned Mars mission and a lunar base, building a national high-speed rail network, and promoting a healthy culture but those are things are relatively secondary and unlikely to be adopted soon anyways.
Both Republicans and Democrats (though to a lesser extent) have been pro-free trade without alienating their protectionist constituencies too much.
However increasingly the Republicans and Democrats have two paths to take: 1) a socially moderate, economically neo-liberal (although open to welfare and social programs), and purusing a moderate and pragmatic foreign policy which will attract the middle class and up, the youth vote, and Hispanics (due to the party’s presumable openness to immigration) and 2) a socially conservative (or possibly proclaim a “ceasefire” on social issues to gather together various groups) party purusing economic protectionism and isolationism in foreign policy composed of a disparate coalition of progressives, paleocons, and others. The Democrats are clearly on the first path but Republicans can be viable with the first also (by attracting the somewhat more pro-free market or socially conservative elements) and taking the second option will mean fighting against history and appealing largely to shrinking sectors of the electorate.
No, it would not. Building a fence between family members would not be an acceptable solution.
And this isn’t the major problem with this “solution”. The major problem is that the person who comes up with this doesn’t understand Hispanics at all. If you insist on solving the problem by imagining what a WASPM would want in their shoes, you will not make progress.
I’ll delineate then.
Households with income lower than $30k see free trade as a threat to the economy rather than an opportunity for growth. Americans thought NAFTA had a negative effect on the economy.
African Americans have had considerable experience with working below the minimum wage in your country. Perhaps this poisons the enlightened transmission of the pure intentions of the admonitions of David Koch et al. that prices and rent are merely a product of rent and that if only they’d sell themselves for a little less, they could afford so much more.
Besides, the very notion of wage labour was abhorrent to the Founding Fathers. Remember Jefferson’s warning?
Ending the ability for unions to collectively bargain would also override the US’s acceding to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the sole executive agreement of Carter to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Americans back the unions above governors. The majority of Americans oppose limiting the ability of unions to collectively bargain. That said, the trend is towards opposing unions (and cutting state programs and employees). Union favourability increases as income declines.
Remember the old poem?
Bachmann would be pissed.
Something that males agree with more than women, 50+ year olds agree with more than 18-49 year olds, college graduates disagree with more than those who’ve had some college and whites agree with more than blacks. There appears to be a bimodal distribution of opposition though: those whose incomes are under $30k a year and those whose incomes are above $100k a year oppose such a measure. See here.
There is overwhelming support for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A priority in reform is keeping benefits as they are. Republicans earning lower than $75k a year say keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are is more important than reducing budget deficit. The only government spending people support cutting is foreign aid (which, by the way, forms a tiny fraction of the budget - healthcare costs are far higher per capita than any country with worse outcomes than almost any other industrialised country, which all have SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE). If military aid to Israel were off the table, I expect that position would ease.
Sure, people support a path to citizenship and residency. I have a feeling support for immigration declines at lower incomes.
The majority of Americans support eliminating corporate deductions and increasing taxes on those earning $200k or more. They actually feel the tax burden is highest on the middle and lowest income earners. Those earning under $75k a year believe that government should redistribute wealth by taxing the rich and that the current distribution of wealth is too uneven.
- A state’s rights approach to other issues, such as same-sex marriage and marijuana, under Ninth Amendment grounds.
“I would preserve social security as best as I can” - while collecting it - says the Republican millionaire. He’s also claimed to be the “best defender of social security”. Yet he considers it unconstitutional. A shining beacon or morality and honest for us all to emulate.
Supports a right to life amendment.
Would ban abortion except in cases of rape and health of mother.
Closest example to the type of Republican espoused by OP. Believes in civil unions, describes self as “pro life with exceptions” (rather like “anti-gun with exceptions”). Did fund $159m healthcare centre.
Too late to add: income is a pretty good tracker for abortion support too, in that the rich support abortions more.
So…get Jimmy Smits to say “[Republican candidate] likes to eat food grilled in foil”?
Obama got between 70 and 80% of the Hispanic vote, depending on whose exit polling you believe. Bush II got something like 44% of it in 2004. That’s not something that can be fixed with a tweak; even if the immigration portion of the Republican platform is lifted wholesale from the Democratic platform, Hispanics are still not going to trust the GOP for some time.
They don’t have to even the scales, a small shift back to Bush or even McCain levels could swing the next election. Not only that but it would take the immigration issue of the table, amnesty is supported by the grand majority of the populace not just Hispanics. And the base would go along with it if their mouth pieces tell them it’s ok, Hannity and Coulter already came out in favor of it if Limbaugh does too then consider it a done deal.
You want to woo Centrist Democrats over to your side? Put defense spending on the table from the get-go. Start balancing the budget by slashing the bloat in the DoD and M/I complex. That would swing quite a few votes.
I think a re-branding might well be effective, but I’ve got a slightly different take on what would work. They need to make themselves the party of freedom and state’s rights, rather than the party of rich, old, white, bigots.
Abortion and Gay marriage: Simply move from a negative position to a neutral one. Leave it to the states to decide and become the party of neutrality while maintaining a private stance of opposition. You lose nothing of the base by moving to this position, and will likely gain a lot of votes from social liberals who do not like the left’s fiscal agenda. Independents will love this.
Marijuana: Support the states right to choose, but also maintain a federal ban on interstate sales, transport, etc until such time as the country can agree on a cohesive policy. Then drop the issue entirely and focus on other, more pressing issues. Spin it as a savings in spending, allowing you to focus your resources better into areas of drug policy that are more pressing.
Immigration: Support a well patrolled border fence, coupled with a one year amnesty to get registered and on your way to citizenship. Divorce yourself from Arpaio and his lot and promise to refocus some the resources saved from ignoring weed to strong border enforcement.
Defense: Stay strong on defense but agree that the current wars must be brought to an end swiftly. The American public is sick of war right now. Flippant as that sounds, there is a strong consensus on that issue. Spin it again as following the will of the people as their elected representative. Give the troops something to do by funneling them into support for border enforcement, Homeland security, etc…Make a dog and pony show of cutting some fringe programs.
Insurance problems: The right could gain a lot more votes if they spent a little more time bargaining rather than obstructing. Support a free exchange, but demonstrate HOW that is going to work to the American public. The right has consistently dodged explaining themselves on this issue, and that plays extremely poorly with independents
Economics. Go ahead and make the grand bargain with the dems. Remain cool until you begin to see results. If good claim all the credit; if poor, scream about being backed into a corner and bullied by Obama.