Republicans for Obama and the Future of the GOP?

[DisturbedPervert]

I look forward to the day Rockefeller Republicans retake the GOP.

Which are left?

None

[Fate]

Rockefeller Republicans will never take over a party based in the deep South. 

[DGuller]

Republicans for Obama should be drowned.

Eventually, but right now the Democrats still need them.

[derspiess]

Republicans for Obama should be drowned.

QFT.

I wouldn't be overly upset if the GOP de-emphasized social issues & focused more on economic issues, but I reject the notion that seems to pervade here that socially liberal Republicans have been the heart & soul of the party in recent memory.

[garbon]

Republicans People for Obama should be drowned.

Fixed.

[Caliga]

It prevails here because it fits the board demographic.  But you and I both know, given where we live, that board Republicans are drastically more progressive than "heartland" Republicans.

[DisturbedPervert]

Republicans People for Obama should be drowned.

Fixed.

Thanks   

[The Nickname Who Was Thursday]

[I follow it enough to know who bitches about it. I'm more interested not so much in the bitching as what it will do to the party in the long run.

I don't see a radical reallignment on the horizon. Republicans will stop talking about gays as much, but they'll still be the more socially conservative party. Both parties will continue their dance around the "center" of the electorate. There haven't been that many times in our history that the equilibrium between the two parties has been knocked completely out of whack. Off the top of my head, there's:

1812- killed the federalists
slavery/civil war- killed the whigs, brought the Republicans to life
Great Depression- gave Dems a huge majority for a generation
60s & 70s activism & backlash against it- realligned parties around social issues

The past 30 years have had a pattern of parties winning, overstepping, and then retreating or getting booted by the voters. Take Clinton for example- his first two years he tried to get nationalized health care and gays in the military. The public wasn't ready for those so they elected lots of Republicans in '94. Bush's foreign adventurism could be seen in much the same light as being responsible for GOP losses in '06 and '08. Congressional leaders have similar problems, if they push for too much they lose their majorities.

Voters like Berkut and your professor are coveted. Both parties try their damnedest to be as unobjectionable to them as possible, while still getting money and turnout from their core supporters. But they are too close to the center of the overall electorate to have a party centered around them and our system keep the bipolarity it's basically had since our nation was founded. (Would it work? I don't know. I suspect what would happen is the more extreme wings would break off and squeeze them. People in the middle would be less likely to donate time and money too I think, as the result wouldn't be much different than what we have now.)

[Martinus]

Disclaimer: This is not a response specifically referring to American politics, but rather all politics (at least in the Western world).

As the political ideologies of the Left and the Right demonstrate, in order to have a political movement, you need to be populist to some degree. Historically, there have been two types, broadly speaking, of populist ideologies, and they are both based on a definition of the "Enemy". The Enemy is either "the Man" (as is the case with the Left) or "the Other" (as is the case with the Right).

In modern day, the Left has pretty much abandoned its visceral hatred of the Man - at least as far as the mainstream is concerned. Sure, it is mistrustful of the Man, but it does not seek to destroy him. The Right however, is much more vicious in its hatred of the Other.

Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p

[katmai]

Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p

Pretty sure it's a push on which side hates you.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get the Rockefeller love.  He (and the other Rockefeller Republican who preceded him) led NYC into bankruptcy.

[The Brain]

I look forward to the day Rockefeller Republicans retake the GOP.

Which are left?

Not really.

[derspiess]

Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p

Pretty sure it's a push on which side hates you.

People like Marty who feed off of victimhood need to focus on one side.

[Martinus]

Republicans for Obama should be drowned.

Only if we drown the Log Cabin Republicans, too.

[katmai]

People like Marty who feed off of victimhood need to focus on one side.

I'm trying to tell him he's an island adrift on his own dammit!