(11-03-2014 02:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (11-03-2014 01:15 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: The problem with that analogy is that in 2010, the Republicans only gained control over one house of Congress with a Democratic president so they couldn't do much unless they passed legislation the Democrats wanted. A better analogy would be the 1994 election when the Republicans took over both houses of Congress with a Democratic president. The difference then from now is that that president was willing to compromise and I doubt few here would argue that 1995 - 2001 was a disaster. The real question is "will President Obama be willing to work with Republicans?". I'm very doubtful. He's not shown a willingness to budge much. I don't believe it's in his nature to compromise.
That's not how it will play out and you know it. Dems win in high turnout elections. The GOP wins in low turnout elections. To actually gain control of the House/Senate/Presidency, youre gonna have to do it in a high turnout election.
Big problem for republicans was that they have nominated enough crazies the last two election cycles that they failed to take over the senate--give them better candidates than Angle, McDonnell, Mourdock, and Akin and the suspense today could be simply how big their margin could get. And what I find particularly galling is that the issues the crazies have been most crazy about are issues that I don't give a damn about.
Quote:Here will be the battle lines
1) The Budget - Our budget situation is improving and QE is ending. If the GOP wishes to shoot themselves in the foot, they can try to shut down the government again.
2) Immigration - I predict massive problems for the GOP in this regard.
3) Health Care - Obamacare is turning out to be popular. Trying to defund it helps Obama. Putting together a credible alternative plan that contains premium rises for consumers would be a nice starting point for the GOP.
4) Social Issues - Obama wins when the GOP tries to attack Gays or puts up outrageous barriers to settled law (e.g., Roe v Wade end runs). Those things frequently backfire (see Virginia). It also will harm the GOP with the moderate women they'll need in 16.
5) Attacks on Unions/Equal Pay/Working Class Rights - Not a good sign.
Here are my answers to those:
1) The Budget - We're better than before, but still not back down to the level of even GWB's absurd deficits. Pass Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. There's still a lot in either one that would help, and with the budget closer to being balanced than before, you have a chance to get there.
2) Immigration - You can't send illegals back to Mexico, and you can't make them citizens without making a mockery of the rule of law. Expand guest workers, including everybody who is here illegally with a job now. No citizenship for those who came illegally, unless they go back and do it right. But they can stay and work, which is what they really want. And babies get citizenship only if parents are here legally.
3) Health Care - French Bismarck health care. It could come in the form of expanded Medicare, with which it shares many commonalities, but with reduced government bureaucratic intrusion.
4) Social Issues - Civil unions for everyone, marriage goes back to churches, and the right of a church to determine whom it will marry cannot be challenged. Separation of church and state is reaffirmed as keeping the state out of church business, which was the original intent, and "prohibiting the free exercise" is given standing equal to "respecting an establishment." Abortion during the first trimester, consistent with the first 150 years of the republic (making it the true conservative position), and in exceptional cases (rape, life or health of mother) thereafter. Life begins at conception, and the unborn baby has rights from that point, but those rights don't trump all other considerations immediately, just as no citizen's rights trump all other considerations in any other context. It's a weighing process, the mother's rights prevail for a period of time, and first trimester sounds reasonable for that. But these are just guidelines, make them states' rights issues.
5) Attacks on Unions/Equal Pay/Working Class Rights - Unions are diametrically opposed to other key democrat constituencies--environmentalists on a host of issues, blacks and minorities on others. There are some serious wedge issues here that republicans could utilize effectively if they were smarter about it. Moochie actually nailed the equal pay situation the other day, probably inadvertently. Women take time off for childbearing and raising, and that puts them behind the economic curve if they go back to work. Correct for that, and the pay differential pretty much goes away. The real problem is what Ross Perot talked about 20 years ago, and actually got a lot of traction--we are becoming a retail/service economy (much more so now than even then) and you can't pay somebody as much to deliver a pizza as you paid his/her grandfather to run a steel mill. People understood this when Perot talked about it, and my guess is that people would understand it again if republicans talked about it. Adopt policies to bring back high-paying jobs, and you will do fine with unions, and make inroads with minorities. And while you're at it, go for some free-market solutions to environmental problems. There are many good ones, and if you could fracture the environmental bloc over the best way to accomplish objectives, you'd go a long way toward solidifying your political position.
Will republicans go there? Probably not. But if they did, they would win in 2016.