The next Obama

[grampster]

Nikita Kruschev has been proven to have been right.

[charby]

I wouldn't be suprised if Kirsten Gillibrand will try to run for president.

[zahc]

I wonder how many semi-liberal squishes have to lose big before the GOP pulls its head out and stops trying to chase left leaning indies by alienating the base?

"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.

I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.

With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.

[Boomhauer]

"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.

I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.

With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.

When you let the Dems choose your candidate for you, let the RINOs rule the party, and get all hand wringy over being "polite" and not attacking the other candidate, well, you're gonna lose the election. Select a candidate that will FIGHT and fight hard for the office and you're gonna get people fired up and ready to vote. That was one of the attractions of Sarah Palin. She got up there, was not afraid to fight for the office, and got people enthusiastic about voting.

[Stetson]

Id like to see a Marco Rubio/Bobby Jindal ticket.  I havent seen anything in their positions that scares me and the first "Latino" Pres or VP would pull a bunch of votes from conservative latino families. 

[longeyes]

The cultural & demographic trends in play will continue to get worse and magnify the power of the Left.  It won't matter who the Republican Party, if it continues to exist, nominates or how great they are by our standards. 

We can start by acknowledging we're in a war and that we need to act like it.  If we don't secede literally we will have to secede metaphorically: by refusing to accept policies that force us to subsidize our enemies and our own destruction.  By refusal I mean civil disobedience for reasons of both honor and survival.  We are going to have to think in terms of "our side" and refuse to cooperate with the rest.  This is how minorities survive and bide their time: Take care of your own first; that's what they do.

What might overturn the ascent of socialism will be collapse, but that would open the door, I'm wagering, not for a resurgence of the Republican Party or libertarians or conservatives as we've known them but an ultrarightwing nationalist party. 

[French G.]

Well whatever y'all do, please tell your darling alt candidates to drop the social conservative BS. If I wanted to pick someone to tell me about God I'd walk down to the church. Constitution! Don't play the game where the left baits the social conservative bear, refuse to engage.

[MillCreek]

"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.

With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.

I agree with this statement.  In this little corner of the Net, I think we can be prone to thinking that our attitudes and beliefs are widely shared amongst the populace. I think that recent national election results over the years do not support this theory.  I do not think the road to success for the Republicans is to run national candidates who are far to the right end of the spectrum.  If it was, Barry Goldwater would have won way back in 1964.  Recent history seems to indicate that the American people elect more centrist candidates to the office of President.  And calling people who disagree with our beliefs stupid, or misguided, or they don't love liberty and freedom is not going to convert people over to our side.  

The demographics are changing, and if the Republican party wishes to remain relevant, perhaps they will need to change also, as repugnant as that may be to to the conservative white males who form most of the party Base.  Or the Party can double down on social conservatism and see how well that plays with people who are not older conservative white males.

[SADShooter]

I agree with this statement.  In this little corner of the Net, I think we can be prone to thinking that our attitudes and beliefs are widely shared amongst the populace. I think that recent national election results over the years do not support this theory.  I do not think the road to success for the Republicans is to run national candidates who are far to the right end of the spectrum.  If it was, Barry Goldwater would have won way back in 1964.  Recent history seems to indicate that the American people elect more centrist candidates to the office of President.  And calling people who disagree with our beliefs stupid, or misguided, or they don't love liberty and freedom is not going to convert people over to our side.  

The demographics are changing, and if the Republican party wishes to remain relevant, perhaps they will need to change also, as repugnant as that may be to to the conservative white males who form most of the party Base.  Or the Party can double down on social conservatism and see how well that plays with people who are not older conservative white males.

OK. I accept the reality of shifting demographics and attitudes. But the question is how to offer a meaningful alternative, without simply creating a "bidding war" promising different stuff for votes? So, the Republicans propose conditional amnesty, and Democrats up the ante with unconditional amnesty. Cave on principle and endorse contemporary views which mirror the Democratic platform just a bit more "moderately"?  What's the point of that?

I'm not sure conservatism can be made hip enough to appeal to people who simply don't want it.

[Jamisjockey]

The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity. 
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages. 
It would be a perfect economic storm.  Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.

I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't think that there will be another general election.  Either the total economic crash will cause the USSA to break up, or Obama will be Emporer for Life by then 

You are WAY too wrapped up in the lie that your vote actually matters.

The men that run the machine don't care if a new cog gets installed every 4 to 8 years, or if it came from the D or R cog-making factory, any more than you care when you receive change at the grocery store if your coins have a P or a D stamp for the mint they came from.  It's about that important to them.

We'll get to vote again.  And it'll make about as much effect as if you were a numismatist, sifting through the wal-mart cash registers for morgan dollars.  Ain't gonna matter how much you look, they won't have any.

"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.

I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.

With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.

This is about the smartest thing the Stoopid Party could do.

The young, hip electorate:
-hates wars
-hates government legislating morality
-hates taxes
-doesn't attend church to the degree that R's wants it to, and isn't going to change that
-refuses to be enslaved by the Baby Boomer Generation any more


THAT is why Ron Paul had a viral campaign exploding with hip youth energy and volunteerism.

I remember my grandparents asking me what I saw in this stodgy, tiny, shambling, funny-looking 70-something year old man, and how he could possibly resonate so effectively with so many young people.  We had a GREAT conversation about what he represented, and my grandparents really respected it. 

[Balog]

If the R's pandering to "centrists" ie leftists who don't want to admit it by running slightly less liberal versions of the D candidate, why the hell should I care if they win or not?

[Balog]

If "squishy moderate who ignores social issues" was a recipe for success Romney would've won in a landslide.

[Perd Hapley]

Well whatever y'all do, please tell your darling alt candidates to drop the social conservative BS. If I wanted to pick someone to tell me about God I'd walk down to the church. Constitution! Don't play the game where the left baits the social conservative bear, refuse to engage.

Third party candidates talking religion is our big problem right now? You mean Paul or Johnson, or both of them?

[charby]

I also wouldn't be surprised if Michael Bloomberg runs.

[TommyGunn]

I also wouldn't be surprised if Michael Bloomberg runs.

If he does I'm gonna write in Ghenghis Khan.

[longeyes]

The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity. 
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages. 
It would be a perfect economic storm.  Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.

I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.

There is always the prospect of game-changing new technological developments.  In fact it is a certainty that something "amazing" and unpredicted will come along. Whether it really changes the long-term trends is another story.

[Ron]

Get ready for the rolling out of free energy from some new form of fusion. That and free government soma for the asking.

[kgbsquirrel]

Get ready for the rolling out of free energy from some new form of fusion. That and free government soma for the asking.

Don't forget the free rations of SoyLent Red, Yellow and Green, and the soy oil butter substitute.

Oh, and I'm writing in Cthulhu. At least it is honest about it's intentions and will actually try to carry them through.

[SADShooter]

Don't forget the free rations of SoyLent Red, Yellow and Green, and the soy oil butter substitute.

Oh, and I'm writing in Cthulhu. At least it is honest about it's intentions and will actually try to carry them through.

"Soylent Green is made from...recalcitrant conservatives in reeducation camps."

[longeyes]

We have a lot to fear politically, no doubt about that, but anyone who wants to bet against one or two amazing breakthroughs is willing to do so.

Imagine the American economy in 2012 without all things digital.  Most of the far-seeing futurists of the early 20th century were far off base.

Cheap energy--fusion is one possibility--could give us a reprieve for a while, but of course it wouldn't change the underlying moral and social issues.  (That's where the Soma comes in.  :))

[Tallpine]

The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity. 
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages. 
It would be a perfect economic storm.  Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.

I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.

Obviously, taxing the rich (anyone with a job) is going to lead to an economic boom 

[RocketMan]

We have a lot to fear politically, no doubt about that, but anyone who wants to bet against one or two amazing breakthroughs is willing to do so.

Imagine the American economy in 2012 without all things digital.  Most of the far-seeing futurists of the early 20th century were far off base.

Cheap energy--fusion is one possibility--could give us a reprieve for a while, but of course it wouldn't change the underlying moral and social issues.  (That's where the Soma comes in.  :))

Cheap energy, I am afraid, is an oxymoron.  Energy will never again be cheap.  It is not a matter of availability, it's due to controls over supply.  Cheap energy engenders freedom.  Can't have that.
And fusion energy will certainly never happen, at least not without a miraculous paradigm-breaking shift in technology.  It's been "just around the corner" for 60 years.

[longeyes]

OK. I accept the reality of shifting demographics and attitudes. But the question is how to offer a meaningful alternative, without simply creating a "bidding war" promising different stuff for votes? So, the Republicans propose conditional amnesty, and Democrats up the ante with unconditional amnesty. Cave on principle and endorse contemporary views which mirror the Democratic platform just a bit more "moderately"?  What's the point of that?

I'm not sure conservatism can be made hip enough to appeal to people who simply don't want it.

Shifting demographics?  You mean liberty should step aside for fertility?  The fertility of a group of people many of whom arrived here illegally?  Excuse me, but that is an ignoble position, though not unexpected from the Republican hierarchy.

[longeyes]

Cheap energy, I am afraid, is an oxymoron.  Energy will never again be cheap.  It is not a matter of availability, it's due to controls over supply.  Cheap energy engenders freedom.  Can't have that.
And fusion energy will certainly never happen, at least not without a miraculous paradigm-breaking shift in technology.  It's been "just around the corner" for 60 years.

Well, you certainly have a point about the future of technology being politicized.  But that just tells us what we have to fight.