I don't think too many people would vote based on drug legalization. I don't think it would be much of a factor for me in my voting because a) the party likely won't be able to enact any change, at least not in the immediate term b) this is naturally where policy is going and I don't think whether the party in power supporting it or not is going to change the process too much and c) drugs being illegal is not a huge drawback - they are easy enough to get and a legalization might make them more expensive. it might not, but who really knows.

Although I do see your point.

I know that this post include a stereotypical view on the drug war, but frankly, I don't have a clue what I'm talking about if I get into specifics. This is my assumption:

Many Latinos don't support legalization because that would fund the drug wars back in their homeland. On the other hand, I assume many do for the same reason that a bunch of poor white shits like me do (lol!). The GOP needs to find a way to appeal to Latinos if they are going to keep from splitting and I think drugs is too touchy an issue to begin on. Maybe they should go with (holy fuck!) immigration?

I don't buy it. Your argument is sound, but you're missing the big points that the Republicans really need to focus on to stay relevant: immigration and women's rights. Hispanics, regardless of the GOP's stance on drugs, still mainly vote as a bloc on immigration. Consider the electoral map on this issue: nearly every county that borders Mexico, including Texas and Arizona, voted Democratic. Women's rights are the other big issue. Abortion comments killed their Senate campaigns and also had significant effects on Romney's campaign, the same goes for the equal pay bill.

Drug legalization is a good idea, but I think you're missing the elephant in the room.

The GOP don't need to do anything. The Obama effect will be long gone by the time of the next election, reducing the Democrat's command of young, black, and Spanish speaking (serious, my Yanky friends, Latinos are largely white people) voters. At the same time the Democrats will have been so boosted by their misleadingly easy win that they will lurch to the left and lose a load of voters from the centre. Meanwhile the economy will struggle and lose them a load of their reputation for compitence.

Octavious, the Republican nominee hasn't gotten the number of electoral votes that Obama achieved since Bush Sr. was elected. Even the Democrats' weakest candidate, Kerry, still managed a very close election. The GOP has some fundamental issues with how it plans to appeal to a changing demographic and it can't just sit back and cross their fingers for another repeat of 2010 midterms, because its just not going to happen.

The GOP isn't appealing to anyone that isn't white, male, and rich, Octavious.

@bo_sox - Really? So people like Herman Cain don't exist? What about the NAtional Black Republican Association? http://www.nbra.info/

You are showing your youthful idiocy. Remember, almost half of the US voted for Romney. So unless rich white males comprise half of the country (and they don't!) your statement is so obviously false as to be laughable.

Elections in a two party system will almost always be close. If one side sees the other as weak they see it as an opportunity to push things they like which may not be that popular. Midterms aside, by 2016 the Democrats will have built up a huge amount of "anyone but those bastards", and any idiot with half a brain cell will be able to give them a run for their money.

Wow, Draugnar, there's a black person in the GOP. There's also a woman in the Romney family. That amazes me equally.

President Eden,

I know you have me muted, which probably deserve (and in a strange and trollish sort of way enjoy), but out of curiosity (perhaps someone could copy paste my contribution here): you're saying "legalizing drugs". From an electoral viewpoint, that, I believe, scares the shit out of a lot of people (like myself), particularly with children (unlike myself). Now since you're approaching this from an electoral viewpoint and not from a philosophical viewpoint (we discussed it at length), why not legalize the *use* of drugs. That way you can sell it to families and say "look, if we catch your kids smoking a joint, we're not throwing them in prison for it. But we will throw in prison whatever piece of scum sold it to them." Does that taste like the blend of modernism and conservatism you are looking for?

@2WL - There has only been two winning occassionas since then for the republican party and both were with George W. Bush. So your saying one guy (the only one elected since George H.W. Bush) didn't win by as much as Obama. No kidding!

But GHWB won with 426 and Reagan won with 489 and 525. And Nixon's second term win was 520. Even Clinton was sub 400 both of his wins. Carter didn't even break 300.

So the Republicans since 1964 have had 4 elections where they broke 400 and two where they broke 500. The Democrats haven't broken 400 since 1864 when Johnson had 486 and decimated Goldwater.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/map/historic.html#1964

response by topic:

* This is the way things are going anyway, no one will care who jumps out in front - Agree with the first half, disagree with the second half. It matters a lot whether or not you're the first one championing these things, especially if we're talking about beating the Democrats, whose main strength with respect to elections is their ability to be proactive in supporting new social policy causes. Drug legalization is a rare policy where (a) it's easy to see that widespread public support for the policy is on the horizon, and (b) neither major party has made significant efforts to capitalize on that support. I do think it'll matter who gets out in front here, and that the GOP has the chance to be that party is clear to me

* Latino opposition to legalization due to concerns at home - I'm afraid you're backwards here, bo. One of the major sources of income for the drug cartels that have ravaged Mexico is drug sales; sales that are only made possible by driving drug use underground. Legalization would be a strong blow to the power of the cartels. Plus there are the social effects related to this (having to deal with profiling because of Mexican drug gangs, for instance). I'll find polling data to back this, but I'm pretty confident most Latino voters would favor an end to the drug war. If I'm wrong on that then strike the Latino voters out of the list I made earlier.

* Immigration - I think they're too late to the punch for this to be a "first step." I totally agree that this needs to be addressed, but I do specifically mean "first" step. Immigration is the ultimate policy clusterfuck right now, and the Democrats have already won the narrative there. They've been pushing hard for immigration reform for a while now, and by "reform" I mean actual reform of the process and not simply strengthening border security while leaving the process largely the same. The GOP needs to make a move to work toward immigration reform, because I think Latino voters are honestly more "conservative" on the whole than "liberal" and that immigration is just such a big deal (for obvious reasons) that Latino voters will vote Democratic on immigration despite generally preferring Republicans on other issues. But they first have to establish credibility as being a party that actually wants to strike out for positive change. That might sound contradictory for a "conservative" party, but the principles they wish to conserve can still credibly be defended while supporting a more lax policy toward immigration and drug use. And in order to build up that credibility, they need to strike first on a social policy issue that's on the horizon. Hence I think drug legalization first, then immigration reform, would be a more effective political strategy than starting with immigration reform.

bo sox, he is right. Your comment was lame and false. if 33%of hispanics voted for him, then obviously you are wrong, and if 30 plus % of asians voted for him, then you are again...wrong.

3% of blacks...lol, well, that is a different issue.

You know, outside of the immigration issue, Hispanics, especially Mexicans are generally considered Social Conservatives, so if the immigration hurdle is cleared, that block may shift more the other way. Maybe not a full shift, but it would not shock me, as they are not overly fond of gays, abortion (their birth rate, and most being devoted Catholics will help you there) and other social issues.

At the moment it is in THEIR best interest to vote for Obama and the Deomcrats, but that will not always be the case I am guessing. I am thinking the Democrats will dangle THAT carrot in front of them for a bit longer.

Their way out of death is immigration reform, not drugs. But it could happen eventually.

what PE said about Latinos is basically the same as what I am saying. Latinos in general, will be more Social conservatives, but theimmigration issue is a big deal to them, so they went with the man offering them the best shot at reform.

Problem is, many Americans (blacks included) want reform coupled with real border improvements.

A non black democrat, will NOT get the same turn out as obama, and if anyone thinks different, they are kidding themselves.

You got massive black voting turn outs the last 2 elections, far and away more than we ever saw anytime before. Is there anotehr Obam waiting? I dont see one, but maybe I am wrong.

Obama got his coalition together, and it worked well, but can another do it? highly doubtful.

Draugnar, that shouldn't be a point of pride, that should be a point of serious division, which is a seriously bad thing…

And by the way, Draug, if you're one of the people that thinks there's no correlation between race and this past election, just look at cities. The cities and nearby suburbs went Obama. The places where they'll shoot you before they offer you directions (in other words, the rural) went for Romney in general.

@PE, like I said, I'm just guessing and I figured there's an equal chance I'm wrong than right.

remember, we did amnesty once before, under a Repug. It didnt resolve the actual problem. The border is wide open, it needs closed We need to knwo who the hell is coming in this country

@SD… which comment are you referring to? If you ask me, 33% of Hispanics and 30% of Asians isn't a very good number and really doesn't seem like the GOP is really appealing to minorities. I mean, maybe all my math instructors over the years have been wrong, but half of 100 is 50, and in order to appeal to a majority of a select group of people, uhh, don't you need that? Or are we calculating this based on 55%, in which case you're exactly right?

wow bo_sox, much of a fucking bigot with the "rather shoot you than give you directions" comment? Hypocrite much????? racist much??? douchebag

you said, "they dotn appeal to anyoen that is not white" and I just said "you are wrong" And you are, since 33% is a lot more than 'anyone not white". do you not read what the hell you post? Racist hypocrite douchebag

@bo_sox - Hahahahaha!!!! Try asking for directions in Over-the-rhine or Harlem. You'll get your ass capped in a heart beat or be car-jacked. You are so full of shit. Country folk canbe some of the most friendly you will find. And the "suburbs" went *very* Romney. Look at Butler, Clermont, and Warren counties in Ohio. They are the suburbs of Cincinnati (which take sup almost *all* of Hamilton county). The suburbs were decidedly Romney int eh swing states, but the urban (be it yound, black, or both) rocked the vote and more power to them for that.

Well I tried to make a good point and stay on topic. I hope somebody copies my first message to circumvent the mute, I'd be really interested. Night all.

Bo sox loves calling people bigots. However as is typical of a pure liberal some groups are ok to attack. White christians are at the top of his list

President Eden, I am sorry but your arguments strike me as stoned epiphany fueled by a couple cups of coffee. It could be amusing to reread your post in the morning. ;-)

Draug, as much as your old, decrepit ass thinks that the demographics of the Reagan era are still existant and relevant, they're not. Only you and Karl Rove apparently still think that the US is a white, Christian country. Newsflash: it's not. The Republican platform hasn't changed in decades, and those Cold War-era ideologies and the neocon platform simply don't resonate with an America where white evangelicals are not the majority. The GOP needs to change or risk ended up in the annals of American history alongside the Whigs and Federalists.

The largest growing section of the population is the Hispanic community which is both largely white and Christian. The largest established community in the US is also white and Christian. In what sense is the US not a white and Christian country?

I feel that the Rebublican problem with Spanish speakers will be in no small part remedied when they overwhelmingly vote for Puerto Rico to be given full statehood, demonstrating that they are not against Hispanics, but simply in favour of a more controlled and fair route to becoming part of the US.

Octavious, where did you get the impression that "Hispanic" = "White"?

What the fuck are you talking about. I know who lives in rural America as I just moved from there. It's farmers and hill folk. Hardly the white rich folk bo thinks live there. And the most dangerous places in Cincinnati are where the murders and car jackings occur and, guess what... They are urban. The rich white folks live in the affluent parts of suburbia while the middle and upper middle live in slightly less.affluent suburbia. And I think I know Cincinnati suburbs well enough to say they are the three counties I mentioned. And if you look at the red/blue county maps of Ohio you will see those three went red.

@2WL

When I was living in Latin America, mostly. The populations in LA were largely white, with significant black and native american communities. Where did you get the impression that they're not?

I know many Puerto Ricans and all of them affiliate themselves with "white" only considering Hispanic as a division of white like saying German or French or Spaniard.

Speaking as Canadian I would like to tell a story. In 1993 a disastrous campaign caused the progressive conservative party to go from 156 (out of 292) to 2 (out of 294) seats in the house of commons. An obviously more extreme fall then the fall the Republicans have had of recent years.

After a failure of leadership from Kim Cambell, Preston Manning left the PCs and created the reform party, a party that was more fiscally conservative but less socially conservative then the PCs. This party grew in popularity and in the 1997 election, they won 60 compared to the 20 that the PCs won.

However for the next 7 years the Liberals would have the Prime Minister, a majority in the house and a majority in the senate. In short absolute power.

In 2004 the Liberals would lose their majority in the house. In 2006 they would lose the Prime Minister and in 2009 they would lose the Senate.

The conservatives went from a complete collapse in the 90s to become the most powerful party in Canadian politics. What happened?

Well, despite what putin says of the man, Harper can be credited to the success. He managed to reunify the parties, install a strict party discipline (what the party leaders of the states can only dream of) and picked his battles wisely.

Before 2012, he would always try to avoid questions about abortions or gay marraige. This was to prevent him from alienating his base, but also from alienating the independents. In 2012, when a private members bill was brought up to make abortions illegal, he voted no, so according to his voting record he is pro-choice.

During the primaries, so much of the attention was focused on gay marriage and abortions. Republicans need to focus on the popular aspects of conservatism; individual rights and fiscal conservation rather then on the bad; social conservatism.

Steven Harper understood something about demographics. He encouraged immigration and according to exit polls ~60% of immigrants voted conservative last election, compared to the ~75% that voted Democrat in 2012. America and Canada are both immigrant nations. Reagan was a very pro-immigrant president and offered amnesty. Modern Republicans should do the same.

Its the war on women and the war on immigrants that cost Romney the election.

Proof of that was how the Republicans were projected (by nate silver) to take both the house and the senate up until one senator candidate said legitimate rape can't get a women pregnant.

As for suggested reforms. If I was serious about reforming the party and getting all the nuts out. I would try to get rid of gerrymandering. The problem is certain districts are 75% registered republican and others are 75% resisted democrats, The districts are redrawn every 10 years based on what the two parties can agree on. This creates incentives to make most districts to be 'safe' so reelection is easy.

The problem is, it also means idiots are elected. When a district has most people either being far right or far left, you have the incentive to do the same. If every election was close, most of the nut jobs would lose and you would get far more moderate serious candidates.

But yeah, just look at the Alabama districts:
http://rangevoting.org/SSHR/AL.gif
you can't seriously claim that the borders were to make a population distrubtion. It was to get as many democrtats as possible into district 7.

My solution:
Split line method:http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

"The places where they'll shoot you before they offer you directions (in other words, the rural) went for Romney in general."

Here's some 2011 crime statistics for you, Bosox.
New York City: Population - 8.2 million. Murders - 490
Iowa: Population - 3.1 million. Murders - 46

Study math much?
Or maybe you didn't know that New York City is urban?
For clarity's sake, "urban" means "city" and "rural" means "country".

I can't believe Ohio didn't pass the independent redistricting committee amendment and left it in the politicians' hands.

That's OK FlemGem. Bo says all Republicans are rich white men. And the rural areas are the Republicans. Last I checked, most Rich white guys live either in Manhattan type neighborhoods (urban, but not inner city) or places like Beverly Hills (suburban wel to do neighborhoods). He doesn't get that rural areas have a few rich folk that own ranches but mostly working class farmers and miners and undereducated poor folk who are just scraping by.

@2wl, what you're not realizing is how many of the Republican base vote largely because of the abortion issue. A lot of them would either not vote, would vote Democratic, or would vote for a third party if the GOP were not pro life. Much as the pro life issue might alienate the GOP with parts of the middle, you can't afford to throw away half your base and survive.

Given the additional fact that over half of Americans presently identify as pro life, it's not very likely the GOP will start here with looking to reform. It'll go to immigration reform, as others have said. Look for them to try to seize this issue over the next years.

@PE, redhouse wanted you to address this post:

"I know you have me muted, which probably deserve (and in a strange and trollish sort of way enjoy), but out of curiosity (perhaps someone could copy paste my contribution here): you're saying "legalizing drugs". From an electoral viewpoint, that, I believe, scares the shit out of a lot of people (like myself), particularly with children (unlike myself). Now since you're approaching this from an electoral viewpoint and not from a philosophical viewpoint (we discussed it at length), why not legalize the *use* of drugs. That way you can sell it to families and say "look, if we catch your kids smoking a joint, we're not throwing them in prison for it. But we will throw in prison whatever piece of scum sold it to them." Does that taste like the blend of modernism and conservatism you are looking for? "

Personally, I doubt this would go far enough -- the Dems would just take the opportunity to jump out ahead and make the GOP be, once again, to the right. (Well, on marijuana anyway. I doubt either party will be for legalizing heroin any time soon).

@bo_sox, you didn't say "most Republicans are white." You said "The GOP isn't appealing to anyone that isn't white, male, and rich, Octavious."

Heck, a majority of white women voted for Romney, just to start with.

"Much as the pro life issue might alienate the GOP with parts of the middle, you can't afford to throw away half your base and survive.
Given the additional fact that over half of Americans presently identify as pro life, it's not very likely the GOP will start here with looking to reform."

If over half the electorate identifies as pro-life, this should be an issue that the Republicans can reframe and turn into a winner. Compromise on the rape-and-incest issue (less than 2% of abortions) and get rid of the idiots who talk about god and rape (what was that, like two people?). I think it's the most rabidly pro-abortion folk who are screaming most loudly that the Republicans have to drop the pro-life stance, and I think they're screaming so loudly because they're deathly afraid the Republicans will reshape the narrative.

You know the way that democratic representation should work. People who stand for public office go and speak with the people they hope to represent, and then they put together a policy document based on what the people want, that's all of the people not just the lunatic fringes of society such as the Tea Party.
The arrogant Republicans seem to do it all arse-about-face. They decide themselves what would be good for people then set out on some crazy moral crusade to convince the unwashed they are the people to take them to the promised land. Except this time around so arrogant was Romney he didn't waste time wooing people but just tried to convince people he was better than Obama...... hopeless. Politics is first and foremost a communication issue but personal charisma comes into the equation as well. If Republicans can't get someone smart get someone cute and if they want to win an election it's a two stage process:-
1) Ask people what they want
2) Tell them you've listened and you're going to give them what they asked for
Hey presto you get elected ..... once elected you can do wtf you want. Ask Bush Senior
"Read my lips......no new taxes"

Pro life debate has split the Libertarian party which is frustrating as we barely got 1.1m of the popular vote. I find myself siding with the Libertarians for life faction within our party though.