(04-23-2014 08:51 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

Why are they the ones bluffing? The problem is with other folks in the party who want those people to vote and shut up. The party isn't changing, we all know that.

GOP Option 1: Drop social issues and call the Religious Right's bluff. Risks losing a portion of the base (that has no viable party alternative to turn to) but greatly enhances the appeal to moderate and younger voters. Likely delivers swing states.

GOP Option 2: Pander to the Religious Right. Maintains current base and continues to alienate moderates and younger voters. Continues to result in the loss of swing states.

Hmm... risk a loss but appeal to more voters or guarantee a loss and diminish future prospects?

We tried Option 1 with Mitt Romney. Not a single swing state was delivered and conservatives staying home cost the GOP VA, OH, and FL and put NC in jeopardy. Not even counting 2008 since Obama had deity status... don't think Reagan would have beat him.

By the end of Obama's term his party will be as diseased and as radioactive as the GOP in 08.

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with Mike. You can't silence social conservatives just because a wing of the party thinks it's a good idea.

He's completely right, no social issues no votes. Everybody has a right to vote their conscious and if this isn't the party for that then we'll expend those votes elsewhere.

Have at it.

Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

(04-23-2014 08:51 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

Why are they the ones bluffing? The problem is with other folks in the party who want those people to vote and shut up. The party isn't changing, we all know that.

GOP Option 1: Drop social issues and call the Religious Right's bluff. Risks losing a portion of the base (that has no viable party alternative to turn to) but greatly enhances the appeal to moderate and younger voters. Likely delivers swing states.

GOP Option 2: Pander to the Religious Right. Maintains current base and continues to alienate moderates and younger voters. Continues to result in the loss of swing states.

Hmm... risk a loss but appeal to more voters or guarantee a loss and diminish future prospects?

Your premise is that it's a bluff... That's a dangerous assumption.

People who think Abortion is murder and support of it is sin are far more likely to abandon ship than you seem to realize...

(04-23-2014 08:54 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:51 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

Why are they the ones bluffing? The problem is with other folks in the party who want those people to vote and shut up. The party isn't changing, we all know that.

GOP Option 1: Drop social issues and call the Religious Right's bluff. Risks losing a portion of the base (that has no viable party alternative to turn to) but greatly enhances the appeal to moderate and younger voters. Likely delivers swing states.

GOP Option 2: Pander to the Religious Right. Maintains current base and continues to alienate moderates and younger voters. Continues to result in the loss of swing states.

Hmm... risk a loss but appeal to more voters or guarantee a loss and diminish future prospects?

We tried Option 1 with Mitt Romney. Not a single swing state was delivered and conservatives staying home cost the GOP VA, OH, and FL and put NC in jeopardy. Not even counting 2008 since Obama had deity status... don't think Reagan would have beat him.

The GOP has not tried option one. Social issues are still in the party platform. Social issues were a driving force in the GOP primary in 2012. Santorum came in second!

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with Mike. You can't silence social conservatives just because a wing of the party thinks it's a good idea.

He's completely right, no social issues no votes. Everybody has a right to vote their conscious and if this isn't the party for that then we'll expend those votes elsewhere.

Have at it.

Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:40 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Have at it.

Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

(04-23-2014 09:08 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cute, but we all know the Republican Party is dead without those votes.

Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

Uh huh... This is another BS bluff. There is no way that the formation of some sort of theocratic third party is going to result in conservative electoral victories.

(04-23-2014 09:12 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:08 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

Uh huh... This is another BS bluff. There is no way that the formation of some sort of theocratic third party is going to result in conservative electoral victories.

You're not getting this...

If "conservative" electoral victories mean no action on abortion I don't care how many are won/lost...

Ill not sell my soul to fix the national debt or curb presidential war powers...

Regan got it, and nobody in the GOP seems to get it anymore. You could very easily appease the religious right by protecting their freedom of association and worship while passing the deeper issues of gay marriage onto the states.

But you have no interest in that. You are the one crying "my way or the highway"...

This thread is exactly why the Republicans are toast in 2016. The overriding and central issues should be the economy, jobs, government spending that is out of control and Obamacare.

Anything else (which is what this entire thread is about) are sidebar issues that should be secondary. We all know that the Democrats will platform the exact opposite on ALL social issues. For example, I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but it will not be a deal breaker for me if the Republican candidate isn't vehemently opposed - particularly since the courts are finding favor with it on discrimination grounds.

Again, I'll take some of what I want over nothing I want. I don't like Liver and Onions, but I'd damn sure eat that before I'd starve.

(04-23-2014 09:25 AM)Crebman Wrote:  This thread is exactly why the Republicans are toast in 2016. The overriding and central issues should be the economy, jobs, government spending that is out of control and Obamacare.

Anything else (which is what this entire thread is about) are sidebar issues that should be secondary. We all know that the Democrats will platform the exact opposite on ALL social issues. For example, I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but it will not be a deal breaker for me if the Republican candidate isn't vehemently opposed - particularly since the courts are finding favor with it on discrimination grounds.

Again, I'll take some of what I want over nothing I want. I don't like Liver and Onions, but I'd damn sure eat that before I'd starve.

Which is kind of what I said... The more libertarian end of the party, however, has no flex..

(04-23-2014 09:12 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:08 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:44 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Which is why the Religious Right is bluffing.

You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

Uh huh... This is another BS bluff. There is no way that the formation of some sort of theocratic third party is going to result in conservative electoral victories.

I know what you want and you aren't fooling anyone. It's part of breaking the GOP. You think that by taking away their conservative element they will dissolve into the democratic party. It's part of Obama's plan and you are just following his lead.

Did you ever stop and wonder what it would be like living in a country completely controlled by the left?

(04-23-2014 09:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:12 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:08 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You don't need "the whole" religious right to abandon ship to sink the party... I did not vote GOP in the last election, I know of my family (9) at least three other ardent Republican voters decided to either not vote for pres, or sit home altogether.

If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

Uh huh... This is another BS bluff. There is no way that the formation of some sort of theocratic third party is going to result in conservative electoral victories.

You're not getting this...

If "conservative" electoral victories mean no action on abortion I don't care how many are won/lost...

Ill not sell my soul to fix the national debt or curb presidential war powers...

Regan got it, and nobody in the GOP seems to get it anymore. You could very easily appease the religious right by protecting their freedom of association and worship while passing the deeper issues of gay marriage onto the states.

But you have no interest in that. You are the one crying "my way or the highway"...

Then go and do it already. Continuously threatening to leave in order to try and force the party to the right isn't a viable long term strategy. Either go and form your third party or get in line with the future of the GOP. Either way, the time for that change is now, not in 2017.

(04-23-2014 09:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:12 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:08 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)Hitch Wrote:  If they've already lost them, then the GOP has nothing to lose by turning their backs on the Religious Right. Now's the time to start adding moderates.

Ha ha, that's not going to work. You've got a third party for that. It's never going to happen. We need to purge the GOP of left wingers who are in denial and focus on our core platform.

Uh huh... This is another BS bluff. There is no way that the formation of some sort of theocratic third party is going to result in conservative electoral victories.

You're not getting this...

If "conservative" electoral victories mean no action on abortion I don't care how many are won/lost...

Ill not sell my soul to fix the national debt or curb presidential war powers...

Regan got it, and nobody in the GOP seems to get it anymore. You could very easily appease the religious right by protecting their freedom of association and worship while passing the deeper issues of gay marriage onto the states.

But you have no interest in that. You are the one crying "my way or the highway"...

Then go and do it already. Continuously threatening to leave in order to try and force the party to the right isn't a viable long term strategy. Either go and form your third party or get in line with the future of the GOP. Either way, the time for that change is now, not in 2017.

Already did, as did many evangelicals and it cost the GOP the 2012 election... But yea keep pushing us out hoping you can out lib the democrats on social issues.

(04-22-2014 08:14 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Candidates with social conservative platforms were winning elections 30 years ago. It was a winning strategy. What happened is they did nothing with that opportunity. They exploited the voters, and left holes open for the snark of leftists.

I am no fan of Huck, but he does have a point. You aren't going to win Virginia, Ohio, and Florida without Evangelicals turning out. Now the other side of the coin is, if you run like a Southern Baptist preacher, you are going to lose the moderates and libertarians. I agree with that as well. Tough balancing act that Romney was unable to perform.

That's because Romney was a Mormon. Evangelicals don't really identify with Mormons.

(04-22-2014 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:14 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I really don't think a lot of social conservatives understand just how much of an automatic turnoff the stance on gay marriage is to a large number of people that would otherwise be open to the Republican Party on fiscal issues and that it's simply going to be a losing argument going forward. The socially conservative wing would honestly be better off focusing on abortion than gay marriage at this point if needs some type of issue to artificially rally the base.

There's no question that social conservatives are going to lose on the gay marriage issue. The question is how long the GOP will keep it in the party platform before the trade-off becomes untenable.

I think they are already starting to downplay it. The GOP may be awful at governing, but when it comes to playing the political game, they are far superior to the Democrats, who too often let principles get in the way of pragmatic results. That's why, when all is said and done, I think the GOP will do the math and let the evangelicals fend for themselves.

Surely this was a typo. Right?

(04-24-2014 10:55 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:14 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I really don't think a lot of social conservatives understand just how much of an automatic turnoff the stance on gay marriage is to a large number of people that would otherwise be open to the Republican Party on fiscal issues and that it's simply going to be a losing argument going forward. The socially conservative wing would honestly be better off focusing on abortion than gay marriage at this point if needs some type of issue to artificially rally the base.

There's no question that social conservatives are going to lose on the gay marriage issue. The question is how long the GOP will keep it in the party platform before the trade-off becomes untenable.

I think they are already starting to downplay it. The GOP may be awful at governing, but when it comes to playing the political game, they are far superior to the Democrats, who too often let principles get in the way of pragmatic results. That's why, when all is said and done, I think the GOP will do the math and let the evangelicals fend for themselves.

Surely this was a typo. Right?

Had to be.....................

(04-24-2014 11:02 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:55 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:14 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 02:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I really don't think a lot of social conservatives understand just how much of an automatic turnoff the stance on gay marriage is to a large number of people that would otherwise be open to the Republican Party on fiscal issues and that it's simply going to be a losing argument going forward. The socially conservative wing would honestly be better off focusing on abortion than gay marriage at this point if needs some type of issue to artificially rally the base.

There's no question that social conservatives are going to lose on the gay marriage issue. The question is how long the GOP will keep it in the party platform before the trade-off becomes untenable.

I think they are already starting to downplay it. The GOP may be awful at governing, but when it comes to playing the political game, they are far superior to the Democrats, who too often let principles get in the way of pragmatic results. That's why, when all is said and done, I think the GOP will do the math and let the evangelicals fend for themselves.

Surely this was a typo. Right?

Had to be.....................

I was thinking the same thing.

(04-22-2014 09:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Independents outnumber the entire listed membership of both Republicans and Democrats. They are 40% of the electorate and growing. (Shocking, I know, that 8 years of Dubya and Obama could make people swear off both parties.) You can get ZERO Evangelical votes but pick up 2 out of 3 independents and win the Presidency handily.

That concludes today's lesson in electoral maths.

So the assumption is that everyone currently not registered to vote must be an Independent? That's really the only way your "electoral math" works.

I'm registered as a Republican but I identify myself as an Independent. Really makes no difference for me come election time.

(04-24-2014 11:10 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Independents outnumber the entire listed membership of both Republicans and Democrats. They are 40% of the electorate and growing. (Shocking, I know, that 8 years of Dubya and Obama could make people swear off both parties.) You can get ZERO Evangelical votes but pick up 2 out of 3 independents and win the Presidency handily.

That concludes today's lesson in electoral maths.

So the assumption is that everyone currently not registered to vote must be an Independent? That's really the only way your "electoral math" works.

I'm registered as a Republican but I identify myself as an Independent. Really makes no difference for me come election time.

How is anyone "registered" as a republican or democrat? I don't recall having to tell anyone that I was one or the other?