How Republicans can kill two birds with one stone.

The problem is in the contemporary GOP only cynical manipulators and true believers can rise to the top. And the cynical manipulators end up being so transparently dishonest that people don’t trust them (Romney, Guiliani, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Cheney, etc) or they are adults who sincerely believe in all the conspiracy theories (science is a global anti-christian conspiracy, evolution is made up) that they end up self destructing because anyone who believes those kinds of things is guaranteed to believe a lot of other stupid things that makes them seem too unprepared or extreme to be trusted with power. Huckabee, Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Perry, Palin, etc.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if they win. No matter how extreme they get they can gather up 40% of the vote. All it takes is democrats staying home combined with some independent voters siding with the GOP for another sweep for them to win.

I guess in the long run that is good, the GOP when it does win (like it did in 2010) assumes it wins because they are rabidly conservatives, not because their opposition stayed home. This speeds up the downward spiral and hopefully some party restructuring someday.

I’d like to believe by the 2020s the GOP will be a regional party that can only win 45% of the vote at most in national elections, but who knows.

In New Jersey you declare your party which puts you on a list the Poll Workers have in front of them. When you go to vote you go to the table for your party and they confirm you are on the list and you then vote for only that Party’s Candidates in a completely separate booth. I suppose you can declare as the other party or flip back and forth but in NJ this is how it works.

FWIW I think if we are going with our current two party system, every primary should be closed. Open Primaries are how Jim DeMint ended up running against a possibly mentally challenged man no one had ever heard of.

I don’t see how you could do that without a pretty radical change in the primary process. You’d have to go back to the old smoked-filled-room system.

But even if you don’t kick the extremists out of the system, you can mute the influence. If more moderate Republicans (like myself) got involved, we might be able to outvote the extremists in the primaries and choose more moderate candidates.

Well the Republicans can take hope in that the Republican-lite Democrats who now control the Democratic Party are driving away progressive Democrats in droves because they completely ignore progressive interests. I don’t know how many are as discouraged as me, but I bet it’s a lot them. I’m voting Green for the foreseeable future … because I don’t think the Dems are going to pay attention until they start losing elections because of progressive defections, sadly. How many are just staying away from the polls? Can’t say, but I bet it’s part of the low voter turnout problem.

Well, that has already happened a couple of times. We get to thank the morons who voted for Nader in 200) for eight years of the worst president in Modern times. Boy they really showed us, didn’t they?

What fringe voters have to understand is that spite voting hurt them as well of the rest of the nation. And that a move to the left for the DEMs will allow the GOP to snag more centrist votes- and there are more of them.

Voting Green does nothing but hurt America- well, unless you know the Dems are gonna win anyway, in which case, it’s a fair gesture made.

Voting Green cost us a hugely expensive war and eight fucking years of that fucking war criminal GWB.

I think this is way off the mark. The Reps embrace Blacks as part of the party as much as they can. They even made Michael Steele Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He was also the Republican nominee for the Maryland Senate seat. (During the campaign he was vilified by other Blacks as “oreo”, et.)

The problem is that there is a relatively tiny pool from which to draw talent. When you have 95% of Blacks voting Dem, you’re not going to have a large pool. The problem isn’t so much a lack of desire from the Rep establishment, its the success of the Dem part in brainwashing Blacks that the Reps want them held down, if not lynched.

The really odd thing is that if you look at the unemployment rate among Blacks, you would think that the party that is supposedly looking out for them would want to help them. But more liberal immigration policies just mean that lower-skilled workers (which make up a disproportionate percent of Blacks) will have a harder time of it. How the Dems have been able to pull this off is truly astonishing. Talk about opting against your own self interest! Charter schools is another important issue. You’d think the Dems would be championing them, but they’re not. The Reps are. The Mayor of NYC is getting a lot of blowback for having taking a stance that is largely anti-Charter. And that is coming predominantly from the Black community.

As far as your points about Hispanics, you make good ones. And I think you’re right that many of the values that the Rep part espouses can be found thriving in the Hispanic community. I think the problem here is again the successful efforts of the Dems to demonize the Reps as being “anti-Brown people”. The immigration debate is often framed this way. But as time goes on and we see more instances of Reps championing Hispanic candidates (and Black ones) the Dems hold on them will loosen.

I’d argue the the Dems are doing that.

Wow, the Republicans are overwhelmingly racist.

SD has really disappointed me this time.

Isn’t a disdain for illegal immigration—in a country that champions “the rule of law” sensible? My position is that regardless of how liberal an immigration policy one might like, the illegal activity should be frowned upon and shut down.

Because the perception is not wrong. The republican base is overwhelmingly male white old and christian, they simply are not going to change on absolutely anything at this point. They could just as easily stop being anti gay or anti woman and both would tremendously help their chances to win elections, latinos might be a growing demographic but women are always going to be 50% of the population.

The problem is you think shoving a few black or brown faces out there counts as “embracing blacks” or latinos. It doesn’t matter how many hispanic and black candidates you champion, what matters is the policies they support. And every single thing that comes out of a republicans mouth, no matter what color his face is, is telling latinos “we don’t want you here”.

Gonna happen again if the Democrats keep ignoring their progressive base on economic issues.

Argue away, this is the very place. 'Cause I’m not seeing it.

No, that’s exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. It’s an example of a black man being asked to work for the Republican Party. Sure the straight white Christian men who run the Republican Party want other people to vote Republican. But when all is said and done, they want straight white Christian men to still be in charge.

That might be a valid point. Except that there are also laws which make legal immigration impossible for the average person in Mexico or other Latin American countries.

So when you’ve stopped Hispanics from coming here legally and you’re doing everything you can to stop them from coming here illegally, you give the impression you just don’t want any Hispanics in this country. The whole “let’s make it illegal to speak Spanish” movement reinforces this.

The Tea Party has shown how you handle that problem: Take the party over en masse at a local level. If liberals did something similar they could steer the ship of the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has been running the GOP; the difefrence being that poll after poll finds that liberal positions are popular with the general public.

What makes you say this? In what we do we make it more difficult for people from Central or South America compared to Europe, Asia or Africa?

I am not aware of this movement. Are you talking about the English as the Official Language Movement? Assuming so, having a common tongue is helpful. It would also cut down on the expense of government documents having to be printed in XX different languages. When the President or a Senator speaks, why shouldn’t he speak in English? This is just common sense. Hell, even liberal SDMB sees the sense of having discourse occur in one language.

Why do you assume he was not working to further his own ideal, which coincide with those of the Rep party? That’s pretty insulting, to think that a black man that doesn’t ascribe to the Black liberal playbook is not thinking for himself. Really insulting. You seem to be hung on on White Christian Men. More so than you think WCM are fixated with WCM.

What is this shoving you speak of. Seems to me that the Blacks who stand up to be counted among Republicans are simply standing up for what they believe. Why do you assume that is not the case?

And why can’t a Black or Latino have a political philosophy that overlaps more with Republicans? Why can’t a Black man be opposed to abortion? Why can’t a Latino woman believe that a Flat or Fair Tax is better for the country than what we now have?

Ah, so GWB was a better choice that Gore, just because Gore wasn’t progressive enough on economic issues.:dubious:

A vote for the Green party is really a vote for the GOP candidate. And, i’ll bet the GOP isn;t ANYwhere near progressive enuf on economic issues.