Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Vongimi]

The problem is some stupid republicans say silly things like "evolution is a lie from the pit of hell" and every liberal in the country uses that as ammo against the entire party. Its really silly. If we were going by that standard, then all democrats are complete idiots because that one democrat senator said that we can't put to many troops on Guam because the island would tip over and capsize due to the weight...

The Republican Party is not in denial about the age of the earth, or evolution. Some crackpots in the party are. They may be holding on to the good ole days of America being a Christian nation, but can you blame them? Of course they want their country driven by strong morals. Its sad that it is no longer. And I love how you named every single topic that liberals use to peg republican's as "anti-science" (despite the fact that science as a whole receives more funding on average under republican administrations than democrat ones), and then added on "a plethora of other science issues", as if there actually was any more.

I don't think there are any out there, but i'd like to see some statistics on which college degrees voted for which candidates. I hardly consider a liberal arts degree as "educated".

[Elegiac]

I've wondered about the causality here. I think maybe us liberal leaning folks might be getting it wrong. Perhaps the reason that people in the red states trend towards conservatism is that their perception of welfare is colored by seeing it so much, while those of us in liberal states don't really see it nearly as much. This is probably wrong, it's just something that's bounced around in my head a bit.

It does have to do with socioeconomics, but not in the way you think; red states tend to have lower standards of living, lower populations, and be generally poorer. All three are factors that result in more conservative leanings. Progressivism tends to be a hallmark of more affluent and educated urban communities.

[Takasen]

This thread seems to have gone off-topic.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party leaders will have to move to change their policy positions on immigration, abortion (or at least re-wrap the issue), same-sex marriage, and Medicare. Whether their current policy positions are correct or not is irrelevant. If they want to *win elections* then they need a *majority* of voters. It doesn't matter if that majority is correct or incorrect; a majority is a majority and they'll have to change their positions if they want to get it.

For immigration, The Republican Party will need to embrace more policies in the DREAM Act. They'll also need to relax a little on hard-line legislation that makes English an official language. Turning "illegal" into a noun is a bad idea. Republicans aren't going anywhere with the Latino bloc by referring to many of them (even citizens!) as "illegals." Repealing the 14th amendment was also a bad idea from the Tea Party.

For abortion, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock emphasized the significance of this issue. A moderate or center-right stance on abortion would be good enough to attract most voters. "Keep abortion rare and only do it when necessary" would be sufficient.

For same-sex marriage, the Republican Party is on the wrong side of history. This should be a no-brainer.

I'd infer that a majority of minorities are conservative on social issues. My former church was very homophobic (as are many black churches). They are also pretty pro-life. Minorities are moderate-to-conservative, but they don't want to associate themselves with the party that attracts so many racists.

Republicans lost the Latino, black, unmarried women, nonreligious/secular, LGBT, and Jewish voting blocs because they (a) alienated all these groups and (b) sent a message that the ideal family is white, heterosexual, traditional, and submissive to the breadwinning husband. The RNC leadership doesn't get that social issues are actually an important voting factor for millions of Americans. RNC leaders might not have to worry about their rights to marry, have consensual sex privately, purchase birth control, not be proselytized by a theocratic government, or be ostracized for being nonreligious, but millions of Americans DO have to worry about this stuff.

Republicans don't have to compromise their values completely to win elections. But they do have to compromise. People here are saying "if they compromise, then they'll just be Democrats." Did Republicans become Democrats when they had to give up their stance that interracial marriage is a disgusting abomination? No. It's not that hard to adapt to the changing social climate. Just move a little to the center for a few election cycles, then bring those moderates back to the right once you get their support.

[cherb]

It does have to do with socioeconomics, but not in the way you think; red states tend to have lower standards of living, lower populations, and be generally poorer. All three are factors that result in more conservative leanings. Progressivism tends to be a hallmark of more affluent and educated urban communities.

At least where I'm from (West Virginia) much of this proves to be true from my point of view, and I don't even live in the deep south. Lower-class people are the norm where I am from, education is low, high school dropout rate is pretty high, and people still have very deep conservative beliefs. A ton of these people are also the "moochers" that the GOP sought to discredit, and they got the votes anyway. My neighbors are the "47%" who wants free shit, and they still bleed red. Apparently coal miners being laid off due to safety regulations that are put in place so that another disaster like this doesnt happen again in my backyard is an evil liberal agenda to put coal miners out of work. This is the mindset of tons of my neighbors all around my state, and it makes me sad to see. People on welfare, using food stamps, complaining that they shouldn't have to pay for "some n*****r" in office and his Obamacare.

Obviously there are going to be "moochers" on both sides, but the GOP idea that it is only liberal scumbags who want to live on the governments dime is ludicrous.

[Elegiac]

Republicans don't have to compromise their values completely to win elections. But they do have to compromise. People here are saying "if they compromise, then they'll just be Democrats." Did Republicans become Democrats when they had to give up their stance that interracial marriage is a disgusting abomination? No. It's not that hard to adapt to the changing social climate. Just move a little to the center for a few election cycles, then bring those moderates back to the right once you get their support.

It is hardly as easy as you make it out. The problem is that the core demographic for the Republican party is shrinking, whereas the expanding groups are now aligned with the Democrats. The Republicans stand to lose votes either way.

[MoMedic]

The republicans have had a singular goal since Obama was inaugurated in 2008 and that was to get him out of office in 2012. They didn't care about helping the country, working across party lines, offering new ideas or improving upon old ones, or doing ANYTHING to show why they should be handed the keys to the White House. They have run a systematic campaign of fear, relying on the fact that a great deal of Americans cant think for themselves. Christ, Romney's whole campaign revolved around the idea of "vote for me because the black guy is scary".

So, to answer the OP's question....no, the republicans will continue to be butt-hurt, and do everything they can to carry on their recent history of obstructionist legislating. There is no way in hell they'll ever adapt or change.

[Ricg]

As a 35 year old, independent who voted for Obama i can say that the only way the GOP will ever get my vote (my first time voting i voted republican for bush) is if they go back to their roots of small government, fiscal conservative and the such...as long as they continue adopting tea party extremist views on religion, abortion, same sex marriage..i cannot consciously support them.

The republican party also needs to disassociate themselves from the donald trumps, sarah palins, michelle bachmans, glenn becks, sean hannitys, bill o-reillys of this world...they only reinforce the stereotype that the republican party is full of backwards morons who live a different reality than the rest of the world and sadly those people take the spotlight away from the really smart guys like christie, paul ryan, ron paul.

I guess what im trying to say in short is that in my personal opinion the republicans message and agenda is wrong and i didnt buy it with mccain/palin and didnt buy it with romney/ryan...and although i am not happy with Obama i believe he is the lesser of the 2 evils.

This is a fine example of why the people i mentioned above do not do a service to the republican party...watch Letterman simply destroy and embarrass donald trump on live TV for his hypocrisy on his position on china

*EDIT* and before anyone comes and tells me im mooching off the government and thats why i voted for obama, im a self employed person who would have more to gain (in theory) by romney's plan and even that wasnt incentive enough to vote for him

[Takasen]

It is hardly as easy as you make it out. The problem is that the core demographic for the Republican party is shrinking, whereas the expanding groups are now aligned with the Democrats. The Republicans stand to lose votes either way.

Yes, the Republican Party base is shrinking. That's exactly why I said moving more to the center would attract voters back to the Party. What surprises me is how everyone seems to be freaking out about Romney's loss. That doesn't really mean anything about Republicans. It's not that unusual for an incumbent president to win re-election. Bush did it. Clinton did it. The significant part of the election this week was statewide ballot measures and exit polling.

Every state with a same-sex marriage measure voted in favor of marriage equality. Before this election, no state had EVER voted in favor of marriage equality, yet all four states voted in favor on Tuesday. Two states voted to legalize marijuana. Florida rejected a ban on federal funding for abortion. These measures don't directly mean a lot for the country as a whole. The big picture is that these measures send a message that Americans are changing their social attitude toward stuff that was historically rejected. Exit polls showed that many Republicans lost their races because of social issues (especially Akin, Mourdock, and Rehberg).

Republicans just need to take all the anti-evolution garbage, the homophobic garbage, the anti-climate science garbage, and the religious bigotry garbage out of their platform. Doing this will put them right-of-center (like they should be) instead of far-right (like they have been recently).

[hx9]

When people realize they can vote for free money, all is lost.

[Elegiac]

Yes, the Republican Party base is shrinking. That's exactly why I said moving more to the center would attract voters back to the Party. What surprises me is how everyone seems to be freaking out about Romney's loss. That doesn't really mean anything about Republicans. It's not that unusual for an incumbent president to win re-election. Bush did it. Clinton did it. The significant part of the election this week was statewide ballot measures and exit polling.

It really does mean quite a bit for the republicans. As commentators have stated, two elections is often enough to establish lifelong voting habits, and the Democrats have put together a powerful coalition of core voters that is increasing in numbers. And it is not merely about the Presidential election; the fact that the Democrats stood to lose seats in the Senate but instead gained a firm party majority is also very telling.

[Takasen]

One Republican who's looking very good for this next presidential term is Jon Huntsman. He and John Kerry are the top two picks for Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State position (she's retiring/resigning). Jon Huntsman is favored over Kerry. He's what Republicans should look like--free market supporters and moderate social conservatism. I'm nowhere near being a social conservative, but Huntsman is very likeable and electable. Even Democrats like him. He's not in-your-face, rude, anti-science, or bigoted. I hope he's chosen to be Clinton's replacement (she's done a great job).

Edit: Also, his nomination would send a very bipartisan message to Americans. It would also emphasize China's role in international affairs. If Huntsman had been the GOP nominee instead of Romney, and if a few baddies like Akin were shut down, then Huntsman would have swept the electoral floor against Obama.

[Sole-Warrior]

If they want to remain in power or have an influence, yes they will need to adapt.

[Deleted]

Maybe because others on this page are claiming Democrats are "moochers"? It appears that the Red States are the ones "mooching".

None of the statistics show that democrats or republicans are moochers.

[hx9]

As a 35 year old, independent who voted for Obama i can say that the only way the GOP will ever get my vote (my first time voting i voted republican for bush) is if they go back to their roots of small government, fiscal conservative and the such...as long as they continue adopting tea party extremist views on religion, abortion, same sex marriage..i cannot consciously support them.

The republican party also needs to disassociate themselves from the donald trumps, sarah palins, michelle bachmans, glenn becks, sean hannitys, bill o-reillys of this world...they only reinforce the stereotype that the republican party is full of backwards morons who live a different reality than the rest of the world and sadly those people take the spotlight away from the really smart guys like christie, paul ryan, ron paul.

I guess what im trying to say in short is that in my personal opinion the republicans message and agenda is wrong and i didnt buy it with mccain/palin and didnt buy it with romney/ryan...and although i am not happy with Obama i believe he is the lesser of the 2 evils.

This is a fine example of why the people i mentioned above do not do a service to the republican party...watch Letterman simply destroy and embarrass donald trump on live TV for his hypocrisy on his position on china

*EDIT* and before anyone comes and tells me im mooching off the government and thats why i voted for obama, im a self employed person who would have more to gain (in theory) by romney's plan and even that wasnt incentive enough to vote for him

I don't think he destroyed him. I think they both illustrated the point that our current policies leave companies no choice but to produce in China. Let's use WoW as an example. A guild has the option of paying 10k gold for flasks from a Chinese gold farmer, or 20k gold from US sellers on the AH. Which offer are they going to take? Now let's say half of those US sellers recruit Chinese gold farmers to get their materials and drop their prices. What happens to the US sellers who choose to keep their farming done by US sellers? Nobody buys from them and they go out of business.

Donald Trump does not have a hypocritical point of view. He says it himself, he WANTS to have the jobs over here in the US. But to do that would be at the expense of the consumer, his company and all the other people he employs. If Obama continues to pass record breaking numbers of regulations, it will be impossible to shut down those factories.

We can continue to blame the rich for our problems, or we can start blame the real culprit, the liberal government and liberal media's portrayal of the rich as the enemy.

[Wells]

None of the statistics show that democrats or republicans are moochers.

It does show that republican governance is apparently unable to deliver a sufficiently strong state as to not require aid from other states to function at an acceptable level.

[Deleted]

It does show that republican governance is apparently unable to deliver a sufficiently strong state as to not require aid from other states to function at an acceptable level.

Federal money inflows are not the end result of bad governance.

[Wells]

Federal money inflows are not the end result of bad governance.

I know you've never been to the US before but a lot of republican states require money from blue states to function at a 1st world level.

[Ausr]

Yes, the Republican Party base is shrinking. That's exactly why I said moving more to the center would attract voters back to the Party. What surprises me is how everyone seems to be freaking out about Romney's loss. That doesn't really mean anything about Republicans. It's not that unusual for an incumbent president to win re-election. Bush did it. Clinton did it. The significant part of the election this week was statewide ballot measures and exit polling.

Every state with a same-sex marriage measure voted in favor of marriage equality. Before this election, no state had EVER voted in favor of marriage equality, yet all four states voted in favor on Tuesday. Two states voted to legalize marijuana. Florida rejected a ban on federal funding for abortion. These measures don't directly mean a lot for the country as a whole. The big picture is that these measures send a message that Americans are changing their social attitude toward stuff that was historically rejected. Exit polls showed that many Republicans lost their races because of social issues (especially Akin, Mourdock, and Rehberg).

Republicans just need to take all the anti-evolution garbage, the homophobic garbage, the anti-climate science garbage, and the religious bigotry garbage out of their platform. Doing this will put them right-of-center (like they should be) instead of far-right (like they have been recently).

First Bush didn't, ah ha! Gotcha you now, sucker. Muahaha.



...yeah.

[Deleted]

I know you've never been to the US before but a lot of republican states require money from blue states to function at a 1st world level.

I doubt living in the US (or visiting) would have any impact on that knowledge. Also, you're just assuming too much. There are plenty of possible explainations why "red states" recieve more federal money than others. Watch out for confirmation bias.

[Rukentuts]

There are plenty of possible explainations why "red states" recieve more federal money than others. Watch out for confirmation bias.

Like what, exactly?