Would a party split benefit the Republicans?

[alfred russel]

Isn't that generally true of everyone?  Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.

Yeah. As a general rule people like few taxes and but all sorts of government programs.

But I think there is a large subset of republicans that sees government as a money sinkhole and doesn't balance tax and spend issues.

[derspiess]

I'm a social and economic conservative.  But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.

Okay.  But your issue was with the GOP 'pandering' on social issues and immigration.  Surely the assumption's that they stay the same on economic issues.  So to protest their incorrect social views, you'd support a far more socially radical party that supports your economic views too, even though that hurts the big tent party with acceptable views on economic policy?

Again I'm confused.

I'll admit to not being totally coherent tonight, but my point is that if the GOP becomes just a shadow of the Democrat party (sort of how it was headed in the mid to late 70s) I'll jump ship.

[garbon]

The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.

Oh I know.  But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy.  They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.

At their core, I think a lot of republicans just don't want to pay taxes.

Isn't that generally true of everyone?  Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.

Basing your entire ideology around avoiding doing what you need to do seems a bit irresponsible.  I was going to make an analogy that lots of kids don't like going to school, but you don't make that a national issue to indulge that childish desire, but then I realized, Republicans do make that a national issue with their home schooling bullshit.

Well good thing that Republicans don't base their whole ideology around that and that it isn't really a need that "wealthy" people pay more and more of their income in taxes.

[garbon]

But I think there is a large subset of republicans that sees government as a money sinkhole and doesn't balance tax and spend issues.

Because it is.

[Sheilbh]

That's fair.  But as I said in the other thread I'm a Blairite.  So I see Republicans over the last couple of days and it sounds a lot to me like Tony Benn calling the 1983 defeat '16 million votes for socialism'.  When the public's views change you should follow them because it's the public, not the parties, who define where the centre ground of politics is.  As an aside I sort of worry the current Labour party are making similar mistakes to the Republicans.

I think Republicans need a Blair-ish approach.  It's not about becoming Democrats-lite, or Tories-lite but about reforming a party by stripping back and reflecting were people are so that it can win. 

[Viking]

One thing that Republicans can do right away? Stop nominating rape candidates like Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. Or a witch candidate like Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in 2010.

That is what I was getting at with the competence issue.

I think a big problem the republicans have is that their natural leadership base--businessmen--in the modern world have built careers around leading inclusive workforces that have blacks, hispanics, women, and gays. I think there are solid (at least short term) reasons for Republicans to have the anti inclusive positions they have, but many businessmen won't be comfortable with them in their stump speeches.

Given that. Which republican leaders have experience running companies? Apart from Boehner and Cain I can't think of anybody who actually ran a business. Romney as Bain didn't actually run any of the businesses they acquired but rather hired people to do that. The Republican leadership seems to consist much more of people who went to seminary or theology school and then ran for office straight after graduation, there is alot of them.

If these "Eisenhower" republicans do exist, they certainly don't have much influence and get primaried when they do run.

[Berkut]

Any Democrat president is going to he tough to defeat when the Democrat Party has its turnout machine running in full gear.  No amount of GOP pandering on immigration and social issues would overcome that.  Unless the GOP just becomes another Democrat Party, in which case I officially become Libertarian.

That is simply crazy talk.

They almost won as it is - so yeah, SOME amount of actually addressing the issues that a huge number of Americans care about (i.e 'Pandering on immigration and social issues") would in fact get them right into the place where they can win again.

This idea that the Republicans MUST be dominated by the crazies and never ever accommodate the middle is the best plan the Democrats have ever come up with.

[Berkut]

I'm a social and economic conservative.  But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.

Okay.  But your issue was with the GOP 'pandering' on social issues and immigration.  Surely the assumption's that they stay the same on economic issues.  So to protest their incorrect social views, you'd support a far more socially radical party that supports your economic views too, even though that hurts the big tent party with acceptable views on economic policy?

Again I'm confused.

I'll admit to not being totally coherent tonight, but my point is that if the GOP becomes just a shadow of the Democrat party (sort of how it was headed in the mid to late 70s) I'll jump ship.

I don't buy it - I've never bought the basic argument from the fringe that if the party doesn't cater to their fringiness, they will leave.

Leave and go where? By definition your the fringe, there isn't anywhere to go.

I think buying into the argument that the religious nuts or homophobes won't vote if you don't cater to them has been gravely damaging to the Republican Party. They've lost many times more voters in the middle than they gain from supposed right wingers who would stay at home. Hell, if nothing else, every person who doesn't vote at all, or votes for a third party, is really only a half vote lost, since they certainly are not voting for the other guy...whereas every moderate who refuses to vote for you is in fact likely voting for the other guy.

I simply don't understand why political parties don't understand this.

[Razgovory]

Cause it might not be true, and they actually believe those things that make them fringy in your opinion.  It's not just Republican voters who believe these things, it's Republican leadership.  If they abandon the things they believe in, what's the point in running for office anyway?  The goal is not to win elections, that's the means to an end.  It's to get your ideas in government.  To make it better.

[11B4V]

They've lost many times more voters in the middle than they gain from supposed right wingers who would stay at home. Hell, if nothing else, every person who doesn't vote at all, or votes for a third party, is really only a half vote lost, since they certainly are not voting for the other guy...whereas every moderate who refuses to vote for you is in fact likely voting for the other guy.

This..bravo