It's Rove and Co. vs. Tea Party: Let the GOP civil war begin

[Sheilbh]

Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.

This seems like a very 80s view

Methinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.

Well my view is they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. They lost the popular vote in the House in 2012. And in my view they lost what should have been a number of easy wins in the Senate (Harry Reid! :blink). My general view of politics is that when you're not winning popular votes it's because you're not appealing to enough people and more of them are in the centre.

In my view the Republicans are in as much trouble as the Democrats were in the 70s and 80s and I don't, yet, see a DLC or Ed Kochs, Al Gores and Bill Clintons. But hopefully it'll happen and as I say I think Rubio, Jindal and Christie are all sending interesting hints at the minute. I'm more optimistic about Republicans than I was immediately after the election.

Having said that, I think a lot of the talk about demographics strikes me as changeable and not terribly important. I remember Republicans saying similar things about permanent majorities during 2004, it struck me as nonsense then.

So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

Clinton of course was as pro-choice as any other Democrat. But he used the phrase 'safe, legal and rare'. That's why the way you say things matter.

And I think 'so long as politicians believe things they will say them' is adorable

[MadImmortalMan]

In my view the Republicans are in as much trouble as the Democrats were in the 70s and 80s

That seems a strange thing to say. The Dems held the Congress that entire time. Unless you just mean the Presidency.

[CountDeMoney]

Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.

This seems like a very 80s view

He forgot Jews, too.  Not the psycho settler water well poisoning types like Siegy, but normal American ones.
And fags.  Forgot the fags.

[Sheilbh]

That seems a strange thing to say. The Dems held the Congress that entire time. Unless you just mean the Presidency.

Yeah, but I don't think the GOP holding the House and the Democrats winning the next few Presidential elections would be a great achievement for them. On the other hand that was pre-Hastert rule so I think there were more cross-party coalitions so to an extent the Republicans holding the House now matters more.

But I mean the Presidency and the national perception of the party, which I think has been growing in importance.

Edit: And more particularly I think the extremism of 'allies' of the Democrats (often just language) tainted their brand and, to an extent, the old Democrat coalition fell apart.

[Ideologue]

Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.

This seems like a very 80s view

He forgot Jews, too.  Not the psycho settler water well poisoning types like Siegy, but normal American ones.
And fags.  Forgot the fags.

I think you guys are defining base differently than me.  The Democrats are a party of left economic interests with social libertarian interests along for the ride; the GOP is a party of social reactionaries who have been found useful by economic anarchists.  But outside of the economically left base are a lot of Democrats would happily vote on behalf of their economic interests, i.e. for reduced taxes and government intervention.  A lot of nominal Democrats vote for Democrats, which entails a degree of higher taxes and government intervention (though far less than it once would have, because of the right-tilting I've been describing), only because their social interests are directly and overtly threatened.  Democrats taken as a whole are still Americans, and thus for the most part a corrupt and greedy lot without a sense of a patriotism or dedication to the common weal; economically right gays only stay blue because the alternative is a party full of people who could probably be convinced that they belong in death camps.

Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are.  Everyone else can be turned.  That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.

[Razgovory]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I was expecting you'd come back to this.

[garbon]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

[Ideologue]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

I like you.

[Razgovory]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

Er not that part.  I vote GOP in local elections all the time.  I meant the other part.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

[garbon]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

Er not that part.  I vote GOP in local elections all the time.  I meant the other part.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

Why would he come back to that part? I don't think he was advancing any argument among those lines.

[garbon]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

I like you.

But I'm one just itching to vote for Hil.

[Ideologue]

Er not that part.  I vote GOP in local elections all the time.

Traitor.

[Ideologue]

To you they might as well be the same, Raz.  You despise anyone with an R next to his name.

Not true, but irrelevant.  The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things.  So long as people believe those things they are going to say them.  The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.

I was expecting you'd come back to this.

I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?

I like you.

But I'm one just itching to vote for Hil.

Is she gonna run in 2016?

[CountDeMoney]

I think you guys are defining base differently than me.  The Democrats are a party of left economic interests with social libertarian interests along for the ride; the GOP is a party of social reactionaries who have been found useful by economic anarchists.  But outside of the economically left base are a lot of Democrats would happily vote on behalf of their economic interests, i.e. for reduced taxes and government intervention.  A lot of nominal Democrats vote for Democrats, which entails a degree of higher taxes and government intervention (though far less than it once would have, because of the right-tilting I've been describing), only because their social interests are directly and overtly threatened.  Democrats taken as a whole are still Americans, and thus for the most part a corrupt and greedy lot without a sense of a patriotism or dedication to the common weal; economically right gays only stay blue because the alternative is a party full of people who could probably be convinced that they belong in death camps.

Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are.  Everyone else can be turned.  That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.

Like your movie reviews, you're over-analyzing again.

[Martinus]

I have a question:  Is the "establishment" materially different from the "tea party"?  I mean ideologically.  Bobby Jindal came out two weeks ago with a speech about how the GOP needs to stop being the "stupid" party.  This meant, they need to stop saying stupid things that are repellant to voters.  However he also said that he didn't want the Republican party to really change it's platform or water down it's ideas.  These seems like an impossible task, stupid statements naturally flow from stupid policies and ideas.  So long as they hold to the same beliefs people are going to articulate them.  Just giving the car a new paint job won't help a car much if it has a cracked engine block.

In countries with proportional voting system, there are usually two different parties for the neo-con and the "tea party" kind of outlook, so I would say they are different enough. They are both ultimately right wing, but the sentiments are different enough, the only thing keeping them together in the US is the one mandate voting.

If your system changed to proportional, the probably outcome would be the formation of a centre-right neo-liberal party which would consist of the mainstream GOP and a number of Democrats such as Lieberman.