Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you think the Republican Party of the USA will implode ?
Yes. 3 (27.3%)
No. 6 (54.5%)
I hope not. 1 (9.1%)
I am not sure. 0 (0%)
Other. 1 (9.1%)
Total Votes: 11
Future of the Republicans; Will they implode ?
Topic Started: Nov 5 2008, 11:29 PM (277 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
After 8 years in power , it's a bitter pill to swallow to become the opposition and to be out of power , and perhaps even pretty much irrelevant to the nation.

Many political parties have in the past imploded in factional infighting and the blame game and finger pointing exercises (looking for a scapegoat) and taken several years to rediscover what they stand for, find relevance to the electorate and to rebuilt and reinvent themselves.

It's happening here in Australia now.

Do you think the Republicans will implode as a result of such a resounding and unambiguous defeat and rejection by the electorate ? (and even previously hard core diehard traditional republican supporters went over to Obama).
Edited by somerled, Nov 5 2008, 11:34 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I hope not. There is already too much concentration of power in the US with the two party system. Only one strong party would be disasterous.

If I could have voted twice I would also say NO it ain't gonna happen.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
They'll simply return to their founding principles of less government, lower spending, and strong defense.

The "country club" moderate Republicans (McCain, Bush, et cetera) will, once again go off on their book tours and think tanks while the Reagan Republicans will once again ascend. If McCain had run as Reagan he would have had a better chance. He did as well as he did BECAUSE he selected Sarah Palin, who represented the conservative base. He botched things with the unpopular government economic bailout.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 09:57 AM
They'll simply return to their founding principles of less government, lower spending, and strong defense.
Frankly, I don't think it's pausible to be for less government and lower spending, yet be a social conservative, because the social conservatives want government intrusion in our lives as a matter of principle.
Edited by Dwayne, Nov 6 2008, 11:45 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
No.

It was a bad defeat, certainly. But, for the economy going pear-shaped, and the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate (I think this was a big mistake!), it could have been quite a different result.

I don't see any fundamental problems of the same ilk that happened to our Conservative Party in the 90's or our Labour Party in the late 70's/early 80's. They need to regroup of course but I'm sure they'll be back.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
STC
Nov 6 2008, 12:16 PM
No.

It was a bad defeat, certainly. But, for the economy going pear-shaped, and the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate (I think this was a big mistake!), it could have been quite a different result.

I don't see any fundamental problems of the same ilk that happened to our Conservative Party in the 90's or our Labour Party in the late 70's/early 80's. They need to regroup of course but I'm sure they'll be back.
A reasonably thoughtout perspective.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Nov 6 2008, 11:25 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 09:57 AM
They'll simply return to their founding principles of less government, lower spending, and strong defense.
Frankly, I don't think it's pausible to be for less government and lower spending, yet be a social conservative, because the social conservatives want government intrusion in our lives as a matter of principle.
Wow - I agree with Dwayne!

Admiralbill - I think McCain lost because of Sarah Palin. If he was after the female vote that originally supported Hillary Clinton he made a HUGE mistake picking Palin.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Nov 6 2008, 03:09 PM
Dwayne
Nov 6 2008, 11:25 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 09:57 AM
They'll simply return to their founding principles of less government, lower spending, and strong defense.
Frankly, I don't think it's pausible to be for less government and lower spending, yet be a social conservative, because the social conservatives want government intrusion in our lives as a matter of principle.
Wow - I agree with Dwayne!

Admiralbill - I think McCain lost because of Sarah Palin. If he was after the female vote that originally supported Hillary Clinton he made a HUGE mistake picking Palin.
From what I heard according to exit pole date those who sighted Sarah Palin as a sigificent influence on their vote, voted for McCain over Obama.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Nov 6 2008, 03:09 PM
Dwayne
Nov 6 2008, 11:25 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 6 2008, 09:57 AM
They'll simply return to their founding principles of less government, lower spending, and strong defense.
Frankly, I don't think it's pausible to be for less government and lower spending, yet be a social conservative, because the social conservatives want government intrusion in our lives as a matter of principle.
Wow - I agree with Dwayne!

Admiralbill - I think McCain lost because of Sarah Palin. If he was after the female vote that originally supported Hillary Clinton he made a HUGE mistake picking Palin.
I disagree.

I never agreed with the notion that McCain picked Palin to pick off Hillary voters. That was the media claim, but McCain never said it, and the Republican circles I hang in never said it. The skinny was that McCain picked Palin to shore up his standing with the conservative base.

McCain lost because of McCain. He ran a campaign that often lacked feck.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ If she understood my point and knew who Sarah Palin was, then she wouldn't be saying that.

Sarah Palin wasn't the reason McCain lost.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
HistoryDude
Member Avatar
Shaken, not stirred...
I always found it odd that VP choices affected that much of anything. Biden and Palin were no consideration in my vote.

Anyway, it seems to be coming clearer and clearer (if the talking heads can be believed?) that McCain lost because Obama ran a better grass-roots campaign to get out new voters and win "independents." And because many Americans blamed (wrongly) Bush for the economy and then associated (again wrongly) McCain with Bush. The fromer reason McCain could have done something about. However, the latter reason he unfortunately could not doing anything about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ eh, ok... as reasonable a conclusion as any I've read so far.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Ok let's straighten out the misperceptions here.

Dwayne - I only agreed with the statement I quoted. It was completely separate from the comment I clearly made to Admiralbill about Sarah Palin. I never meant to say that you agreed with me with regards to Palin.

And I do know who Sarah Palin is - that is a ridiculous statement for you to make. Always trying to make those whom you don't agree with look stupid. The inability to speak to people with common curtesy and decency hurts your reputation, not the reputation of those you attack unfairly.

Now - on to the exit poll that Dandandat mentioned. I don't see this as proving anything. All it proves is that Palin was able to get the vote from those who were socially conservative. They voted for McCain because of her - no doubt. My point is that there were not enough of those people to pull off a win. Going after the socially conservative crowd did not help McCain. It hurt him. Had he stayed true to his own path the result might have been different. From what I saw in the commentary here over the last few months there were a lot of people from the more liberal side of the spectrum who cheered the nomination of McCain. Many seriously considered voting for him. Until he chose Palin. That turned a lot of people away from him. And I am willing to bet that choice affected a lot of people who were "undecided" until late in the game.

AB - he may not have stated he made the choice to go after the female votes - but that doesn't negate the possiblity that this was part of the reason. I do agree that he was after the conservative base - absolutely. But that was a miscalculation on his part. A better choice for VP and he could have taken it. The conservative vote was already his due to the view of Obama as far too left wing. He never needed to pander to the conservative constituency and choosing to do so was a mistake.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
HistoryDude
Nov 6 2008, 03:46 PM
I always found it odd that VP choices affected that much of anything. Biden and Palin were no consideration in my vote.

Anyway, it seems to be coming clearer and clearer (if the talking heads can be believed?) that McCain lost because Obama ran a better grass-roots campaign to get out new voters and win "independents." And because many Americans blamed (wrongly) Bush for the economy and then associated (again wrongly) McCain with Bush. The fromer reason McCain could have done something about. However, the latter reason he unfortunately could not doing anything about.
Normally I would agree that no one considers VP's.

But this was an unusual time when people did consider the possiblity of ill health on the part of one possibility and assasination on the part of the other.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
I vote no.

It is normal for any party to undergo a period of reflection when they lose an election. Sometimes this leads to fundamental change, sometimes not. I suspect in this case it probably will and I believe that the Republican party needs to make some changes and prepare carefully for future campaigns.

I doubt however that the Republican party will 'implode'. For a start both parties in America are far too broad to descend into the infighting that leads to implosion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus