Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[titan972]

It seems that the republican party has been in denial for a very long time on a number of issues. Denial about education, denial about America no longer being the "greatest country on earth", America being a Christian nation (it isn't), Denial about evolution, Global warming, the age of the planet, and a plethora of other scientific issues.

Watching the GOP play the blame game and scapegoat everything from the hurricaine, to Romney being a weak candidate, to America full of black and latino voters who "want free shit" has made me realize that they are still in denial. Do you guys think the republican party will admit that they lost based on their ideas being out of touch with the country and change their platform to be more inclusive instead of exclusive? Or will they continue business as usual and further alienate women voters by promising laws limiting their control of their bodies, pressing more de-regulation of banks and big business, and further pursuing their losing platform of 2012?

People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world...about just as many people voted against Obama as voted for him. And guess what - it's not because they're all racists, bigots, religious fanatics or anti-intellectual, its because they see the Democrats' ideas as woefully naive and incredibly dangerous in the long term. The country will continue a downward spiral so long as people like you and the democratic party claim to have a monopoly on compassion and intelligence...frankly I see very little of either of those from them right now.

Yes, the Republican party will adapt and become more inclusive - yes the perception that democrats have succeeded in crafting n that republicans are evil and hate all that is good in the world will eventually wane. Sure, there are morons in the republican party just as there are in the democrats...I'd put them at maybe 5% of the total. You can continue to believe such nonsense as long as you'd like, you'll just be all more shocked when republicans ideas about economic freedom and personal responsibility gain popularity again...which they will.

Guess what bro - republicans like progress too, just in a smarter way - its not necessary to destroy all that is right about our system in your never ending quest for 'progress', which as far as I can tell is actually just a regress to the failed economic theories of Marx. Frankly, I can think of no better fate for people that voted for the democrats than to let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity...its probably the only way our course will be corrected.

Infracted: Don't insult people who don't politically agree with you.

[Ausr]

I still wish to know what communist/socialist things Obama has done compared to previous presidents who expanded those ideas more than him.

[Deadvolcanoes]

No, you can't make a leap to causation based on that. You can make a leap to causation based on the Fox News study if it's properly done though.

There are too many variables that your "correlation" leaves out to form conclusions like that. You need a lecture on scientific theory and statistics.

I didn't say we could make the leap to causation. I said that the correlation seems to be as strong as it could be without leaping to causation. At least that's what I meant to say. Simplest explanation and all that. The Fox News study was much more scientific than the chart I linked.

And as a side note I'd love a lecture on scientific theory and statistics. I've watched more than my fair share from tedtalks, but you can never know too much.

[Spectral]

I think my vote is correct, can you prove me otherwise? No? Well then I'll state by my belief. You have your choice to not belive in a higher being, be it a/some God/s/ess/esses or some magical something, I have my choice to belive in It. Oh, and I have an university degree and I'm fascinated by social sciences, learning more about them, to relate to that picture somewhere on first pages.

And I admit, I don't know how insane some people are, as, as I stated, I took the middle ground saying evolution is part of creationism.
That said, the fact that they chose a candidate who did belive in evolution, even if, like me, he belives it is part of creationism, doesn't that constitute an advancement? In the end, the candidate to presidency is supposed to represent your party, not some random member somewhere.

I don't think you understand what "creationism" means in American parlance.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 06:19 PM ----------

No one that's sane actually supports abortion, they support a woman's right to choose.

As we've probably been over before, I actively support abortion. I think it's a great innovation, and I'm glad new technologies continue to make better forms of it (such as the RU486 pill) available to women that don't want children.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 06:26 PM ----------

Why use a state level aggregate? It doesn't tell us if the people voting for Romney are the people who are uneducated. Those who are uneducated might not even be voting, we can't know. You need to look at how many people who identify with the Democratic party have degrees and how many who identify with the Republican party have degrees. You need a sample at the individual level.

I believe what you're referring to is confirmation bias. People see something they like the look of and decide it's true. From the exit polls I looked at, it looked like Romney had a very slight lead among people with 4 year degrees, but no post graduate education, while Obama won by something like a 55-42 margin among people with postgraduate educations. Obviously, neither of these leads is sufficient to declare that highly educated people have an enormous preference for one party or the other.

[Diurdi]

I believe what you're referring to is confirmation bias. People see something they like the look of and decide it's true. From the exit polls I looked at, it looked like Romney had a very slight lead among people with 4 year degrees, but no post graduate education, while Obama won by something like a 55-42 margin among people with postgraduate educations. Obviously, neither of these leads is sufficient to declare that highly educated people have an enormous preference for one party or the other.

Well, the exit polls would atleast be indicative of actual affiliation of people with degrees, as it's at individual level instead of state aggregate.

[Bakis]

Depends if they realise that being a old white men party wont fit in todays & future US.
The problem is that their voters base is too small to compete. They need to reach out to the middle class, women, latinos.
Having a nuts christian rightwing agenda wont help them.

For the moment they are out of touch with reality.

[Deadvolcanoes]

As we've probably been over before, I actively support abortion. I think it's a great innovation, and I'm glad new technologies continue to make better forms of it (such as the RU486 pill) available to women that don't want children.

I can't agree. Abortion is often incredibly damaging from an emotional and psychological standpoint. I'm glad we have it as an option just in case, but I'd much rather a pregnancy be prevented than ended.

[Spectral]

I can't agree. Abortion is often incredibly damaging from an emotional and psychological standpoint. I'm glad we have it as an option just in case, but I'd much rather a pregnancy be prevented than ended.

You know what else is often damaging from an emotional standpoint? A kid someone doesn't want.

More to the point, you said no one's in favor of abortion. I'm telling you I am. It's fine if you aren't in favor of abortion, but you shouldn't speak for everyone.

[Xeones]

Guess what bro - republicans like progress too, just in a smarter way

Denying basic rights to gays and women, massive tax cuts coupled with massive spending increases, denying science, and alienating the nation from the rest of the world is smarter?

[corebit]

Coming from an outsider but who has been watching U.S. elections very closely for a long time: you people are overanalyzing too much.

People making all sorts of reasons and doom prophecies about the Republican party don't realize this stuff occurs every election cycle. It was doom-scenario for the Democrats when the Clinton/Monica affair surfaced. Did the Democrat party experience a radical change since the Clinton years to win the recent elections? No, it was simply because people were tired of the way Bush ran the country.

Claiming the GOP needs to do be more gay-friendly or less-religious or whatever is really unnecessary. You cater more to one bloc you lose another bloc of voters, and then what? Become Democrat-lite? All GOP needs to do is to point out and focus on Obama's mistakes as his second term he will be unable to blame anything on Bush.

Until 2016 there will be plenty of time and opportunities for Obama to screw up (and he will screw up plenty, just like any President before him). Obama won with a very thin margin over Romney. Until the next elections, Americans will develop Democrat-fatigue. More independents will start to switch right, Obama's ratings will plummet to the ground as his fours years count down, and Republicans will have a strong (even majority) voter presence again.

And the cycle will repeat.

[Jero]

Yes, after 2008, there was a large revolution in the Republican Party. It spawned the anti-government, anti-intellectual Tea Party, which was remarkably successful and took a fair number of seats from Democrats in 2010.

You lost all credibility right there. Also, I think you missed the point. He was talking about changing ideology. You were mostly referring to tactics.

[Powerogue]

As we've probably been over before, I actively support abortion. I think it's a great innovation, and I'm glad new technologies continue to make better forms of it (such as the RU486 pill) available to women that don't want children.[COLOR="red"]

It'd be so much easier if we just had a pill that temporarily killed people's desire to have sex in the first place.

As for the parties, they'll keep adapting as long as they want to keep having members in power. Publicly admitting being wrong though, good luck getting anyone to do that, politician or otherwise.

Infracted: Don't insult people who don't politically agree with you.

and the OP didn't do the same thing? This is a political discussion, people won't always agree. Cool down with the infractions.

[Schaden]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio

While there are plenty of different types of voters, a good chunk of them do fall into the same category as the woman in the video, and "want free shit".

Yet everyone forgets that Reagan was the first to introduce phone service to the poor. And they forget that if you want to, you know, get a job, a cell phone is a requirement.

As for the OP: it will depend on how honest they're willing to be with themselves. If they're willing to admit their hyper-conservative and religious platforms are unpalatable to a majority of the country and that they deluded themselves into thinking Romney's victory was assured, then there's a chance that the few moderates left in the party can pull it closer to center. If they continue to wail and gnash their teeth about the gays and abortions and liberals and the decline of White American Establishment and keep using the Southern Strategy, then no, they won't. Women (especially single women), minorities, and the poor are major voting blocks and as long as the GOP continues on course, to ignore them and campaign directly against their interests, they will continue to lose these vital votes. You can only run on angry, white racists for so long.

[Verain]

It'd be so much easier if we just had a pill that temporarily killed people's desire to have sex in the first place.

Some kind of eugenic strangekid right here?

How many people do you really think would take that pill? I'll tell you with certainty, it would be not very many.

Of course, that kind of thinking normally goes along with the threat of violence. "Take this pill or else..."

[Spectral]

You lost all credibility right there. Also, I think you missed the point. He was talking about changing ideology. You were mostly referring to tactics.

Can you be explicit about what what I said that made me lose credibility? The Tea Party certainly is a anti-government, anti-intellectual segment of the Republican Party, and it certainly was very effective in taking seats in Congress. Also, it was shift in ideology, not just a shift in tactics. You'd have a tough time finding as much open anti-science rhetoric before the Tea Party strain of thinking.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 09:04 PM ----------

It'd be so much easier if we just had a pill that temporarily killed people's desire to have sex in the first place.

Why in the world would we want that? You seem to have missed the part where sex is enjoyable, healthy, and creates bonds between people. It's not a dirty or bad thing that needs to be washed out of society.

[Decklan]

Racism, sexism, and other white male supremacy ideals are on the rapid decline and the fact that the Republicans hold onto those ideals so tightly and refuse to let go is one of their big downfalls. You'd pretty much have to be a complete and utter bigoted racist misogynist asshole to agree with the fundamental conservative social policies.

As far as fiscal platform, the Republican party is so far from what it used to be I'm not really sure they can even really call themselves the Republican party any more. The last true Republican was Reagan, and Reagan and the Republicans before him realized that promoting small business and snuffing out big businesses that exploit people was the best way to have a strong economy. America was built on free enterprise and small businesses and we prospered so long as the government knocked down any of the big businesses back in the 20th century. The new Republican party panders to big businesses and is composed of/has their pockets lined by big businesses who ship jobs overseas to save a few cents. They'd rather give American dollars to Chinese workers because there are no labor laws in China. Obama is closer to a true classical Republican than any of the Republican candidates for this election.

I believe in classical Republican ideals which is why Obama was the best choice. Anyone who makes less than 250k a year or who owns a small business or who works for small business needs to get their head checked if they voted for Romney.

[BlahBlahFrigginBlah]

post #7 gets a free pass, and post #201 gets infracted?

both used the same insult in the same manner. either use your hammer fairly or hold it back please.

[Grummgug]

The GOP needs to drop this silly adherence to primitive mythology. Religion isn't needed anymore. We have moved on past silly superstition and mysticism (well, the modern world has) and realize that it offers nothing but false hope and brainwashing.

Less than 1% of US latinos are atheist. 70% are catholic. Another 23% are other christian. They are quickly growing as well. Its safe to say religion will not lose its influence in the US for a long, long time, if ever. That's just reality.

If the republicans can just accept amnesty for illegal immigrants, I think the athiest posture of the democrat party should push latinos back to the GOP.

[Jero]

Can you be explicit about what what I said that made me lose credibility? The Tea Party certainly is a anti-government, anti-intellectual segment of the Republican Party, and it certainly was very effective in taking seats in Congress. Also, it was shift in ideology, not just a shift in tactics. You'd have a tough time finding as much open anti-science rhetoric before the Tea Party strain of thinking.

Well, you'd have to prove it, not just say it. The Tea Party is none of those things; anti-intellectual, anti-government, nor anti-science. Also, the Tea Party is separate from the Republican Party. Although, there are Republicans who support the Tea Party movement, they are separate.

[Deadvolcanoes]

You know what else is often damaging from an emotional standpoint? A kid someone doesn't want.

More to the point, you said no one's in favor of abortion. I'm telling you I am. It's fine if you aren't in favor of abortion, but you shouldn't speak for everyone.

Actually, I said "No one that's sane actually supports abortion, they support a woman's right to choose."

You're right that I worded it incorrectly, and I shouldn't speak for other people, it's just that I see the act of having an abortion as an inherently negative concept. I understand that having an unwanted child is horrible, but that doesn't make the act of having an abortion any better. I've seen the decision permanently change the way people act.

It's impossible for me to have an unbiased opinion on this topic, so I'll just leave it at that.