@yj

Possibly, but I suspect that is mostly because the Republicans have made such a hash of speaking to Spanish communities rather than any overwhelming sense of Spanish solidarity. Latin American countries generally can't stand each other (although my experience has been slightly coloured by the Venezuelan contempt of all things Columbian) and I don't think it would be at all difficult, if a real effort was made to cultivate a love of the USA in spanish/american communities, to encourage the majority of US Spanish speakers to look at the likes of Mexico with similar contempt.

The golden key to the 2016 Presidential may be exploiting the tendency of Barack Obama to want to fight out every decision at a level of government that is too high. Gun shooting? Federal issue. Gay marriage? Federal issue. North Korean dictator-kid annoying the US? Let's ask the UN what they think. If I were the Republican candidate for 2016 PE, I'd campaign on states' rights and United States military and diplomatic supremacy.

@red - Really? I don't think that any of these are a part of a winning Republican formula. They have to get away from what the other side does wrong and get to what they do right. Once again, IMO.

@octavious hmm you're losing me now. I definitely don't equate cultivating a love of the USA with viewing Mexico with contempt. It doesn't seem to follow at all. That just sounds nationalistic.


On the other hand, there may be something to what you say about "short term effects." According to this site, in the last 3 years Latinos have shifted to a more negative stance on illegal immigration, and native born latinos are slightly less favorable towards creating a path towards citizenship for illegal immigrants

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/10/28/illegal-immigration-backlash-worries-divides-latinos/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/iv-views-of-immigration-policy-2/



That does not, however, say anything about how they feel about making it easier to come here legally.

There is no doubt that Obama got a big boost from Blacks, Latinos, and Women. If the next Democratic candidate can't appeal to the same demographics, then the GOP at least won't be dead in the water.

If the GOP is able to reform their Immigration policies and turn Gay Rights and Women's Health Rights into State's Rights issues, they may be able to attract some Latinos, Women, and Social Moderates.

If the GOP reforms their fiscal policies to include fixing tax loop-holes and raising some taxes, rather than only supporting entitlement cuts, they may be able to attract fiscal moderates.

Not saying any of this will happen, but I think it would give the GOP the best shot of winning.

If the GOP continues to make Gay Rights and Women's Health Rights major talking points and if the Democrats are able to blame them for the nation's fiscal problems, they'll continue to perform miserably in presidential elections.

The problem is that the GOP pushes social issues that isolate many Americans. They continue to push for restrictions on gay rights and whatnot, which isolates the majority of Americans and makes them see the party as a group of backwards old men.

In reality the Republicans actually have very solid fiscal ideas, but these are harder for the average Americans to understand. Its just so much easier to side with the democrats than it is the Republicans, after all, its far easier to vote for the candidate that says he can help more people than the one who will operate on a higher level of responsibility, fiscally speaking.

The 2012 election was decided not on issues, but on voter turnout. Fewer people turned out to vote than in 2008 and 2004. Obama won because the number of would-have-been Romney voters who stayed home or voted Libertarian was greater than the number of would-have-been Obama voters who were not enthusiastic enough with him after four years to actually vote for him. Much of that reduced Republican turnout was because Republican voters didn't trust Romney to implement an agenda that was agreeable to them. If the Republican Party had nominated someone who traditional republican or republican-leaning voters would have been more enthusiastic about, that candidate would have won.

Wacky comments about legitimate rape and the like aside, the Republican Party has been very centrist. Aside from atrocities like the PATRIOT act that had bipartisan support, It made no major changes to government when it had complete control of the congress and presidency in 2000-2006. John McCain and the Bush administration were pushing for an amnesty of illegal aliens in the mid aughts as well. From my experience talking to democrat-leaning Latino voters (most of them 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants), their party affiliation has very little to do with immigration policy and more to do with the perception that the Democratic Party is the party of the "little guy', and the Republican Party is the party of the rich.

In sum, the right Republican candidate could easily win in 2016.

So Tolstoy, you are saying that the Republicans don't require any fundamental shifts in their platform on social issues to remain relevant? It's just a matter of choosing the right candidate? I think that's the most dangerous attitude a republican can have right now: it's exactly the mistake they made in 2012, telling themselves over and over that everything is just fine the way it is.

"you are saying that the Republicans don't require any fundamental shifts in their platform on social issues to remain relevant?"

I personally would be happy if the Republican platform was completely stripped of all mention of social issues, but this is not something that would benefit the Republican Party. Like it or not, there's no disputing that religious conservatives constitute a very large and important bloc within the Republican Party. They have large numbers, turn out to vote reliably, make campaign contributions, and - most importantly - they've shown like no other large political demographics that they *will* bolt if they're not happy with the candidate the party power-brokers are handing them.

In contrast, how many people would be won over to vote Republican if 'moderated itself on social issues' as people are claiming they must do? Where are the millions of gay voters who'd love to vote Republican, but can't because the Republican Party isn't gay-friendly? Where are the millions of hispanic voters who vote Republican today because they fondly remember the Reagan amnesty of the 1980's, or would vote Republican if there was a new amnesty? Where are the feminists who will leap to support a Republican candidate if only the GOP would come out in favor of abortions?

I daresay that the arithmetic is not in favor of change when you put these groups in the scales against the tens of millions of religious conservative voters and activists in the Republican Party. For many of them, abortion in particular is an issue they will brook no compromise over - any softness on this issue alone would cause literally millions of voters to simply not show up to vote. I do not see millions and more flocking to the Republican standards to take their places out of appreciation for change on this plank.

"it's exactly the mistake they made in 2012, telling themselves over and over that everything is just fine the way it is."

No, the mistakes they made in 2012 were nominating a terrible candidate (a Wall Street crook in the wake of a major economic catastrophe caused by Wall Street crooks? were they serious?) who ran a terrible campaign, surrounded himself with disgraced Bush cronies, and alienated the one primary challenger who had a proven ability to attract large numbers of new voters to the party (Ron Paul) and his supporters.

Personally, I hope the Republican party listens to you and digs in. They will get crushed.

And as far as the voter turnout comment, voter turnout has increased from at least 1996 to 2012 every year. As a matter of fact, the increase of voters was the smallest in 2012 over 2008. So turnout isn't the problem. It is the message, not the messenger.

Looking at history, it would be very difficult for Obama's successor to be a Dem. Clinton had a 63% approval, yet Gore lost. Reagan's favorability ratings were in the 70s, and yet Bush won narrowly. So unless Obama has a 75% approval rating in 2016, a Republican will win, unless they nominate someone like Alf Landon or John McCain

Good point Sbyval. Of course, the nation does get tired of one party ruling for an extended amount of time, so they could just get "Democratic Fatigue Syndrome" and decide to go in a different direction. Very plausible.

I know that this will set some people off, and I am not trying to be flippant, but I think that Hillary is the wild card here. If she wins the nomination, the star power and connection to Bill will be very hard to overcome. Very.

"And as far as the voter turnout comment, voter turnout has increased from at least 1996 to 2012 every year. As a matter of fact, the increase of voters was the smallest in 2012 over 2008. So turnout isn't the problem."

Not true. From Wikipedia:
1996 96,390
2000 105,594
2004 122,349
2008 131,407
2012 121,745

*Ten million* fewer people showed up to vote in 2012 than did in 2008.

Hillary is quite a player in the next election. I still maintain that Mitch Daniels could have beaten just about any Democrat this year under any circumstances; same goes with Hillary in 2016 over the Republicans.

Well, Wikipedia is a pretty bad source. From CNN, Obama won 66,882,230 votes while McCain won 58,343,671 votes. Others, as seen on Wikipedia, won about 2 million or so. That makes it a total of about 127 million, not 131 million.

In 2012, Obama won 65.4 million and Romney won 60.7 million. I haven't looked up the minor candidates, but that makes over 126 million right there. About the same or a little more than 2008.

Wikipedia's source is the US Census Bureau. Surely, you're not suggesting that the government is a bad source?

"Taxes will not go up due to the health care bill"
--Obama

(Sounds REALLY honest, don't you think?)

Strong argument, Tolstoy. I can't say I'm sure that the religious right has demonstrated willingness to abandon the republicans in the past, but I wouldn't argue it won't either. The same argument as you make, however, seems to apply at face value. Where else will they go? I also don't think you should underestimate the willingness of moderates to vote republican when offered a viable platform. I feel that there truly are millions of fiscally conservative swing voters who were really horrified by what came out re: women's rights and gay rights in the last few years, voters who would be far more drawn to a more centrist Republican party.


Personally, I'll second Jimgov's statement. I hope they do have the same attitude as you - because if you're wrong, it's going to cost them another four years.

lol dammit I'm being all partisan again (it's hard not to). I hope they DON'T have the same attitude as you, I hope they give up and make the shift that America needs them to make sooner rather than later.

"I can't say I'm sure that the religious right has demonstrated willingness to abandon the republicans in the past, but I wouldn't argue it won't either. The same argument as you make, however, seems to apply at face value. Where else will they go?"

The best example of this would be Pat Buchanan's 1992 primary challenge, which was supported largely by religious/social conservatives and seriously weakened Bush. A lot of religious conservatives felt Bush didn't have enough of the Holy Spirit within him and as a consequence sat the election out that November. The result was a Clinton victory.

"Where else will they go?"

Nowhere. They'll stay home. Or they'll vote for Chuck Baldwin.

True.

The Republicans have to turn out the Conservative vote. There are twice as many Conservatives as there are Liberals in this country, the trick is just making sure they all vote.

Our nominee should be Marco Rubio or Rand Paul, someone that appeals to that vast majority

It's ridiculous to make any kind of prediction about the outcome of the next presidential election. At this point in 2005 we were still pre-Katrina, pre-Harriet-Meyers, pre-civil-war-in-Iraq, and pre-housing-bubble-burst. Anything could happen in the time between now and November 2016, from a revolution in Iran after the elections in a few months to a eurozone collapse to a huge domestic scandal that makes Obama's popularity plunge to George Bush levels, or a triumph could make a ham sandwich with a D sticker a shoe-in in 2016. Justice Kennedy could die or resign. There could be a terrorist attack at home or a new intifada in the West Bank. Republicans might win the Senate or may lose seats in both chambers. I mean really, people. Who thought in March 2005 we'd elect the first black president and the first real liberal since LBJ in 2008? The very soonest people can make intelligent guesses about 2016 will be well into 2016.

"There are twice as many Conservatives as there are Liberals in this country."

What makes you say that?

And what if the next Republican candidate says abortion is largely a state-level affair? You can't have one in Texas, but you can have one in California. Everybody should be happy. Except, of course, that that will boil down to a pro-choice stance as anybody can go anywhere to get it. So you'd have to be careful with "largely" and define it on the sweet spot.

I agreed with Invictus up until the part about "first real liberal."

@redhouse: Actually, that was the pre-Roe regime. State-by-State is pro-life, if you look at it that way.

at average white boy state-by-state is not really 'pro-life', in reality it is more 'pro-choice'. you cant get an abortion in ireland, but irish women who really want an abortion can just hop over the england and get one. and i think it is even probably paid for by the groups who strongly support abortion. so if any state supports abortion then anyone can get an abortion. so with state-by-state it is really hard to stop abortion. but if it were one set of rules then it just takes a small change and it becomes really difficult for anyone to get an abortion. and look at the generational gap. the baby boomers are the only group that is really pro-choice. as the younger people are growing up the chance of federal laws changing is reasonable.

piece of useful news on the issue, planned parenthood has now come out in favor of post-birth abortion.

@redhouse they can say whatever they want - I think it's just pandering to their constituency. Roe v wade will never be overturned, and Republicans know it (well, the politicians do, anyways).