Thread: Where does the Republican Party go from here?

It's pretty clear that as of yesterday, there are progressively less and less people nationwide who are supporting the Republican Party. Whether this is temporary, or some more permanent radical shift in the way that Americans perceive the Republican Party, has yet to been seen. However, what is certain, is that unless there are massive changes towards the overall demeanor of the Republican Party, or unless there is a major Democratic fuckup these next two years, Congress will become less Republican and the narrow anti-fillibuster numbers they have now will cease to exist.

So, where do they go from here?
I see two direction - either they try to play within themselves, or they seek to become a government for 'all the people'.

By play within themselves, I mean this:
The Democrats gained 5 seats in the Senate and 18 seats in the house. These gains came primarily in places where the incumbent Republican was seen as more moderate in their stances. The result is that the Republicans that are left are the more conservative Republicans, the ones like Sam Brownback who can only convince people who already support him (white, christian, country types) that they ought to support him. The ones that said 'vote McCain, not Hussein!' Or 'Obama is a terrorist' or 'Obama is from the un-American part of America'. Stuff like that - essentially, people who try to continue the very factional policies that have been around since ....well awhile now.

Or, they could seek to become a government for all the people:
Ultimately, there is always going to be two legitimate directions that this country can go in, the more federalist direction aka Alexander Hamilton, or the more republican direction aka Thomas Jefferson. More power centered in the federal vs more power centered in the states. If it becomes a contest between these two images, that one party is able to say that they promote alternative imagination to modernity, while the other one is the other one, then you'll see an election based on ideas rather than any partisan 'you're not America! You hate kids! You hate life!' bullcrap.
This is where the Republicans need to go. They need someone who is able to effectively communicate this idea, of the peaceful / decentralized society, as well as has the record to show that they uphold it in practice as well as thought. This does not mean just scaling back the influence of government - doing that is just anarchist. Scaling back the influence of government means that there are going to be people who operate outside of the law, which is one major contributing factor as to why the Republican Party is in the state that is in.

Ultimately, I think this was the biggest contribution that Ron Paul gave to the Republicans this election cycle. He showed that the idea of the peaceful / decentralized nation is one that has a broad potential area in terms of ideas that it can encompass.

No one knows where the Republican Party goes from here, yet, mark my words:
Unless the Republican Party becomes the party of an idea, they will keep losing influence nationwide.
That is a scary thought, because although I tend to support the ideas of the Democrats more than the Republicans, in a truly sovereign state, both ideas need to be there for national sovereignty to exist.

They find decent candidates to run in 2010 and take advantage of the lingering effects of the recession and the typical first off year election losses that the party controlling the presidency suffers to win big in the 2010 elections.

right.....but how do you define 'decent'? And does 'decent' include 'probable'?

Originally Posted by Dayton3

They find decent candidates to run in 2010 and take advantage of the lingering effects of the recession and the typical first off year election losses that the party controlling the presidency suffers to win big in the 2010 elections.

Dayton speaks the truth. The Republicans will in fact take advantage of the severity and underestimated duration of what was done to the economy, as they should. It may be like a Carter Administration without the Iranian hostage crisis, unless of course the Iranians create some sort of crisis.

The American people have a tendency to "throw the rascals out" reguardless of who is in power.

Looking back for the last 65 years: Clinton was the only democrat to be elected for two terms and LBJ was the only democrat to susceed a sitting democratic president. On the republican side there have been 4 twice elected presidents and one suscession (Regan-Bush).

Given historical trends, it was the democrats turn. But, the probability is that Obama will be a one term president followed by another republican.

I recommend that the repubs drag Bush & Cheney out of the WH by their feet and have them drawn and quartered.
Respect restored.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

I recommend that the repubs drag Bush & Cheney out of the WH by their feet and have them drawn and quartered.
Respect restored.

I assume you mean figuratively?

The Republican party has two choices: Ron Paul or ruin.

Republicans really need to get back some seats in 2010. They've gotta get younger and much more centered. It's figureheads have to let go of the farthest right. I get the feeling with an Obama administration will move the majority to center-left.

2012 has to bring some challengers that convey the same message, young and able to generate enthusiasm. The GOP really has to find it's message

The Republican Party will learn a lesson from this election, and that is that they cannot espouse their christian conservative social platform. They cannot rely on bible belt states with 3 electoral college votes to win them the Presidency, and so if they want to succeed then they will have to marginalise the christian right in their party and return to the fiscal conservative base. It will take at least eight years for the Republicans to succeed in reforming their party, so Obama and the Democrats will have a pretty clear run till 2016.