The Future of the GOP

[Grummgug]

To observe the future of the GOP, you need to look back at the 1960 election.

In 1960, Irish-Americans suffered from some of the same problems latinos do today. The assertion in some circles was that Irish-Americans were second class citizens. The Irish were associated with New York street gangs and thugs. They were poor, unruly, not a part of the system, and a growing segment of the population. They were, to some people, a problem that harkened the end of America as we know it.

Irish-Americans voted overwhelming for John F. Kennedy in 1960, or course. It was predicted in 1960 that the democrats would probably never lose the presidency again, because the Irish population would keep growing, they would never integrate into society, they would always be second class, and so they would keep voting democrat forever.

If those assertions sound familiar, you can apply them to latinos, blacks, and Barack Obama. Democrats are currently making the same assertions they did when JFK was in office. They cannot fathom change.

The GOP had an answer (and a gameplan) to shatter the constituency of 1960s democrats:

1. Promote Irish-Americans that espoused conservative ideas to leadership positions. (William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, both Irish)
2. Let the liberal mainstream media do what it does: attack conservative leaders.
3. Rank-and-file Irish-Americans began to circle the wagons and defend its own from the attacks by the liberal press.
4. Over time, a significant percentage of Irish-Americans began to convert to the GOP because the attacks on Buckley and Reagan showed them that the democrat party didn't really have their interests at heart, they just had their party at heart. Ideology began to trump party loyalty.
5. Conservative-leaning Irish shifted to the GOP in enough numbers that Nixon won two landslides in 1968 and 1972, and Reagan won two landslides in 1980 and 1984.

The GOP is currently employing the same strategy for our current times. Trump isn't the future. The future is people like George P. Bush and Marco Rubio. The function of P of Rubio is to get into very high profile positions and get attacked by the mainstream liberal press. They are like clickbait. The attacks will show conservative-leaning latinos that the democrat party is just about the party and not latinos. Those latinos will then convert from democrats to republicans.

All they need is 40% of the latino vote to destroy the democrats. And this strategy accomplished more than that in the 1960s and 70s.

[GennGreymane]

They should just be glad gay marriage is off the table, now they can focus on stuff that actually matters. Also should stop insulting Latinos at every turn, they may vote for you... a demographic thats religious and believes in work? I wonder why they dont vote (R).....

[Grummgug]

They should just be glad gay marriage is off the table, now they can focus on stuff that actually matters. Also should stop insulting Latinos at every turn, they may vote for you... a demographic thats religious and believes in work? I wonder why they dont vote (R).....

I disagree with your premise. The idea that "republicans insult latinos at every turn" is liberal media programming. The liberal press highlights every case where a republican criticizes latinos, and refuses to report cases where democrats criticize latinos. This generates the illusion that republicans late latinos and democrats love latinos. Its called lies of omission. The media loves to use lies of omission because its effective on those who are less-intelligent.

Another example is the catholic priest sex scandal. The media highlights every single case where a teacher in a catholic school sexually assaults a student. Especially if its a priest. They go into enormous detail. They undereport cases where it happens in public schools. Often they completely ignore it when it happens in public schools. Lies of omission. You can easily spot the idiots by those who buy into the lies and begin to think its a catholic school problem (when its a societal problem that happens in both public and catholic schools).

[GennGreymane]

I disagree with your premise. The idea that "republicans insult latinos at every turn" is liberal media programming. The liberal press highlights every case where a republican criticizes latinos, and refuses to report cases where democrats criticize latinos. This generates the illusion that republicans late latinos and democrats love latinos. Its called lies of omission. The media loves to use lies of omission because its effective on those who are less-intelligent.

Another example is the catholic priest sex scandal. The media highlights every single case where a teacher in a catholic school sexually assaults a student. Especially if its a priest. They go into enormous detail. They undereport cases where it happens in public schools. Often they completely ignore it when it happens in public schools. Lies of omission. You can easily spot the idiots by those who buy into the lies and begin to think its a catholic school problem (when its a societal problem that happens in both public and catholic schools).

gonna need some cites there as there is always a case of it happening in public schools. Also gonna need some cites for Dems going out of their way against Latinos, its (R) that is against illegal immigration, which is fair, but to stop that, they profile, which leads to issues. Also dont use fox news, even though I do check up on them, I never see it on their news either.

[Noitora]

You'd just have liberals accusing Latinos of internalizing racism and being white. Having black republicans hasn't helped with the black vote, and Bobby Jindal is accused of being white, and I thought Indians were less liberal.

[Foosha]

gonna need some cites there as there is always a case of it happening in public schools. Also gonna need some cites for Dems going out of their way against Latinos, its (R) that is against illegal immigration, which is fair, but to stop that, they profile, which leads to issues. Also dont use fox news, even though I do check up on them, I never see it on their news either.

What is this...a buzz word reply in full paragraph form? EVERYONE should be against illegal immigration...because...its illegal. Maybe they want to pardon illegals already in, or open more pathways for immigrants, but it's not in FAVOR of more illegals (and if you are, what the fuck). And Obama's policies have been very harsh on illegals/deportations, though you'd never know since a lot of it is swept under the rug by the media.

Profiling is good. It's common sense to profile. We arent going to have very many illegal Australians here. What's closest to our border? Mexico...central america? And...you're saying Mexicans live in Mexico? So I cant go out on a whim and say most illegals are...mexican? If I take a sample size of 400 random individuals in say... Texas, it's common sense to assume most, if not all, are from mexico/central america

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well they could try pooling enough money together and moving to Mexico, or maybe Australia will still be willing to buy the G.O.P tired lines and lies, maybe some could migrate to Europe, I am sure there are plenty of countries there that would love for a bunch of capitalist greedy lying right wingers to come show it how it's done.

But as for America, any real success the G.O.P has to rely on now is pity, and doubling down on stupid like feigning oppression of intolerant views on people of color, poor, women or gay.

In short the G.O.P sooner or later doesn't actually have a future, because despite however many mistakes Republicans pounce on or make up about the left, the truth is for all the tough Talk the G.O.P has nothing in the barrel for anybody, except those they prostitute America out for such as the greedy, the corrupt, and the fearful.

[GennGreymane]

What is this...a buzz word reply in full paragraph form? EVERYONE should be against illegal immigration...because...its illegal. Maybe they want to pardon illegals already in, or open more pathways for immigrants, but it's not in FAVOR of more illegals (and if you are, what the fuck). And Obama's policies have been very harsh on illegals/deportations, though you'd never know since a lot of it is swept under the rug by the media.

Profiling is good. It's common sense to profile. We arent going to have very many illegal Australians here. What's closest to our border? Mexico...central america? And...you're saying Mexicans live in Mexico? So I cant go out on a whim and say most illegals are...mexican? If I take a sample size of 400 random individuals in say... Texas, it's common sense to assume most, if not all, are from mexico/central america

1. If its so swept away, how do we know about it? Do we have carrier pigeon news
2. Cant gain support if the result of policy affects actual immigrants, or families that have been here for generations because they look a certain way.

[Doctor Amadeus]

What is this...a buzz word reply in full paragraph form? EVERYONE should be against illegal immigration...because...its illegal. Maybe they want to pardon illegals already in, or open more pathways for immigrants, but it's not in FAVOR of more illegals (and if you are, what the fuck). And Obama's policies have been very harsh on illegals/deportations, though you'd never know since a lot of it is swept under the rug by the media.

It isn't swept under the rug, but it just isn't sensationalized by anyone other than fox for folk who like to talk tough on illegal immigration, but then 180 it when it comes to selling a failed ideology. Either you are against illegal immigration or you aren't but it isn't Obama failing to get anything done on making Illegals, legal as the G.O.P so commonly like to refer to the.

Profiling is good. It's common sense to profile. We arent going to have very many illegal Australians here. What's closest to our border? Mexico...central america? And...you're saying Mexicans live in Mexico? So I cant go out on a whim and say most illegals are...mexican? If I take a sample size of 400 random individuals in say... Texas, it's common sense to assume most, if not all, are from mexico/central america

No racial profiling is not good especially when the fast majority of the harm done to this country, isn't from brown people crossing the southern borders, as for your logic about justifying that, such as which border is the closes, Canada also shares a border with us.

[Magicalcrab]

I think it takes a little more than just putting racial minorities at the front and center to earn a vote. It might help people identify with a candidate, but you have to have policies that resonate with those demographics, or at the very least run a campaign that does.
Obama won the presidency not purely based on the colour of his skin, but because he ran a deeply populist campaign competently.

[unbound]

Well, in addition to mixing a lot of nonsense with some facts, you need to understand some fundamentals of history.

The Democratic party of the early 60s is not the same Democratic party of today. They essentially switched places in the late 70s (much more complicated than that, but it is place to start for understanding history). As always, please educate yourself by reading history...in this case, read more about Southern Democrats and how things unfolded over the decades...especially starting with the New Deal and the impacts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In regards to some of the more laughable statements, there isn't a liberal mainstream media in the US. The liberal media are small productions that you've probably never heard of (e.g. Mother Jones). NY Times and Washington Post (the usual media that the extremist conservatives try to claim are liberal) are actually slightly right of center; despite the fact that reality doesn't fit the usual Fox News / Breitbart fueled narrative, it doesn't change the fact of what those publications are and what they actually write most of the time.

Finally, "Ideology began to trump party loyalty" is the funniest statement considering the impact the Tea Party had on the Republican Party. And is especially entertaining as we watch the 19 notable Republican candidates for President go after each other like rabid dogs.

[Uvwaex]

To observe the future of the GOP, you need to look back at the 1960 election.

In 1960, Irish-Americans suffered from some of the same problems latinos do today. The assertion in some circles was that Irish-Americans were second class citizens. The Irish were associated with New York street gangs and thugs. They were poor, unruly, not a part of the system, and a growing segment of the population. They were, to some people, a problem that harkened the end of America as we know it.

Irish-Americans voted overwhelming for John F. Kennedy in 1960, or course. It was predicted in 1960 that the democrats would probably never lose the presidency again, because the Irish population would keep growing, they would never integrate into society, they would always be second class, and so they would keep voting democrat forever.

If those assertions sound familiar, you can apply them to latinos, blacks, and Barack Obama. Democrats are currently making the same assertions they did when JFK was in office. They cannot fathom change.

The GOP had an answer (and a gameplan) to shatter the constituency of 1960s democrats:

1. Promote Irish-Americans that espoused conservative ideas to leadership positions. (William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, both Irish)
2. Let the liberal mainstream media do what it does: attack conservative leaders.
3. Rank-and-file Irish-Americans began to circle the wagons and defend its own from the attacks by the liberal press.
4. Over time, a significant percentage of Irish-Americans began to convert to the GOP because the attacks on Buckley and Reagan showed them that the democrat party didn't really have their interests at heart, they just had their party at heart. Ideology began to trump party loyalty.
5. Conservative-leaning Irish shifted to the GOP in enough numbers that Nixon won two landslides in 1968 and 1972, and Reagan won two landslides in 1980 and 1984.

The GOP is currently employing the same strategy for our current times. Trump isn't the future. The future is people like George P. Bush and Marco Rubio. The function of P of Rubio is to get into very high profile positions and get attacked by the mainstream liberal press. They are like clickbait. The attacks will show conservative-leaning latinos that the democrat party is just about the party and not latinos. Those latinos will then convert from democrats to republicans.

All they need is 40% of the latino vote to destroy the democrats. And this strategy accomplished more than that in the 1960s and 70s.

Are we really suggesting that if democrats had high-office latinos that the republican media wouldn't attack them? Not to say that the liberal media is any more "reliable", but both sides of the media seem to be pretty cut throat to both sides of the political spectrum. Couldn't this work for any political party? In fact, you could make the argument it worked for Obama, where there was a high amount of negative attention from the right side of the media, which as you say, probably galvanized liberal leaning African Americans, as well as other people of currently minority status (like latinos! at least back then)