• 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!

End of the Republican Party?

Is the republican party dead?

  • Yes, it has been for some time.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Yes, it will be all in good time.

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • No, it is just going through a rough patch right now.

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • No, it is doing just fine.

    Votes: 13 38.2%

  • Total voters
    34
Ditto. Same here.

But I believe as soon as the GOP alienates these albatross ideologues it will resurface again to be what it used to be. I look forward to that day.


We'll see right :)
 
Ditto. Same here.

But I believe as soon as the GOP alienates these albatross ideologues it will resurface again to be what it used to be. I look forward to that day.

What was this mythological GOP you speak of, and why does this projection of "the good old days" keep changing with each reiteration of the Party platform and surge in internal polling? It wasn't long ago I was hearing the desire for fiscal responsibility to be the main message, and the romanticism of Ron Paul. Now that that is the broad-based message (and we can quibble about many specific details), suddenly the good old days refer to a lack of populism and hardcore principles.

Look, from my perspective, the whole thing is a crock. You find me someone who romanticizes the past GOP, and I'll show you someone who doesn't recall that those tendencies (both loved and despised) have long-since existed and were integral parts of the conservative dilemma. For some reason we think that religion sprung up out of nowhere in the 1970s and took over the Party. Somewhere along the line we think that ideologues of the current could not match the prudence and compromising natures of their forefathers. It's a bunch of crap. Your previous generations were the same pig-headed, religiously inspired, small-government narrow-minded, "Liberal Republican"/RINOs, war hawkin', civil liberties hatin', corporation worshiping, ideologically-driven, uncompromising jerks you think rule this place now. What changed were the details and the balance of power within the Party platform. There were moments where Barry Goldwater was making head ways, and moments where Rockefeller was more influential. Yet, both were influential in the Party's structure, both represented a given set of tendencies.

John Adams discovered that his political foes were both the other Party and members of the Federalist Party who were influenced by Hamilton. Two wings, one Party.

There was no "good ol' days." The only people that get serviced from that romantic foolishness are the ones temporarily with less influence and those from the other Party who stand everything to gain by making their current foes look like fallen angels.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they said that in 2008 too....

Said it in 2004 also.

I always find it amusing when one side or the other claims that the opposite party is in its "deathbed" or some variation thereof. Its nothing more than partisan hackery.
 
It seems as though this party hasn't had a legitimate candidate for presidency since Bush Sr.

You've had Bob Dole, Bush Jr. and now Romney. If these are the best the republican party can come up with, it seems to me it is on its deathbed.


Did you forget that the majority of American voters put "Bush Jr." in the White House for 2 terms?
 
The GOP isn't going anywhere. You should really look at the last mid-term elections, Walker winning the recall, and In my State of WA ( a Dem Stronghold) we are looking at strong chance of having a Rep. Governor. Just to name a few examples.
 
Somebody is always gleefully claiming the death of the GOP.

I was thinking the same thing.

Don't the polls show the GOP will still control the House after this years' elections?

If Obama wins in November, which party do you think will win most of the midterm elections?
 
given that the current partisan duopoly is protected by legislation / gerrymandering, the probability of the imminent death of one of the parties is exceptionally low.
 
If only you could be more specific on what bills they passed and that Bush signed. Then we could have more reasons to blame Bush.

I can do better than that. I can show you a bill that Bush did not sign but the Democratic Congress managed to override his veto. And with Obama's help, it's caused our deficit to greatly increase in the past couple of years.

President and Senator Obama not Straight on Food Stamp Eligibility

So. Are you going to blame Bush...blame the Democrats...or wuss out and say it's really a good thing?
 
I think we should remove all political party affiliations from ballots, conventions, ect. Imagine the voting populous basing their vote on an candidates history, achievements, and ideas instead of the letter beside their name! So many people would be lost without the letter guide.:lamo
 
So I can presume you don’t blame Bush…right?

Bush had plenty of things, such as foreign policy (which he is to blame) that he can be considered responsible for. As well as his response to Katrina, 911 and numerous other things. Has Obama had his shortcommings, sure. My issue on this issue is putting blame where blame is due, and Obama has tried to push for MANY jobs bills but the Senate republicans have blocked him on EVERY one of them, always stating some excuse like "oh, it would never pass the house so why waste time on it".
 
If the republicans were to go back to the days of Eisenhower, I'd actually be a republican. However, today's republican party has pushed me to the left and made those on the right demonize me for my beliefs.
 
It seems as though this party hasn't had a legitimate candidate for presidency since Bush Sr.

You've had Bob Dole, Bush Jr. and now Romney. If these are the best the republican party can come up with, it seems to me it is on its deathbed.

They doing just fine.The democrats and republicans are enjoying their two party monopoly and will continue to screw 3rd parties.
 
…My issue on this issue is putting blame where blame is due, and Obama has tried to push for MANY jobs bills but the Senate republicans have blocked him on EVERY one of them, always stating some excuse like "oh, it would never pass the house so why waste time on it".

This is an opinion that annoys me to no end. A leader finds a way to get things passed. Does it even seem remotely acceptable for the ‘most powerful man in the world’ to try then just throw his hands up and say ‘they won’t do what I want’ and quit trying? Other presidents have had opposing parties in congress and were able to get things done…and this president ran on a platform of “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people." FAIL!
 
If the republicans were to go back to the days of Eisenhower, I'd actually be a republican. However, today's republican party has pushed me to the left and made those on the right demonize me for my beliefs.

What, the liberal's "fuddy duddy" President? The one that liberals thought wasn't doing enough to stop McCarthy, not being liberal enough to further FDR's goals?

Yeah, I'll believe that.

Contemporary liberals found a decent man in Eisenhower because of a couple of his speeches (one of which coincidentally coincides with ahistorical commentary about the War in Iraq, wink wink nudge nudge). It's a disingenuous crock to make us think they would have gunned for a man like Ike in their ranks. It's presentist nonsense with all of the cherry picking you could dream of.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more like to go into Barry Goldwater type stuff rather than the Regan stuff.
 
What, the liberal's "fuddy duddy" President? The one that liberals thought wasn't doing enough to stop McCarthy, not being liberal enough to further FDR's goals?

Yeah, I'll believe that.

Contemporary liberals found a decent man in Eisenhower because of a couple of his speeches (one of which coincidentally coincides with ahistorical commentary about the War in Iraq, wink wink nudge nudge). It's a disingenuous crock to make us think they would have gunned for a man like Ike in their ranks. It's presentist nonsense with all of the cherry picking you could dream of.

This is fairly disingenuous, actually. Eisenhower called for more domestic spending than Stevenson, who, though liberal, was always regarded as something of a spendthrift.
 
If the republicans were to go back to the days of Eisenhower, I'd actually be a republican. However, today's republican party has pushed me to the left and made those on the right demonize me for my beliefs.

Well, good thing you found the left where that kind of thing never happens. :roll:
 
This is an opinion that annoys me to no end. A leader finds a way to get things passed. Does it even seem remotely acceptable for the ‘most powerful man in the world’ to try then just throw his hands up and say ‘they won’t do what I want’ and quit trying? Other presidents have had opposing parties in congress and were able to get things done…and this president ran on a platform of “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people." FAIL!

That is true it was different in "other times". This time though Obama had to contend with as many filibusters in his 1st term as the total number in all previous adminstrations combined. The GOP obssesion with making Obama a "one term President" has gridlocked Washington like never before. And never before has Congress gotten such low approval rating either in case you think it is Obama's fault.
Maybe, just maybe, there will be a change in attitude next year because they can no longer keep up their obssesion.
 
Its not a redefinition its what the republican party was and should be...I was a republican for 43 yrs and the teaparty so turned me off that I left and am now a registered independent....the republican party was never for just the rich and against everything for everyone else

And they're not now. I really wish people like you would stop telling other what it means to be a "real" conservative, especially when you do nothing but bash us now. That drives me more nuts than the most ardent partisan hackery.
 
And they're not now. I really wish people like you would stop telling other what it means to be a "real" conservative, especially when you do nothing but bash us now. That drives me more nuts than the most ardent partisan hackery.

Part of the reason why former Republicans, like myself, bash you is because the Reaganaut wing of the GOP pursued a very deliberate policy of driving us out of the Party during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

We were there first.
 
What, the liberal's "fuddy duddy" President? The one that liberals thought wasn't doing enough to stop McCarthy, not being liberal enough to further FDR's goals?

Yeah, I'll believe that.

Contemporary liberals found a decent man in Eisenhower because of a couple of his speeches (one of which coincidentally coincides with ahistorical commentary about the War in Iraq, wink wink nudge nudge). It's a disingenuous crock to make us think they would have gunned for a man like Ike in their ranks. It's presentist nonsense with all of the cherry picking you could dream of.

Dwight Eisenhower = Joe Lieberman. Conservatives disliked Ike's Presidency because he ensconced the New Deal in the political center.
 
Perhaps the fact that there was a Democratic House and Senate during Bush's second term has something to do with that disaster?

So, I guess that some of the blame for what you see as Obama's failure must be laid at the door of a 50-seat GOP majority in the House, right?
 
And they're not now. I really wish people like you would stop telling other what it means to be a "real" conservative, especially when you do nothing but bash us now. That drives me more nuts than the most ardent partisan hackery.

Stop with the misplaced indignation, what you call bashing I call my opinion. I disagree with the entire teaparty induced far right agenda.
I disagree completely with this notion that its Govt Workers and Social Security and Medicare that has created all this debt and the way to fix it all
is to destroy medicare through vouchers, lessen social security and raise the age for future generations and Cut the pay and benefits for all govt and public workers and to give TAX CUTS AGAIN to only the richest americans and corporations.
Now if you consider my disagreement with the far rights means to fix the countries malais thats fine and if you really have a need to call it bashing...shrug, then go for it...
 
I think if Mitt Romney doesn't win in November, it'll be a while before the GOP wins the White House again. The reason is the demographic trends in America favor the democrats. Younger voters coming of age, a growing Latino population and the rising influence of women voters all help the Democrats. Some suspect that in four years Texas will be a swing state for example.

What the Republicans are good at, and there's probably nobody better, is speaking to people who are already voting Republican, intensifying their support for the GOP and more so their opposition to the Democrats. However, no matter the level of intensity you have, everybody still just gets one vote. What we are not good at is reaching out to people who weren't going to vote Republican and persuading them the consider us instead. This is because the very tactics used heretofore to rally the existing GOP supporters offends and pushes away those needed to grow the party's support not in terms of the existing supporters' passion but in terms of more voters. These methods even push away some Republicans. This leaves the GOP to rely heavily upon voter turnout dynamics to win as opposed to popular support. Case in point: pretty much the only poll indicating Romney has a shot at winning in November uses a methodology that weeds out poll respondents based on if they voted in the 2010 Tea Party takeover of the House where angry Republicans made history and came out in droves while more democrats stayed home and calling that polling sample the "likely voters" of 2012.

The GOP will be around but in control mostly in state and local levels, that is until the GOP reinvents itself.
 
It seems as though this party hasn't had a legitimate candidate for presidency since Bush Sr.

You've had Bob Dole, Bush Jr. and now Romney. If these are the best the republican party can come up with, it seems to me it is on its deathbed.

I don't think they're really dying, the frontman is not always that important, look at the appalling speech skills of Bush. They won't get in this time, next try maybe. But tact and talent have been in short supply.

As Deepthroat said 'follow the money'

The financial sector giants are throwing alot of money at the Republican party, unfortunately for the party the incompetent speech by Clint Eastwood and the 47% remark by Romney at this stage leaves it for them to be unlikely to make much ground in the election. Unless Obama has a disaster, it's not going to happen.

If you want to know who's telling the candidates what they'll be doing look at whose bankrolling them:
http://img.metro.co.uk/news_focus/USelections.png

When it comes to funding Ron Paul is quite interesting to look at.
 
Back
Top Bottom