Are Republicans still a National Party?

[Lleauaric~EW]

You've probably answered the question yourself there Haus.

The bottom line is that a Fiscal conservative isnt going to generate the energy and a social conservative isnt going to generate the votes...

The two arent mutally exclusive, but if you are strong on social conservative issues (Palin, Huckabee) you arent going to win in most parts of the country and if you are fiscal conservative (Romney, Guiliani) you are unacceptable to most of the base.

"Do you accept evolution as the most probable means by which humans developed?"

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

You've probably answered the question yourself there Haus.

The bottom line is that a Fiscal conservative isnt going to generate the energy and a social conservative isnt going to generate the votes...

The two arent mutally exclusive, but if you are strong on social conservative issues (Palin, Huckabee) you arent going to win in most parts of the country and if you are fiscal conservative (Romney, Guiliani) you are unacceptable to most of the base.

I agree that assessment right now in terms of the Republican party. But being a party which can't get a cohesive front together isn't a reason to say it's no longer a national party. (which is the topic of this thread). If anything people who have seen the disarray in the Democratic party prior to the arrival of Obama should know all too well about that feeling.

As for a solid candidate, I don't see one on the Republican side yet. Unless Romney can do something unforseen and game changing in terms of his image. That and he'd still have to get over the reluctance and stigma too many people attach to "mormon".

[Heylel Teomim]

Originally Posted by Haus

Really? Are you implying I'm a social conservative? That's your take on it?

What would be a fiscal conservative/social liberal approach to health care? Please explain that one for me.

I can't think of one off the top of my head. That's sorta my point.

Originally Posted by Haus

As it is, many people favor larger government involvement with more spending because they see it as beneficial for them in the long run, and tend to trust the government to "do the right thing" so there's no reason not to let it be larger. Some favor not expanding the government and it's fiscal spending levels because they feel it will benefit them to maintain a smaller government, and want less government involvement in their lives. The controlling factor on this is how much money you give the government to operate.

Where exactly is my social reform agenda again?

It's in your paragraph above. If you don't see it, then this is going to take a while.

Originally Posted by Haus

That's actually an irrelevant term because the only way to not have SOME social reform agenda would be to think society needed no change whatsoever.

Which is what being truly conservative means: stasis.

Originally Posted by Haus

If that's the case then anybody who meets your criteria of not having a "social agenda" would have to be a stasist wanting no change. This would mean that wanting to reduce the size of government, or reduce the federal spending footprint, or reduce the deficit, or pay off the national debt would be a "social agenda" because it would require making changes to society.

Absolutely correct, and it's why fiscal conservatism is a red herring. It's a functionally useless term, because it's one everyone will self-ascribe when what they really mean is they're unwilling to spend on things they don't feel will change society in a way which they perceive as beneficial.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Demographically the GOP is shrinking.. I think that's the point people have when saying its becoming a regional party.

Getting goose egged in the rising populations isnt a good trend. Its why there is much trouble brewing in the Southwest/West. If republicans cannot make inroads into hispanics.. they are truly fucked.

They lose about 95% of blacks, probably almost every gay person that doesnt hold public office, Hispanics have run away from them. Muslims, Asians, all of them.. all of them trend heavily to the Democratic party.





Theres no real answer to that. And while they may be strong enough to be competitive now.. that slips farther and farther every year. Obama took 67% of the hispanic vote. You see anything to break that trend?

You can see it slipping away in Florida

And if you can't win Florida....

[AladainAF]

Are we still going to call minorities minorities when they are the majority?

[jayrebb]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

Are we still going to call minorities minorities when they are the majority?

I hope so for old times sake.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Only if you are willing to lump them all together and recognize no distinction.

Whites will still be the most numerous racial demographic, except that all the others, added together, for the first time will outnumber them.

We can be a minority when Hispanics and/or Asians outnumber us in 150 years.

[Araxen]

I hope she really does start to hear "The voice" in her head. It would make for an epic campaign failure.

Bachmann: I'll Run For President -- If God Calls Me To Do It | TPMDC

[TheCutlery]

Bachmann makes Palin look like a goddamned rocket scientist. That woman is seriously good for absolutely nothing. I'm ashamed of my state for letting that woman get a 2nd term.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Palin/Bachmann 2012 would be so entertaining.

[Chips]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

Only if you are willing to lump them all together and recognize no distinction.

Whites will still be the most numerous racial demographic, except that all the others, added together, for the first time will outnumber them.

We can be a minority when Hispanics and/or Asians outnumber us in 150 years.

150 years? Lol try 30-40

Minorities projected to outnumber white Americans by 2042 | World news | guardian.co.uk
America in 2050: Even older and more diverse - Life- msnbc.com
Hispanics one-fifth of K-12 students - USATODAY.com
Whites to Lose Majority Status in U.S. by 2042 - WSJ.com

I will lol when the first Latino president changes the national symbol of the eagle to the chihuahua, the name of Wash. DC to Little Guadeloupe, and the national anthem to La Bamba

[Knucklehead]

Trying to figure out if math or English isn't your strong suit there, Chips.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Chips

I will lol when the first Latino president changes the national symbol of the eagle to the chihuahua, the name of Wash. DC to Little Guadeloupe, and the national anthem to La Bamba

Just like how Obama made it the black house? What were your other racist predictions? You're so predictable.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Just like how Obama made it the black house? What were your other racist predictions? You're so predictable.

You didn't notice that starting on Jan 21st all our money now says "In Allah We Trust" ?

[Lleauaric~EW]

Chips. I know you have trouble with basic concepts, so Ill explain it to you again, using small, easily recognizable words.

Ok. Lets pretend Jimmy has 100 buttons. On Monday when Jimmy counted the buttons.. he had 80 white, 10 that were black, 8 that were brown and 2 that were yellow. After trading buttons with his friends, he still had 100 buttons on Friday. Except this time after he counted he found he had 45 white buttons, 15 black buttons, 25 brown buttons and 15 yellow buttons.

Q. what color buttons does Jimmy have the most of?

Q. If you added all the color buttons except white together, would there be more colored buttons than white ones?

Q. Are all colored buttons the same?

Q. If on Monday, Jimmy made a deal with a white button and intentionally excluded the other colored buttons, does he have right to cry when he finds himself voted out on Friday by the very nature of his racial machinations?