$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 107.11

6,667 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
42% of Goal | left

Support:

Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
It is pretty surprising to me that Trump's strategy worked, in a sense, in that he came within striking distance of the Dems in some fairly solid blue Rust Belt states (maybe even won a few? we'll find out soon).

The question is, whether or not Trump wins, should the GOP continue with this strategy and win disaffected whites in the Midwest (and elsewhere?), or totally reject this strategy and try to make inroads with Latinos?

I can see pros and cons of both, the obvious points being:

-Latino population is growing, especially in a few crucial swing states (FL, AZ, NV). But could they even make inroads at this point or is that bridge burned?

-Without a total rejection of the Tea Party/Alt-right elements of the GOP, the Rust Belt strategy might be the only one they are able to implement.

So regardless of whether Trump wins, they are at a crossroads. I should note that I do think these are mutually exclusive. I don't think the GOP can make the argument to disaffected whites while still winning over Latinos.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?


At the moment, the Democrats seem to be winning, albeit by a small margin, at least in the race for the White House. They stand a decent chance of recapturing the Senate and a more marginal case for the House. Given that the White House and Senate are "at large elections" the case has been made that they will have to wait for the next census to reverse some of the gerrymandering advantage of the House.

Despite possibly winning, they do need to "change" as this election shows the electoral map is changing. The populist campaigns of Sanders and Trump shows this to be the case. The fact that a large segment of the population feels disenfranchised should be a wake up call. The answer is a mix of policy and perception. Policy should continue to promote demand side economics to restore some measure of economic gain for those whose income is based entirely or mostly on earned income. At the same time, an effort needs to be made to curb the corrosive rhetoric about the current economic state.

As far as Republicans go, the demographics stand little change of reversing. Birth rates among "whites" remain fairly low. Hispanic birthrates are fairly high (though that may slow with affluence if such trends are consistent). Given the fairly high level of catholicism and even a strong work ethic among hispanics, there is certainly a path for Republicans to gain a higher representation on social issues as well as law and order issues.

The Tea Partiers are tougher. They have great antipathy towards both debt and taxation. There is likely to be some compromise to be crafted with slightly increased taxes combined with reduced spending and debt reduction. Robust defense spending is more a priority of the hawks so holding the line in order to achieve debt reduction should be a possible sell. Even a slight improvement in the debt ratio would be worth a great deal of political capital in subsequent elections.

Hyper partisan rhetoric is hurting the GOP there needs to be some more actual leadership to sell policy choices that have a chance of working. Out right obstructionism as embraced by the McConnel Senate creates excitement with little actual progress on any front.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablito A
msg tools
The Republican party might be able to woo me back if they could break free from the religious nutters.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?


Because they're not facing existential demographic despair.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't see a way for RNC to pull out.

If they stop appealing to white racists, they lose immediately.
If they keep appealing to white racists, they continue to shrink their base until it is only white racists.

Similar for support of the wealthy anti tax crowd.
Similar for support on anti-gay and pro-life issues.

What's repellent is their open refusal to support our democratic traditions tho. That's scary stuff.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hoffman
United States
Briarcliff Manor
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Get off my lawn wrote:
The Republican party might be able to woo me back if they could break free from the religious nutters.


Actually, I've been reading that the religious nutters are sort of backing away from the party. This election, it's been the bigots who are keeping the GOP alive (of course, there's probably a bit of overlap there . . .)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
windsagio wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?


Because they're not facing existential demographic despair.


https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
windsagio wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?


Because they're not facing existential demographic despair.


https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_...


But how long can an aging bracket of white men carry you?

Writings on the wall, it's up to you whether you read it or not.

Edit: It's only lasted as long as it has through an extended campaign of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
It is pretty surprising to me that Trump's strategy worked, in a sense, in that he came within striking distance of the Dems in some fairly solid blue Rust Belt states (maybe even won a few? we'll find out soon).


Despite her ground game, I think we ran a tough candidate to win with. Had we run a more populist Democrat, which is not something that's outside of the soul of the party, I don't think he comes within striking distance at all.

Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?


More populism, but, you know, without so much racism and sexism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablito A
msg tools
ohbalto wrote:
Get off my lawn wrote:
The Republican party might be able to woo me back if they could break free from the religious nutters.


Actually, I've been reading that the religious nutters are sort of backing away from the party. This election, it's been the bigots who are keeping the GOP alive (of course, there's probably a bit of overlap there . . .)


That's not exactly an improvement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

The only thing I have seen Republicans do successfully is take away women's rights, voters rights, and workers rights. Maybe if they did less of that, people would see them in a more positive light.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see it as much about Latinos as about urban issues. They need to comprise a platform which doesn't betray conservative values. That doesn't mean they should just wander through the bad parts of town screaming "Bootstraps for sale.... 3% off!!!" There needs to be something which addressed those issues. Like it or not, the nation is becoming more urban and as long as the only approach the GOP takes to that is "Welfare bad," they will consistently lose the states with the most electoral votes right off the bat and be playing catch up before the campaign even starts. Latinos would be another way to go, but I think urban reclamation would be a much easier sell to the existing base.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
surprise "Conservative Values"? Here, let 'moi' try at this; 'Corporate Welfare'!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Happy Holidays! ABCDEFGHIJK MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
In memorium. Bob Hoover died 25 Oct 2016 at 94. In WWII he was shot down in a Spitfire and stole an FW-190 to escape. He spent decades at air shows flying Ole Yeller, shown
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Why don't the democrats need to change? And what should they do to change their losing strategy?

I think both parties need change.

The Democrats are a little too machine-run. "Hillary paid her dues, so she gets to be the candidate." It is fair; she's very competent; but we needed a more unifying candidate, though perhaps that's unrealistic after decades of demonizing opponents. Gov. Jerry Brown would have been good, but he's too old and has a lot of baggage himself from his first term as California governor. Bill Clinton was a good candidate conceptually, but had a lot of baggage. However, Democratic policies are fairly unified and rational. Bernie's "Put everyone in Medicare" wasn't a bad idea for universal health care.
1. John Kasich
2. Ted Cruz
3. Marco Rubio
4. Ben Carson
5. Jeb Bush
6. Jim Gilmore
7. Carly Fiorina
8. Chris Christie
9. Rand Paul
10. Rick Santorum
11. Mike Huckabee
12. George Pataki
13. Lindsey Graham
14. Bobby Jindal
15. Scott Walker
16. Rick Perry
17. Donald Trump


The Repulicans. Sheesh. How many candidates was it? How many points of view did they represent? Was there any candidate who was a Dwight Eisenhower? It seems to me the GOP strategy of a majorities of minorities--collecting a bunch of single issue voters--has blown up in their faces. I don't think Donald Trump represents any of them, really. He's maybe a little supply-side, trickle-down (if it isn't just, "I want policies that benefit my businesses), but that's a pretty discredited view after having failed for decades and blown up in 2007. Supply-side, trickle-down has been the excuse for the GOP to pay off its contributors since 1981, 35 years, almost two generations. If it worked we should all be rich. Are we all rich? No.

Reagan was an actor and a terrific communicator. Mostly he let his cabinet run things. Trump is a con man who listens to no one unless failure is staring him in the face. I don't think he can attract a competent cabinet since he won't listen: what's the point in being in the cabinet if the President is going to disavow you on a whim? The Clinton campaign's been trolling him for months, and just now he tries to stop playing their game? Outside of his narrow con-man skill set, he's a fool.

Back to the party. The GOP used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, but now that part of the party is dismissed as RINOs. The idea that you can "cut taxes and spend more because unicorns" deserves to be laughed out of the party. By catering to the "majority of minorities" they've attracted people who hate something--the GOP doesn't care what, as long as it makes them go to the polls. So it's become the party of hate and no. That's a policy to win elections, not to run the country. And, admittedly painting with a broad brush here, most Republican candidates are entirely focused on winning, not on governing--we can all think of lots of exceptions, but they are exceptions: the government shut down shows the lunatics are running the asylum.

America needs some political reform. I think it can be done, but the powers that are in place won't like being displaced, especially the politicians of both parties who are more concerned with winning than doing the right thing.

First, we need a national initiative process, like California's. Yes, it's a mess this year. What's your point? US politics isn't a mess? No changes to the Constitution by initiative, but laws Congress can't touch without a referendum (approval of the voters). This can only be done with a Constitutional amendment, but I think it's got a reasonable shot at getting through eventually.

Then, we need to kill first-past-the-post voting and the two party system. The GOP is already really quite a few parties, and it's a total mess because of it. If those parties could actually stand on their own, then the GOP could be the GOP without worrying that Alt-Right was going to bite them on the ass. At that point, power shifts from the extremist wings of the two parties to the average American voter.

Not doing anything is not an option. "No" is not an option. The economy is going to be changing rapidly. Just self driving vehicles are going to put tens of millions out of work in the next decade. They will also greatly improve US productivity and reduce infrastructure maintenance (fewer accidents). If we were to make them illegal, we'd be steamrollered by every other economy in the world. Except North Korea: there's the result of "No."

America survived Richard Nixon. We can survive Hillary Clinton. We cannot survive four years of Trumpery.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:


The question is, whether or not Trump wins, should the GOP continue with this strategy and win disaffected whites in the Midwest (and elsewhere?), or totally reject this strategy and try to make inroads with Latinos?



Or why not make America great for everyone? Is that so difficult a concept to grasp?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:


The question is, whether or not Trump wins, should the GOP continue with this strategy and win disaffected whites in the Midwest (and elsewhere?), or totally reject this strategy and try to make inroads with Latinos?



Or why not make America great for everyone? Is that so difficult a concept to grasp?


It would be great if that were on the table (and more than just a catchphrase)
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
"Corporate Profits Matter"
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:


The question is, whether or not Trump wins, should the GOP continue with this strategy and win disaffected whites in the Midwest (and elsewhere?), or totally reject this strategy and try to make inroads with Latinos?



Or why not make America great for everyone? Is that so difficult a concept to grasp?


a) That's not a strategy. That's a goal.

b) It's not even the GOP goal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would appeal to the Latino voters. Traditionally Latinos are very religious and a hard working people that come to this country to better themselves, all traits which fits right in with the Republicans. I would stress that we need immigration reform that prevents people coming illegally coming to this country while finding ways to make it easier for people to get here legally but we need to integrate the illegals that are already here and contributing to this nation.

At the same time I would stress how my goal would be to reduce our reliance on cheap Chinese labor and bring jobs back to this country. Honestly I have no idea how to do that but that's why you hire smart people on your campaign.

Most Americans (IMO) are socially liberal but financially fiscal. I think if the Republicans ran on that platform they would dominate.

The problem with what I said above is that while it might work on the NAtional stage with the general populace it doesn't work in the smaller regions. The big red areas are still hooked on religion, anti-gay, anti-minority view points and would hate what I said above. Unfortunately these are the people who vote the most in primaries. Also, I think the people running the RNC and the big money donors still hold these viewpoints.

So someone who said something like I said above might win a general election they would be trounced in the primaries or if they ran for local office in states like Mississippi.

Don't count the Republicans out. Just because the Dems might win 3 presidential elections in a row doesn't mean the party is dead. They will still get a lot of seats in the Senate and House and local wins. Plus I would not count on Hillary being a 2 term President. If the house and Senate don't flip expect a lot of dead lock in her Presidency plus investigation after investigation.

Even most Dems don't like her. Most here admit they are just voting for the party and/or SCOTUS not her. If Republicans thought the same way Trump would probably win - but we have to many Johnson voters muddying the waters.

I know you Dems are all busy sucking each others cocks in victory already, but this is a crazy election and anything could happen. Reagan/Reagan/Bush wasn't the end of the Dems. Obama/Obama/Hillary won't be the end of the GOP. Besides the Clinton's are the same as the Bush's. They are all part of the same 1% elite that are fucking the working class at the expense of enriching the Saudi oil barons and international bankers. Hillary is just another Bush and the agenda will be the same with maybe some more support for gays and black to curry their favor. Hillary was supposed to win in 2008 but no one counted on a cool black guy disrupting their plans. That's why she spent the last 8 years making back room deals and rigging shit as much as possible to be president this time.

PS. I swear if mother fucking Jeb Bush is the next President after Hillary I'm going to lose my shit. Mark this so we can come to it in 4-8 years and pray I'm wrong.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
@Galad, I often think that was the original threat of the Clintons, and why they ultimately became those-who-must-be-destroyed.

They represented, compared to the capital L liberal Democrats of the '70s and '80s, a socially liberal, fiscally conservative force, and were a direct challenge to the position we're speaking of.

Honestly, I think that's the endgame. The Rockerfeller/Kasich Republicans and the Clinton Democrats join to become the new 'right' party, and the greens and the Sanders Indie/Dems become the new 'left' party.

We still have a ways to go for that of course, the GOP has to deal with the alt-right problem and 'not conservative enough' before they can get to something new.
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Most Americans (IMO) are socially liberal but financially fiscal. I think if the Republicans ran on that platform they would dominate.


By "financially fiscal", of course, you mean that most Americans want the government to spend money on their pet causes and to hell with everybody else's.

Quote:
The big red areas are still hooked on religion, anti-gay, anti-minority view points and would hate what I said above. Unfortunately these are the people who vote the most in primaries. Also, I think the people running the RNC and the big money donors still hold these viewpoints.


I don't think so. I don't think that the big money donors are particularly anti- anything. They're pro-business, though, and probably would be vehemently opposed to your plank of "reduce our reliance on cheap Chinese labor".

Quote:
Don't count the Republicans out. Just because the Dems might win 3 presidential elections in a row doesn't mean the party is dead. They will still get a lot of seats in the Senate and House and local wins.


That's all true.

Quote:
Plus I would not count on Hillary being a 2 term President. If the house and Senate don't flip expect a lot of dead lock in her Presidency plus investigation after investigation.


I would hope that such a patently obstructionist Congress would bear the brunt of political fallout in that scenario, but who am I kidding. This is America. Sadly, I think that the way the dice are cast, I agree and think we'll be staring at enough Republican control in 2020 to fuck the Census yet again and have to put up with another decade of Gerrymandering bullshit. Unless somehow Hillary's able to, you know, get a fucking Supreme Court justice through the Senate and somehow get Gerrymandering recognized for the anti-Democratic and hopefully unconstitutional practice that it is. But, hah, those are long shots.

No, I sadly expect the Republican Party to remain relevant for awhile longer. Not functional, mind you. Actually accomplishing anything on the national stage isn't really in their nature anymore. But they'll be a speed bump for awhile longer at least.

Quote:
Even most Dems don't like her. Most here admit they are just voting for the party and/or SCOTUS not her.


I don't think that's true. Most of us here think she'll make a fine President. I personally didn't love her as a candidate, but I think she's more than capable to run the Executive.

Quote:
I know you Dems are all busy sucking each others cocks in victory already, but this is a crazy election and anything could happen.


Fuck that. I'm not celebrating until the votes are tallied.

Quote:
PS. I swear if mother fucking Jeb Bush is the next President after Hillary I'm going to lose my shit. Mark this so we can come to it in 4-8 years and pray I'm wrong.


That's really not going to happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If I were in charge I would try to remake the party as a party of reason and enlightenment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

The only thing I have seen Republicans do successfully is take away women's rights, voters rights, and workers rights. Maybe if they did less of that, people would see them in a more positive light.


Time to play Devil's advocate (as an ex-Devil). The Republicans, under Reagan, played a pivotal role in helping crash the Soviet economy and ushering in Glasnost with a huge helping hand from Gorbechav. Pretty much ended our national nightmare of nuclear war as a looming spectre.

Took the Carter era economy of double digit inflation and interest rates and turned it into a booming growth era with combination of tax reform and trade liberalization.

The Republican party ushered in the EPA, OSHA, National Parks and largely backed the Civil Rights movement.

Today they are fractured and represent more resistance than anything else. When united in an optimistic course, they can certainly return to a more positive image.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
bob_santafe wrote:
If I were in charge I would try to remake the party as a party of reason and enlightenment.
So, then they'd become "Democrat"? We already HAVE these now. whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.