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?

Views: 2039

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ah yeah, that must have been what it was.

So far, Republican Presidents have been elected primarily by old white men - every year, there are fewer old white men.

The next Republican Presidential ticket will have an Hispanic Vice-Presidential Candidate, as that is the fastest-growing segment of America's population. As they learned in the last weeks of the campaign, they also need to jettison the lead anchor that is the RR Tea Party. Any movement to "Take Back America" is doomed - I once saw an interview with Andy Griffith, who confided that the world of "Mayberry" was long gone, even before the TV series was made - it's gone, we move forward or we get left behind - get used to it!

So far, Republican Presidents have been elected primarily by old white men - every year, there are fewer old white men.

But that's not true! Every year there are more old men!

Since 1950, the United States has been in the midst of a profound demographic change: rapid population aging, a phenomenon that is replacing the earlier “young” age-sex structure with that of an older population. (source, pg 13)

There are more old men, but fewer old WHITE men!

The fastest growing demographic are those over 65, with an 80% increase in 2025 compared to today.

I wanted to mention one of the interesting demographic effects that will be increasing over the next 20 years, essentially starting this year.

The last 40 years has seen the greatest extension of human lifespan in all of human history. Though that extension will continue, we have plateaued for the last few years to around a lifespan of 75 years for males and 80 years for females.in the U.S.

At this stage in time, that effectively means that for the past 10 years, I have attended about 2-3 funerals per year, and going forward, at least until we make some dramatic breakthroughs in lifespan, I should be attending 4-6 in the next year, and by 2020 likely more than one a month. We all know people who have escaped what used to be certain death from various cancers and other ailments, but eventually, those folks will not be able to avoid the inevitable companion to taxes. 

In regards to this conversation, it means that Republicans/Conservatives are going to be dropping like flies. As Arcus mentioned, the over 65's will be growing, I don't have a reference for this, but I think a big voting block, especially in Florida, is over 75. On another thread I mentioned that Florida will likely lose it's status as a swing state by the next presidential election. It will not regain that status for a very long time.

As an interesting side note, a researcher named Aubrey de Grey says that the worlds first 150 year old person has already been born, and that the worlds first 1000 year old person is only 10 years behind him/her. What do you think that will do to elections?



Our population is ageing, which according to some means it will be becoming more conservative. However, as a "boomer," I know that my generation grew up with the antiwar and civil rights movements, rock 'n' roll, rampant marijuana use, black power, feminism, and the so-called sexual revolution.

While I'm sure most boomers have softened their stances on some of these issues somewhat, the Republicans will not be able to count on us as a solid conservative voting block. We are not about to do a total "flip" from liberal to conservatism.

Romney et al were so convinced they were going to win, Romney hadn't even written a concession speech, and he had already created a transitional website:

Another vote for "Republicans should ditch the stupid social issues:" 


I do think they'd be far more effective if they followed his advice.

I would add to his list getting over Obamacare. Four years from now, resistance to it will be lower and a lot of people who have health care they wouldn't otherwise have will vote AGAINST anyone who wants to take it a way. The Republicans will be better off just finding a way to fund it.

Find a way to fund it?  When something like 40 cents of every dollar the government spends is already borrowed?  We simply cannot afford to continue on our present course, much less add new government programs.  (And someone is going to pipe up with "tax the rich" at this point, but spare me: Even if you were to go so far as to confiscate everything they own in one year (which is far more taxation than anyone is seriously proposing), that won't close this funding gap for that year unless you pull that taxation down well into the ranks of the upper middle class--and the next year, there wouldn't be any rich because you took all their stuff away--including the assets that produced their wealth--the previous year.)

The immediate effect of the bill has been to cause insurance premiums to skyrocket (mine went up 70 dollars a month in less than six months), so--for now--I don't think this is a losing issue for them.

Once the program is fully in place however, you are probably correct, but not because it was actually a good idea.

A lot of nasty near-future changes to our health care system (such as companies dropping their health insurance plans because they have gotten too expensive; they'd rather pay the penalty tax, or how about people losing the HSA option?) that are an unintended consequence of Obamacare will be blamed on everything but Obamacare by politicians, the media, etc., and the government will end up stepping in to "fix" it.  Obamacare is not the end goal of the people who want single payer medicine in this country; it's intended only to destroy the old system, so the old system can be blamed for the disaster and the new single payer system put in its place.  Of course once the government has done so, people will be dependent on it--they will have no real alternative because the system we see around us now of employer-paid health insurance will be gone.  The only way people will be willing to give up the post obamacare new system will be if they are offered an alternative to it that is relatively painless to switch to, and I can guarantee there will be significant resistance to any such legislation, even if it's a purely voluntary alternative.  It took years to of fighting to get HSAs to be made a voluntary option for more than a small percentage of the population, and they are now being taken away, because they give people a way to avoid being herded towards single payer.

People becoming less dependent on government programs is not in the interest of the politicians who buy votes with the programs, and scaring people into voting for them by claiming the programs will be cut cold-turkey by the other side is another effective means of getting votes.  (It should be noted, for instance, that Paul Ryan is actually trying to ensure Medicare continues to exist instead of going bankrupt--but you wouldn't know it from all the demogoguery that is shown--without contradiction or fact checking--on the news.)

Find a way to fund it?  When something like 40 cents of every dollar the government spends is already borrowed?  We simply cannot afford to continue on our present course, much less add new government programs

I would start with the military. It's well known to be rampant with waste. It's porkbarrel  heaven for politicians and that has to stop. 

Next, it's well-known that abuse of Medicare and Medicaid is also rampant. It seems to me that a cadre of Medicare/Medicaid police would easily pay for itself. I'm not sure why it doesn't exist already.

Question: How do you defend keeping health insurance rates low for some by relegating millions of other people to having no health insurance at all?

Also, see what Gallup's Mirror wrote: It's already funded!


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service