• 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!

The future of the Republican Party

If you look at Trump's political views over the past 10 years and how his opinions on policy shifted during the election campaign, I don't see how anyone can call him a true Republican let alone call him the dawn of a new age for the Republican party. He already changed his position on Obamacare simply from meeting with the current POTUS. Trump is an opportunist and that makes him look more like a right leaning independent than it does a true Republican. The GOP will kowtow to him because they have nowhere to go otherwise, but Trump is not one of them.

IMO both the DNC and GOP have a lot of soul searching to do. The DNC was pandering to the status quo of "everything's alright in America, nothing to see here, move along" and the standard Republican candidates were touting the usual niche political issues. Trump won because he actually took the pulse of the crowd, which was that of anger and despair. Angry and depressed people don't care about the hotbutton issues so much as they care about someone acknowledging their anger... which is why we now have one of the most unqualified people about to take the most important position in the country.

Look at what he managed to do. 46% of eligible voters did not vote... he disillusioned a lot of reasonable people from having any lasting faith in the electoral system. Angry people always vote, so all he had to do was rile the remaining base. The right wing in our country was ripe for the taking. If the left wing were in that position, Trump would've come up in the DNC instead. That's how he rolls as a business person.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree with your second statement, particularly as it relates to Pennsylvania, but the statistics I've seen dispute your first statement. But the margins are small.

It is indisputable, however, that white working class voters in the rust belt swayed the election to Trump.
Click to expand...

no, what's indisputable is had Clinton had gotten the same support Obama got from minority and young votes in key battle ground states, she would have won. Trump's white support was about what Romney got (maybe slightly less), and Romney lost.
 
Puigb said:
no, what's indisputable is had Clinton had gotten the same support Obama got from minority and young votes in key battle ground states, she would have won. Trump's white support was about what Romney got (maybe slightly less), and Romney lost.
Click to expand...

Viewed another way, one could argue that Trump recaptured traditional Republican States that Reagan and the two Bush Presidents won but lost to Obama. Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot mucked up the works and Obama won because he was a generational anomaly and a feel good candidate that had crossover appeal, at least until he because a lousy President. Unless Trump totally ****s up, which is quite possible, this might be a beginning to a new Republican White House run.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Viewed another way, one could argue that Trump recaptured traditional Republican States that Reagan and the two Bush Presidents won but lost to Obama. Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot mucked up the works and Obama won because he was a generational anomaly and a feel good candidate that had crossover appeal, at least until he because a lousy President. Unless Trump totally ****s up, which is quite possible, this might be a beginning to a new Republican White House run.
Click to expand...

If the 2020 Dem candidate can garner the same voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, then those states will go back to blue. Obama being a "once in a generational anomaly" as you put it has nothing to do with Hillary being the most disliked Dem presidential candidate to ever run.
 
Puigb said:
If the 2020 Dem candidate can garner the same voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, then those states will go back to blue. Obama being a "once in a generational anomaly" as you put it has nothing to do with Hillary being the most disliked Dem presidential candidate to ever run.
Click to expand...

That's a big if. You make it sound like most Dem Presidential candidates are likeable and are natural vote getters. Very few, not even the very likeable Bill Clinton, got anywhere near the turnout and vote that President Obama got, and we all know that's because Obama was the first black President. Even gender couldn't save Hillary Clinton. But looking back, most Dem Presidential candidates are unlikeable pricks. John Kerry and Al Gore - who the hell would want them as President other than die hard Democrats? I could go back further, but you should get the point by now.

There's nothing to suggest that Democrats are the natural governing party and they just need a presentable figurehead to win the White House. That's just media spin that poor saps have bought into and why they're out rioting in the streets when things don't go their way.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's a big if. You make it sound like most Dem Presidential candidates are likeable and are natural vote getters. Very few, not even the very likeable Bill Clinton, got anywhere near the turnout and vote that President Obama got, and we all know that's because Obama was the first black President. Even gender couldn't save Hillary Clinton. But looking back, most Dem Presidential candidates are unlikeable pricks. John Kerry and Al Gore - who the hell would want them as President other than die hard Democrats? I could go back further, but you should get the point by now.

There's nothing to suggest that Democrats are the natural governing party and they just need a presentable figurehead to win the White House. That's just media spin that poor saps have bought into and why they're out rioting in the streets when things don't go their way.
Click to expand...

Ah, so sad your massive partisan bias can't allow you to see outside the box. Just believe whatever you want then. When the pendulum swings back to the Democrats, which it will, I will enjoy hearing your excuses then. Until then, enjoy your short lived victory with your party in power.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I see more Hispanics coming into the GOP once this immigration issue is settled.
Click to expand...

Same here. Once they feel their immigration issue is settled I imagine many of more socially conservative Hispanics will leave the democratic party.
 
Puigb said:
Ah, so sad your massive partisan bias can't allow you to see outside the box. Just believe whatever you want then. When the pendulum swings back to the Democrats, which it will, I will enjoy hearing your excuses then. Until then, enjoy your short lived victory with your party in power.
Click to expand...

Of course it will swing back, it always does. I'm not the one claiming one party will cease to exist because of changing demographics - that's the fools on the left who claimed after President Obama was elected that a Republican President would never be elected again. How did that work out for you??

I'll make no excuses when the Republicans lose, which they will - it will be their fault because they would have nominated a candidate that was less attractive than the one the Democrats offered up. And parties only lose power when they fail to serve the people and move the country ahead - if they listen to the public, give them what they want and what they voted for, and wisely use the resources of the country, they will get reelected, particularly in Congress.

The arrogance of entitled governance is all on your side of the aisle.
 
The GOP needs to reach out to the hardworking, law obeying and high income citizens among Asian, Latino and African Americans.

It should be a no brainer.
 
Ruchen said:
And imagine the result if GOP had reached out to them specifically. GOP needs to reach out to segments of the nonwhite population much more instead of passively waiting for them to come.
Click to expand...

I suspect you'll see something like that from Trump.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Of course it will swing back, it always does. I'm not the one claiming one party will cease to exist because of changing demographics - that's the fools on the left who claimed after President Obama was elected that a Republican President would never be elected again. How did that work out for you??
Click to expand...

I never claimed that. What they do eventually need is to broaden their base if they do want to remain a national party in the long run, which I believe they will. Trump is a fluke, and I think even you know that.

CanadaJohn said:
I'll make no excuses when the Republicans lose, which they will - it will be their fault because they would have nominated a candidate that was less attractive than the one the Democrats offered up. And parties only lose power when they fail to serve the people and move the country ahead - if they listen to the public, give them what they want and what they voted for, and wisely use the resources of the country, they will get reelected, particularly in Congress.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

CanadaJohn said:
The arrogance of entitled governance is all on your side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Ruchen said:
The GOP needs to reach out to the hardworking, law obeying and high income citizens among Asian, Latino and African Americans.

It should be a no brainer.
Click to expand...

why only high income citizens? I thought the GOP cared about everyone?
 
RetiredUSN said:
I see more Hispanics coming into the GOP once this immigration issue is settled.
Click to expand...

I suspect most hispanics don't really give a crap about immigration.
 
Puigb said:
But that would alienate his far right base.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. The smartest thing I read about Trump's voters is that they were neither ideological nor programmatic, but rather were attitudinal. They just might follow him to new positions.
 
Jack Hays said:
Maybe not. The smartest thing I read about Trump's voters is that they were neither ideological nor programmatic, but rather were attitudinal. They just might follow him to new positions.
Click to expand...

Or not. We shall see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom