While I disagree with Cenk that Romney was "crushed" (I still don't get that narrative from the left), I agree that the Republican party needs to become more socially liberal if they want to remain relevant. Demographics have changed, and the new voter will not stand for candidates or a party that won't move with them culturally.
To do list for the GOP
- Accept gay marriage
- Promote practical and welcoming immigration reform
- Come to the middle on abortion (but remain strongly against late term)
- Move from idealistic taxation stances. Namely, if you get an honest 10 to 1 deal on spending cuts vs tax increases, TAKE IT (just make sure the are tied to the cuts). But remain strongly against punitive progressive policies that hurt revenue and private investment.
- Reform existing regulation instead of moving to repeal it.
A Republican like that could even sway me. I really hope we get a good candidate next time around. I want to feel conflicted.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1776-3011
Nintendo ID: Valabrax
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
While I disagree with Cenk that Romney was "crushed" (I still don't get that narrative from the left), I agree that the Republican party needs to become more socially liberal if they want to remain relevant. Demographics have changed, and the new voter will not stand for candidates or a party that won't move with them culturally.
To do list for the GOP
- Accept gay marriage
- Promote practical and welcoming immigration reform
- Come to the middle on abortion (but remain strongly against late term)
- Move from idealistic taxation stances. Namely, if you get an honest 10 to 1 deal on spending cuts vs tax increases, TAKE IT (just make sure the are tied to the cuts). But remain strongly against punitive progressive policies that hurt revenue and private investment.
- Reform existing regulation instead of moving to repeal it.
It sucks how many people vote based on the emotions or being against gay marriage and being pro life. -___- If they make those changes, they need to be careful about it. They need to separate what their personal beliefs are from what they believe is best for the country.
For example gay marriage... they should take it right out of Obama's playbook. Say your personal belief is that marriage is between a man and woman, but also support equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and explain yourself. That would force democrats to go even more 'left' on the issue to keep their gay and lesbian base, and make the republican base reject them... or it would neutralize the issue.
Or on abortion... Republicans can say they're personally pro life. And they would hope that everyone would make the 'choice' to have the children, then turn around and state that they’re not going to force their beliefs on others, and state that they're not looking to overturn any of these laws... or something like that... and yes, stay against late term abortion.
Immigration is a big issue too. I'm not sure about how they could change their stance without at least rattling their base.
As for taxes... until people forget about Bush, across the board tax cuts, or any type of cuts for the top 5% will be unpopular. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and accept the popular position on things. If the model of empowering the middle/lower class fails, then that's when you go back and point out how well your old system works. Yes, if you truly believe in 'trickle down' economics, it is a very bad thing to put the economy in danger just to give the people what they want... but there really isn't a choice now, it failed and democrats will play on that until their own system fails.
The Democratic Party right now is way more conservative than it used to be in my opinion. And as they moved to the right, they republican party moved even further to the right to keep their identity separate. I think it's time for the republicans to start moving to the left, and forcing the democrats to start being more aggressively trying to appeal to their base.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
As for taxes... until people forget about Bush, across the board tax cuts, or any type of cuts for the top 5% will be unpopular. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and accept the popular position on things. If the model of empowering the middle/lower class fails, then that's when you go back and point out how well your old system works. Yes, if you truly believe in 'trickle down' economics, it is a very bad thing to put the economy in danger just to give the people what they want... but there really isn't a choice now, it failed and democrats will play on that until their own system fails.
The main problem with tax policy is that what makes for great policy makes horrible politics. Example: I'm a strong proponent of a progressive flat tax for income. Every dollar earned up to $35 - 40k is taxed at a low rate, maybe 5%., or not at all. Then every dollar earned above $40k us taxed at 25-30%, and that's that. This way the more you earn, the higher percentage of your income taxed at the higher rate. Someone who earns $50k only have $10k taxed, while someone who earns $140k have $100l taxed. Simple, easy, and no loopholes outside of charitable donations and maybe average home mortgages.
You may say: Well what about the super rich? The super rich don't pay earned income tax; they pay taxes on dividends and capital gains because while they don't work, the money they already earned (and paid income taxes on) does. Now we could tax this at a higher rate, but history shows this not only chases money away from investment (vital to the economy), but it also reduces the revenue derived from these taxes. It's a tricky balance between rates, participation, and revenue.
Now, take the content of those two paragraphs and challenge any politician to explain them in a debate, especially primary debates where you get 30 seconds to create a soundbite for 24/7 news media obsessed with tickling people's ballsacks instead of real news. This is why we get simplistic bullshit like "999" or "pay their fair share".
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
The main problem with tax policy is that what makes for great policy makes horrible politics.
At the end of the day, that's the problem. You explain it in a way that makes sense, then a Democrat will just be like "read between the lines, they want to tax the rich less and someone's going to have to pay for it *coughyoucough*"
I think it'd be better if the party is split on the issue like how democrats are now. But the public and media mainly pay attention to the presidential candidate, so he HAS to take the popular position on it. He can say he understands top down economics, and give a long explanation, but say that he's more in favor of the popular position.
Then when something gets on his table, if it's the popular stance or not, he can say making the change was better than doing nothing. Yeah that's misleading, but that's basically what Obama does. Note how he passed a healthcare bill that he was "against" in many ways as a candidate. That's just playing politics to get what you want... who knows, maybe he honestly didn't want a mandate, maybe he did... but he said he didn't, and that was popular and part of why he got in the position to make that decision.
Look at how the democrats treated Bush when he was president. They gave him just enough to get his agenda through, and it failed. And he got all the blame for it. They should give Obama a hand, and seem reasonable. Staying 100% against him 8 straight years will just result in them losing again because -EDIT- they will just blame all of their short comings and failures on Bush and the Republicans, and take credit for anything that happens good even if nothing changes that directly results in a positive change. "Hey we tried to pass the policy that you guys voted for, but the republicans stood together to block it. Get more of us in office to stop this!"
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
Great article, one point I thought I would draw out:
Quote:
Mitt Romney won the nomination for the simple reason that every other contender was utterly beyond the pale of national acceptability
Why was every candidate so terrible? Normally I'd say it's because none of the really good candidates wanted to run against an incumbent, but I see you guys saying things like "they had a softball and whiffed." If it was truly that easy to oust the current president, why didn't "better" candidates step up?
I mean, c'mon. Santorum? Rick Perry? Those guys are joke fodder for the Daily Show, nothing more.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1776-3011
Nintendo ID: Valabrax
Great article, one point I thought I would draw out:
Why was every candidate so terrible? Normally I'd say it's because none of the really good candidates wanted to run against an incumbent, but I see you guys saying things like "they had a softball and whiffed." If it was truly that easy to oust the current president, why didn't "better" candidates step up?
I made those comments in hindsight, and they were more about how many votes the Romney lost than Pres. Obama lost. I don't think the Republican party ever thought they wouldn't have an increase in turnout in this election, and that's why they were so confident.
As for bad candidates, I think that can be attributed to 1) self-promotion, and 2) the misguided idea that taking a hard right turn in the social realm of politics would push up Republican turnout.
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
I made those comments in hindsight, and they were more about how many votes the Romney lost than Pres. Obama lost. I don't think the Republican party ever thought they wouldn't have an increase in turnout in this election, and that's why they were so confident.
As for bad candidates, I think that can be attributed to 1) self-promotion, and 2) the misguided idea that taking a hard right turn in the social realm of politics would push up Republican turnout.
I also think.. at least to me.. that most on the right weren't pushing for Romney..but pushing to remove Obama.
Dislike can only get you so far.. they really needed to show WHY we needed Romney.. not just why Obama should go.
Feel same thing happened in 04 with Bush and Kerry
Any candidate who gets nominated automatically must be an 'evil' rich-douche. Obammy included. Evil rich-douche against evil rich-douche means most Americans can't see past the 9th inning in a 170+ game season, so they put their money on the one team who is most likely not to totally fuck up their hope for a good stretch. Chance at actual pennant.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
Hybrid Mode
