Dear Republican Party

Quote: Nareed

I wouldn't call many of the current Democrats policies as being centrist. In economic issues they're far to the left, bordering on fascism (not an inflamatory term, but meaning the nominally private sector is mostly directed by the state). Not just socialized medicine (that's exactly what Obamacare is, wait and see if it's not), but bailouts to benefit unions, "investments" in politically favored companies, not to mention lots of pork and the promotion of dependence on governemnt (little things like "unemployment benefits stimulate the economy;" therefore we'd be in heaven if unemployment reached 100%??)

Cheer Up, Republicans
You’re going to have a moderate Republican president for the next four years: Barack Obama.

Where the current candidates stand on the political spectrum

Obviously I disagree with you here, Nareed. Obama has by and large continued the policies of George Bush, other than on social and science issues. The Republican base has drifted so far to the right that it doesn't recognize a moderate.

I'n not saying you have to like the guy, or what he's done, but characterizing his policies as "socialist" is a gross misrepresentation.

Quote: Mosca

Where the current candidates stand on the political spectrum

That is such a great graph. Thanks for sharing!

Quote: Mosca

The Republican base has drifted so far to the right that it doesn't recognize a moderate.

I think that's equally true of both parties. The polarization becomes more acute with each election cycle.

Quote: Mosca

Obviously I disagree with you here, Nareed. Obama has by and large continued the policies of George Bush, other than on social and science issues.

So you think bailing out airlines, banks and expanding entitlements is not socialistic? Or that it matters who does it? Read my breif comment on how the GOP lost all credibility on the economy.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

The polarization becomes more acute with each election cycle.

I saw a story recently on the effects of gerrymandering. When you go out of your way to rope in narrow interests, the voters you get naturally pick narrow interest candidates. Its effect is similar to selective breeding. With selective breeding you can produce extreme results.

Maybe that sounds like ideal representation to some, but you're likely ending up with people who can't work together. Like the cattle vs the sheep farmers.
If you completely isolate them, they stop relating as human beings and become more bitter with each other, 'cause neither of them know each other as neighbors anymore.

Quote: rxwine

With selective breeding you can produce extreme results.

I think that's a near perfect analogy. My question is, how do we stop it?

I'm sick and tired of the knee-jerk reactions and the blanket statements - from both sides. Until some common ground is found and foundation of unity is built on it, I think we're in trouble.

Everyone on either side has ideas on what the Republicans should do to change the way future elections turn out. Naturally, some people want the Republicans to turn into...Democrats!! I do think both parties ALWAYS need to look at the results of an election and work on things that they can do better. the loser so that they can become the winner; the winner so they can stay that way.

The first thing to look at are the things that got the President re-elected. There are personal characteristics (he is seen as being someone you could have a beer with, etc.) and there is they way the campaign was run. On the personal side, Romney was kind of right with his joke about he and Ann wearing formal clothes at home. It doesn't matter if that is not how they really are; we are conditioned to see the rich as aloof and condescending. They need to look at the same kind of things about the campaign--what did the other side do well?

The last thing they need to do is change their basic ideals. I'm not saying that some positions don't need to be moderated, but the real issue is not to come out looking nasty in being conservative (like the rape/abortion crap) but to let people know that you can be compassionate and conservative, too. I know there are those of you who will scoff at that...I don't really care. There is nothing wrong with being for people doing their best and being rewarded for it, taking care of the downtrodden without letting them become dependent forever (unless they are disabled, etc.), and charity beginning with the individual and not the government.

Just like there are very few thinking Democrats who really want socialism (ask them if they want everyone paid the same regardless of job and if they want 60% tax rates), there are very few Republicans who really want to simply toss people out in the street.

The pundits can talk and blame it on this or that (and they will)...but I think it comes down to getting people of all types to understand that being conservative is what a whole lot people are in their daily lives. Most people try not to spend more than they make, they try not to have more kids than they can pay for, they try to make things better for themselves through hard work, etc.

President Obama and his team got their message across more clearly than the Republicans. They were beatable but the job did not get done. They got the job done in spite of a questionable record (you can dispute that but people don't vote for you one time and the other guy the next because you did a great job...their are a lot of people disappointed with Obama). The Republicans need to stop throwing stones and start working on getting their message out.

The Democrats? They just need the Republicans to keep throwing stones at each other!!

Quote: Nareed

So you think bailing out airlines, banks and expanding entitlements is not socialistic? Or that it matters who does it? Read my breif comment on how the GOP lost all credibility on the economy.

Sorry my friend, I'm just going to disagree. I only posted as a data point, not to try to change your mind. 'S ok with me that you think I'm nuts.

Here is one example of something positive being turned into something negative and the Republicans not fighting it properly...

Romney said that there were not enough women in senior posiitons, so he added more.

(The truth seems to be that he did but that the number retreated to the historical norm at some point during his term.)

If I said that, how could it possibly be used against me?

Simple...he uttered the word "binders..." in his answer and the Democrats quickly seized the positive and turned it into a negative. It didn't SOUND good. Those WORDS hurt him even though his POSITION on the issue was what everyone seems to support--more opportunities for woman in sernior positions. He could have said it better, of course!!

The Democrats won the point because the Republicans did not do a good job of defending the candidate's position and not his exact words. Republicans don't hate women, folks. Saying it really often may make it sound like they do, but it isn't the truth.

I think Republicans are going to have a tough time changing their stance. The main reason is that the party is being pulled further right by the Tea Party influence. As Republicans fight through the Primaries, the Tea Partiers will have have a strong influence (in votes and campaign contributions) on who gets through to the general election on the GOP ticket. So you'll either get Tea Party candidates that will be difficult to win in elections outside red states (think Rick Santorum) or you'll get moderates bending to the will of the Tea Party in the Primary (Mitt Romney) then having to back step heavily towards the middle on policy issues giving a "flip flopping" messages as you saw in this Presidential Campaign.

The obstacles Pres Obama overcame to win this election is enormous AND HE SHOULD HAVE LOST. There's are the things he had to get through:

-He walked into a financial banking disaster that dwarfed the Savings and Loans crisis. On top of that, TARP was horribly implemented.
-We were already engaged in two highly unpopular wars
-Economy that hit the crapper months before he took office
-An domestic auto industry on its last gasp
-Tea Party explosion
-Citizen United Supreme Court Decision. The the cherry on top was facing Karl Rove, Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson.

I do see the silver lining from this election. The Tea Party or fundraisers (such as Rove) may realize that putting through extreme right candidates (such as Todd Atkin, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum) will waste money so they may put forth more "marketable" candidates. These "marketable" candidates can at least look moderate at the surface though have a significant right slant to keep the Tea Party hopeful.

If not, the Republicans are in real trouble. Imagine how Rick Santorum would have fared if he won the GOP Primary.