• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Political Party Would You Consider Yourself Now A Member Of?

I consider myself a:

  • Republican

    Votes: 12 17.4%
  • Democrat

    Votes: 18 26.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 39 56.5%

  • Total voters
    69
So far.....out of 36 poll respondents, only 5 are identifying themselves as Republicans, & I don't think DP is a bastion of liberal voters.
While this is not a scientific study by any means, I do think it's a decent indication of the trouble today's GOP has in trying to win future national elections.

You screw yourself up by the language you yourself use. You talk about republicans and democrats, but then talk about how DP is hardly a LIBERAL bastion.

You're correct, its got a fair mix, with potentially more conservatives than liberals (though at this current time of active posters I'd dare say its at the closest split we've had in some time).

HOWEVER, your question has nothing to do with the conservative bend on the forum, but specifically about parties people are affiliated with.

DP has a pretty decent cadre of Libertarians for one. Two, since 2006 there's been a number of people who are soundly conservative, who soundly vote republican, but no longer identify themselves with that party.

You are trying to postulate that somehow low numbers of people that identify as "Republicans" will hurt them at the voting box. I think this is a faulty and illogical assumptions based on little facts and a misreading of the evidence presented. For this to be the case all, or at least a large portion, of those conservatives who did not identify themselves as part of the Republican Party would need to either vote 3rd party, vote democrats, or not vote. I would dare say, from the history and statements of many of these posters, that in reality the majority of said people would still be voting for the Republican nominee in electoins. As such, just because they don't identify themselves with the Republican Party at this current moment does not mean it will cause any damage or noticable shift in the Republicans votes.

This becomes even more true when, by examining your previous posts, its patentedly obvious why you think the issue CURRENTLY is happening...IE the attacks on Health Care. However, the majority of those not identifying with the GOP started doing so long before the Health Care debate was truly raging. Indeed, I dare say I don't know of a single, solitary, person on this forum that listed themselves as a Republican who has changed their party identification due to Health Care.

On the contrary, the majority of those that now don't claim to be part of the Republican Party did so back in 2006 due to anger at the fiscal irresponsability and failure to uphold the principles of conservatism by many in office, or in 2008 when a moderate republican who made a career the past 8 years of insulting conservatives and screwing over those in his ideology became the parties choice for President. In both those cases, the complaint that caused the migration was NOT that they were unhappy with conservatism but really just the opposite, that they were unhappy with the lack of well rounded conservatism. To then turn around and insinuate and assume that somehow Republicans actually sticking to their principles for once, less government intervention in our private lives and increase in the size and scope of government, is preposterous.

So no, I fully reject you're hypothesis for the reason above, along with the fact that people tend to more readily identify with the party that fits their lean when that party is in power, on top of the fact you actually acknowledged in that this is a sampling of a few dozen people on a debate site which in and of itself means people generally more interested in politics than the average person. I don't believe the lack of people self identifying as "republicans" is going to hurt the GOP at the ballot box, and dare say that the acts of the majority of reasonable republicans currently in fighting against the auto-buyouts, fighting government ran health care, fighting any increases in taxes, fighting cap and trade, etc may end up actually helping them comparitive to 2006 and 2008. While the idiotic attacks from a vocal minority are just that, idiotic, I do not foresee any reason why they should be any more damaging than those same attacks that implied that the Bush White House knew about and purposefully allowed 9/11 to happen or that the government was peeking completely unchecked at every American whenever and however they wanted...let alone all the childish "dumbo" like attacks... and other such absurd notions that came out over 8 years.
 
You are trying to postulate that somehow low numbers of people that identify as "Republicans" will hurt them at the voting box. I think this is a faulty and illogical assumptions based on little facts and a misreading of the evidence presented. For this to be the case all, or at least a large portion, of those conservatives who did not identify themselves as part of the Republican Party would need to either vote 3rd party, vote democrats, or not vote. I would dare say, from the history and statements of many of these posters, that in reality the majority of said people would still be voting for the Republican nominee in electoins. As such, just because they don't identify themselves with the Republican Party at this current moment does not mean it will cause any damage or noticable shift in the Republicans votes.

If I'm reading you correctly, I think what I'm hearing you say is that just because many ex-Republicans are dissatisfied with the present GOP & have been for many years now, that THAT will not hurt the GOP in future elections???

If that is what you're saying I disagree. Political parties cannot thrive if they have no real support but simply rely on people voting against their opponents. I think most voters want to believe IN something & not just AGAINST things.

Let's look at a specific example:
How many votes do you suppose McCain lost when disaffected Republicans split the GOP vote & voted for Ron Paul?.....Granted, that did not alone lose the election for the GOP, but I think it was a factor which is increasing...not decreasing.
I only see that situation worsening for the GOP as more & more ex-Republicans search for a party that truly represents conservatives again & drops the Born-Again, Nation Building, Crusading Neocons who presently lead the GOP.
 
Last edited:
You guys can come up with all kinds of fantasy explanations for the Republican Party's woes ("they have abandoned traditional conservatism" and so on), but its actually quite simple. The GOP's traditional demographic, angry white men over 40 and conservative evangelicals, is a shrinking one. Until the party moderates and thus expands its base, it will most likely continue to lose national elections baring some complete implosion on the part of the Democrats.
 
You guys can come up with all kinds of fantasy explanations for the Republican Party's woes ("they have abandoned traditional conservatism" and so on), but its actually quite simple. The GOP's traditional demographic, angry white men over 40 and conservative evangelicals, is a shrinking one. Until the party moderates and thus expands its base, it will most likely continue to lose national elections baring some complete implosion on the part of the Democrats.

That too!!:lol::lol:
 
You guys can come up with all kinds of fantasy explanations for the Republican Party's woes ("they have abandoned traditional conservatism" and so on), but its actually quite simple. The GOP's traditional demographic, angry white men over 40 and conservative evangelicals, is a shrinking one. Until the party moderates and thus expands its base, it will most likely continue to lose national elections baring some complete implosion on the part of the Democrats.

There is some truth to this, but I don't think it tells the whole story. I worry that we see what you talk about, and forget the cyclic nature of politics that seems to be happening currently. Republicans will regain power at some point, if for no other reason than it's easier to gain support when you are out of power and can blame everything that goes wrong on those in power. If republicans don't grow their base, it may take awhile before they get power again, but it will happen.
 
If I'm reading you correctly, I think what I'm hearing you say is that just because many ex-Republicans are dissatisfied with the present GOP & have been for many years now, that THAT will not hurt the GOP in future elections???

If that is what you're saying I disagree. Political parties cannot thrive if they have no real support but simply rely on people voting against their opponents. I think most voters want to believe IN something & not just AGAINST things.

Let's look at a specific example:
How many votes do you suppose McCain lost when disaffected Republicans split the GOP vote & voted for Ron Paul?.....Granted, that did not alone lose the election for the GOP, but I think it was a factor which is increasing...not decreasing.
I only see that situation worsening for the GOP as more & more ex-Republicans search for a party that truly represents conservatives again & drops the Born-Again, Nation Building, Crusading Neocons who presently lead the GOP.

No, I'm not saying that people being disatisfied with the GOP won't hurt them. What I'm saying is based on your statements here and in other threads about this topic I don't believe the REASON you think people are disatisfied with the GOP is correct, and thus are over shooting your hypothesis here. (I'm referencing the "did the republicans go to far" thread).

I do think that the next 4 to 12 years are going to be make or break times for the GOP. If they manage to take back a majority in either house or take over the Presidency then how they act once doing that is going to be huge, and to a lesser extent even who their nominee's are.

If Republicans get back into power and you have a similar problem that happened in the past 8 years I do think there is going to be extremely hard time for the GOP ahead. However, I think its going to need to happen that second time. The whole "Fool me once, fool me twice" type of situation. America, as has said often, is a very forgiving country and I think that the majority of conservative voters are going to be giving the Republicans one more good shot to see if they can actually do and act like they represented themselves when getting voted in.

While I agree with you in regards to nation building and such, I reject the notion again that...no surprise, yet again, its only a liberal democrat pushing it...the republicans must shun their social side to be viable, or that somehow is what will save them, is foolish and will do nothing but further expediate the stagnation of the Republican Party. The answer is not jettisoning a group, but balancing out the platform amongst all groups.
 
Devil, when did you become a moderate? Did you fall and hit your head on the ground this morning? If your views are those of a moderate, then God help us all.

I left the Republican party a few years ago. They abandoned their fiscally conservative principles in favor of special interests and big government. Until they return to their principles, they can no longer count me as "one of theirs". I'd say I fall more in line with the Libertarian party than I do with the Republican party, but I've never been one to "toe the line" of any party.


Ron Paul? He seems to have influenced you, if not youtube him.
 
While I agree with you in regards to nation building and such, I reject the notion again that...no surprise, yet again, its only a liberal democrat pushing it...the republicans must shun their social side to be viable, or that somehow is what will save them, is foolish and will do nothing but further expediate the stagnation of the Republican Party. The answer is not jettisoning a group, but balancing out the platform amongst all groups.


If I might add something here, the big issue right now is jobs. People are not working, they don't have the money to buy anything and the U.S. as a whole are spending three times what the GDP of the nation has been for about six years now. Taxes are high, and penalize production. Evasion is a big issue as well, the tax code is overly complicated and favors the rich who can afford to higher a legal team to cheat the system. Criminals are not exactly willing to disclose how much they earned either due to self incrimination. We need a better tax system, and stop spending more than we earn. What ever party can do this will probably be elected.
 
No, I'm not saying that people being disatisfied with the GOP won't hurt them. What I'm saying is based on your statements here and in other threads about this topic I don't believe the REASON you think people are disatisfied with the GOP is correct, and thus are over shooting your hypothesis here. (I'm referencing the "did the republicans go to far" thread).
OK.....So why do YOU think many conservatives are dissatisfied with the GOP? (specifically, where have I misread their dissatisfaction?)

If Republicans get back into power and you have a similar problem that happened in the past 8 years I do think there is going to be extremely hard time for the GOP ahead. However, I think its going to need to happen that second time. The whole "Fool me once, fool me twice" type of situation. America, as has said often, is a very forgiving country and I think that the majority of conservative voters are going to be giving the Republicans one more good shot to see if they can actually do and act like they represented themselves when getting voted in.
America is a forgiving nation but today's GOP leaders admit no blame, feel no guilt & want to pretend that the last 8 years never happened. They are not asking for forgiveness & obviously don't feel the need to do so.
So.....Why should anyone think they will change in the future?
You are a conservative...Have you heard any GOP leader accept blame for anything, express remorse for fiscal irresponsibility for the last 8 years & explain how they would be different if given ultimate power in the future?
I sure haven't heard any of that!

While I agree with you in regards to nation building and such, I reject the notion again that...no surprise, yet again, its only a liberal democrat pushing it.....the republicans must shun their social side to be viable, or that somehow is what will save them, is foolish and will do nothing but further expediate the stagnation of the Republican Party. The answer is not jettisoning a group, but balancing out the platform amongst all groups..
If it's true...what difference does it make who says it?....But, in reality..I never said that.
 
Last edited:
You guys can come up with all kinds of fantasy explanations for the Republican Party's woes ("they have abandoned traditional conservatism" and so on), but its actually quite simple. The GOP's traditional demographic, angry white men over 40 and conservative evangelicals, is a shrinking one. Until the party moderates and thus expands its base, it will most likely continue to lose national elections baring some complete implosion on the part of the Democrats.

The party doesnt need to moderate they need to pragmatise their message. Honest intelligent positions need to replace "moral" "Religious" hot button issues, pragmatism needs to replace talking points. Conservatives need to realise that having the goverment regulate womens bodies, and sexual relations of adults is counter to our idealogy, war against drugs is a war against individual responsibility. We need to go back to the basics of our idealogy:

Lower taxes, tax based incentives, reduction of spending, pro American business regulations and trade policy etc

Simply: Individualism, Patriotism, Fair Market, and defence of American values.
 
I registered Republican was I was 18 and left them in 2004 to join the LP since back then the main thing they seem to concerned with is to use the government jack boot to enforce private morals. I re-registered Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the primary then went back to the LP.
 
So far.....out of 36 poll respondents, only 5 are identifying themselves as Republicans, & I don't think DP is a bastion of liberal voters.
While this is not a scientific study by any means, I do think it's a decent indication of the trouble today's GOP has in trying to win future national elections.

That's not how polls work.
 
The party doesnt need to moderate they need to pragmatise their message. Honest intelligent positions need to replace "moral" "Religious" hot button issues, pragmatism needs to replace talking points. Conservatives need to realise that having the goverment regulate womens bodies, and sexual relations of adults is counter to our idealogy, war against drugs is a war against individual responsibility. We need to go back to the basics of our idealogy:

Lower taxes, tax based incentives, reduction of spending, pro American business regulations and trade policy etc

Simply: Individualism, Patriotism, Fair Market, and defence of American values.

But doesn't pragmatism automatically imply moderation?
 
the republicans are always right (a pun and true at the same time)
 
But doesn't pragmatism automatically imply moderation?

Not always, what would happen if moderation continued being the policy in the slavery issue or civil rights? Pragmatism can be moderatation between 2 opposing forces, or it could be the forceful resolution of an obvious problem. Apeasment and compromise are great tools, sometimes strong leadership and one purpose are better tools. That is why figuring out the best course should be based on the best results, and best methods to get there.
 
Zyphlin's posts are right on. The reason a number of conservatives and libertarians no longer identify with the Republican Party is because the party moved away from us, not that we moved away from the party. And he may be right in saying that it isn't necessarily going to hurt the GOP. A vast majority of the folks leaving the Republican ranks are not going to turn around and join the Democrats.

Which brings me to my question for the conservatives and libertarians in this thread who have broken away from the GOP. What will it take to get you back? The Republicans are now making some noise about the principles we hold dear. Of course its easy to advocate less government when you have no chance of pushing forward your own agenda. For me, its going to take more than just endorsing and co-opting tea party protests and opposing the Democratic vision of government. Talk is cheap is this point. I need to see action. I want some real attempts to push forward a conservative/libertarian agenda.

Until then, my votes, my donations, and my volunteerism will either stay at home or go third party candidates I can support in good conscience. If the Republicans (or anyone) can win us back after the disgrace of the last 8 years were with a few empty slogans and promises, then we're naive enough to deserve what we get.
 
Zyphlin's posts are right on. The reason a number of conservatives and libertarians no longer identify with the Republican Party is because the party moved away from us, not that we moved away from the party. And he may be right in saying that it isn't necessarily going to hurt the GOP. A vast majority of the folks leaving the Republican ranks are not going to turn around and join the Democrats.

Which brings me to my question for the conservatives and libertarians in this thread who have broken away from the GOP. What will it take to get you back? The Republicans are now making some noise about the principles we hold dear. Of course its easy to advocate less government when you have no chance of pushing forward your own agenda. For me, its going to take more than just endorsing and co-opting tea party protests and opposing the Democratic vision of government. Talk is cheap is this point. I need to see action. I want some real attempts to push forward a conservative/libertarian agenda.

Until then, my votes, my donations, and my volunteerism will either stay at home or go third party candidates I can support in good conscience. If the Republicans (or anyone) can win us back after the disgrace of the last 8 years were with a few empty slogans and promises, then we're naive enough to deserve what we get.

I think the GOP needs to be replaced. This last go around with Bush and their love affair with big government, big war, big spending, big deficit, big brother government has shown a lack of resolve and integrity which cannot go unheeded. They have shown that they are more than willing to sell out their ideology, platform, and constituents if it suits their quest and thirst for power. I don't know what they could do to get me back other than disband and create a different party which is committed to small government policies in real terms.

That, or clone Ron Paul.
 
Because many of the most die-hard Republicans on this site are too embarassed to admit it and now call themselves "Libertarians".

Libertarianism is a relativistic term (one might argue whether Hitler or Stalin was more libertarian), but in the context of American politics it means being notably more libertarian than the mainstream. According to me this means:

  • If they don't believe in the strongest possible protection of physical property rights, then they're not libertarians.

  • If they believe in the enforcement of ANY "victimless crimes" (sex, drugs, etc), then they're not libertarians.

  • If they believe government spending should be above 10% of the GDP, then they're not libertarians.

  • If they don't agree that the military can be 80% as effective in providing actual defense (which is still way more than is necessary) for 20% the cost, then they're not libertarians.


Any questions?
 
Last edited:
I think the GOP needs to be replaced. This last go around with Bush and their love affair with big government, big war, big spending, big deficit, big brother government has shown a lack of resolve and integrity which cannot go unheeded. They have shown that they are more than willing to sell out their ideology, platform, and constituents if it suits their quest and thirst for power. I don't know what they could do to get me back other than disband and create a different party which is committed to small government policies in real terms.

That, or clone Ron Paul.

I can agree with much of what you say & would go further.....I think today's GOP is deliberately driving away moderates, conservatives & all but the very small.(..& shrinking.....) base of elderly, angry, rural, white, Evangelical males. It's almost like they (GOP Leaders) have signed a mutual suicide pact & are practically DARING ex-Republicans to start a new party based on the old, more moderate conservative ideals that are actually beneficial to our country! (why does an insane man want to kill himself?.....Your guess is as good as mine....but I know I don't want to go out on any ledges with them!!):eek:
 
Last edited:
Libertarianism is a relativistic term (one might argue whether Hitler or Stalin was more libertarian), but in the context of American politics it means being notably more libertarian than the mainstream. According to me this means:

  • If they don't believe in the strongest possible protection of physical property rights, then they're not libertarians.

  • If they believe in the enforcement of ANY "victimless crimes" (sex, drugs, etc), then they're not libertarians.

  • If they believe government spending should be above 10% of the GDP, then they're not libertarians.

  • If they don't agree that the military can be 80% as effective in providing actual defense (which is still way more than is necessary) for 20% the cost, then they're not libertarians.


Any questions?

Do you enjoy the knowledge you will never have any representation in our government?
 
Do you enjoy the knowledge you will never have any representation in our government?

Do you enjoy the knowledge that there is a ruthless mafia gang out there somewhere that you're not a part of?
 
Do you enjoy the knowledge you will never have any representation in our government?
That's speculation, obviously. Just because the two-party system has been perpetuated for quite some time does not mean it will last forever.
 
Do you enjoy the knowledge that there is a ruthless mafia gang out there somewhere that you're not a part of?

The analogy doesn't hold water. The Mafia doesn't pass laws and policy that affect all of us. You may view our current government or two party system as a gang of ruthless thugs infringing on our liberties, but libertarians becoming a part of government remains our best option for making things better. I never could understand why radical libertarians reject moderation if it could translate into electoral success.

Unless of course you believe things are too far gone and its timed to exercise our right to an armed revolution, but I haven't met many if any libertarians that advocate that plan of attack.

If you're not willing to rise up and overthrow the system (I'm not anywhere close to that) then you should be prepared to work within it.
 
Back
Top Bottom