I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities. 

If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?

Tags: GOP, Republicans

Views: 1774

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Deep down, I think many in the GOP are counting on such things as voter suppression and the elimination of unions to bypass elections altogether and eventually deliver them a fascist dictatorship.  Don't laugh.  As soon as George W. Bush was elected, some in Congress were pushing for a repeal of the Presidential term limit and openly imagining him as dictator.  Then, when Arnold Gropenfeuhrer was elected governor of California, those same neocons (read "fascists") pushed for a Constitutional amendment allowing Presidents to be foreign-born.  

At the bottom of all this is their deep yearning for America to be ruled by a right wing, corporate-backed, Christian-approved dictator; and not just of the U.S. - of the WORLD.  Walrus-faced John Bolton, I'm sure, would eagerly offer himself as the perfect fit for the office of tyrant-in-chief.  And the power behind the throne will be the corpse of Rupert Murdoch, still projecting himself the emperor of media.  Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity can compete to be the propaganda minister without even changing their teleprompters.  Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin will take turns being Bolton's Eva Braun.  Minnesota misanthrope, Michelle Bachmann, and that moose-hunting lady who passed briefly through the governor's office in Alaska will be but a dim memory.  Meanwhile, Donald Trump will still be demanding Obama's college transcripts.

I'm all for a global government... once we can work out a system of government that isn't corruptable and gives everyone a fair vote and respects human rights.

The Internet isn't a government. It doesn't govern us or regulate us. It has no enforcement power.

Okay, let me modify it: The Internet won't be a government. It won't govern us or regulate us. It will never have any enforcement power.

Government implies intention. Intention in the Internet is diffuse.

Speaking of which Nate, this is a great site for staying on top of the political situation: http://crooksandliars.com/

"...pushing for a repeal of the Presidential term limit and openly imagining him as dictator.."

If memory serves, I think this also attempted during Reagan's administration.

Obama got just 39% of the white vote. What do you think this implies for the Dems and the GOP and for the country?

No takers?

I'll bite.

Don't you think it is a bit sad in the 21st Century to be dividing your people into such politically different groupings based on ethnicity?  We would have collective apoplexy in the UK if statisticians decided to demographically anticipate voting percentages by skin colour or ethnic origin in this way. 

When you (you the USA, not you the person) advertise that 'blacks', 'hispanics' and 'white' voters all have very different voting trends, you are supporting the divide and deepening it. 

Age demographics are different.  Everyone has been young at some stage and expects to get old, so that is not a divisive barrier. 

The problem the US appears to face is its own internal ethnic divisions.  In a modern, first world country, the hope and aim is for the government to represent the people.  ALL the people, not the biggest ethnic group or two.  You can measure success here, by the absence of opposing voting trends in ethnic groups.

Imagine a country where the ethnic group voting demographics no longer have any real significance.  You might call it Utopia, but I can tell you the UK and most of Europe do not have such significant ethnic divides, and are moving closer and closer to the irrelevance of ethnicity both in their governments and in their voting trends. 

If there are such significantly different trends in the US voting bias, perhaps a good government at both state and federal level ought to be looking at why, and trying to be more inclusive at all levels, so that the entire country stands a chance of internal unity rather than internal enmity.

The real question is not "which ethnic grouping should we try to attract to our party line?", but rather, "how do we make our party equally represent all the ethnic groupings?"

The target has to be unity.  At the moment, I am reading political articles that say that the white American is soon going to become a minority.  This must sound to the less educated white person, that their country is being taken over by "Others".  It sounds scary.

But it is not scary.  It is just a demographic fact. The world's boundaries are blurring and I see you are about to be getting a 51st State.  Embrace it, for there is no progress without change.  Start changing mindsets.  Try to help the younger Americans see that it doesn't matter what ethnicity they are, just that they are all members of the same group.  Americans.

Imagine a country where the ethnic group voting demographics no longer have any real significance.  You might call it Utopia, but I can tell you the UK and most of Europe do not have such significant ethnic divides, and are moving closer and closer to the irrelevance of ethnicity both in their governments and in their voting trends.

Don't make me laugh. I was posting on a UK photography board that had an off-topic area where non-photography issues were permitted. Around the time of the 2008 election won by Barack Obama, the UK members were dumbfounded. They had come to believe that the US was still such a racist country that Obama didn't stand a ghost of a chance. Once he was elected, one of the UK members said, "Just when you think you understand the US, they prove that they can reinvent themselves."

I asked, how close the UK was to having a person of African, Pakistani, or Indian ethnicity as Prime Minister, and no one wanted to say that the UK was on the verge. The same can be said for Germany, France, Spain, Italy and all of the largest so-called democracies in Europe. 

You're just proving you don't "get" the United States, as most of the world doesn't. We're more past racism than Europe is.

If that's what helps you to sleep at night, believe it.  No I don't get your version of the United States, but apparently I get quite a few others versions.

Shame you don't get the UK's.  The voters do not vote for the PM, they vote for their Member of Parliament.  The parties themselves choose their leader.  People rise within their party's esteem, and become their party leader by party consent.  I doubt anyone really cares, fundamentally, as to the creed or colour of these leaders.  If there is a good candidate, he or she will emerge. 

Yes we believed America was more racist than it apparently is, and we were over the moon about Obama being elected.  But we liked Obama's policies, not his chocolate colouration.  We just didn't think the US could get past that.  How happy we were when you showed that you could.

When do you anticipate having a woman President?

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service