Why the republican party doesnt appeal to people...

[StormfrontFL]

Don't you? They threw everything but the kitchen sink in that diatribe. If you want to get them fummin and spittin just mention Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the erstwhile attorney general Eric Holder who was the only one who had any real power.

One would think they didn't know any other black people

 

[Greysun]

One would think they didn't know any other black people

You mean there are more than three?? Egads! Someone tell Reince Priebus! HURRY! This is a game changer.

 

[deleted15807]

By "struggle to reform" they mean to stop appealing to homophobes, racists, anti-immigrants and the like....

Donald Trump, 'Wrestling A Pig,' And The GOP's Struggle To Reform

Republicans have been talking about reforming their party since President Obama's re-election in 2012. The recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage and Obamacare and the reversal of several Southern Republican governors on the Confederate battle flag gave the GOP a new chance. But change can be hard.

In presidential years, the party has a math problem, according to GOP strategist Steve Schmidt. He points out that while Democrats are attracting growing segments of the population, like Latinos and Asians, Republicans are relying on their traditional base of white voters.

"Every single demographic group in the country that is growing, Democrats are growing their market share," said Schmidt, who ran John McCain's ill-fated 2008 presidential campaign. "Every single demographic group that is shrinking, Republicans are growing their market share. That's a fundamental marketing problem."
​

They're like a business struggling to find new sources of revenue while still punch drunk on their cash cow. Even as the cow is dying.

 

[Greysun]

Problem is that, if they embrace the reforms they need to reinvigorate the party, the "cash cow" will kick them off.

 

[deleted15807]

Here here!!!

He may be saying things more colorfully than others when he talks about Mexico sending rapists across the border, but his views show that, far from being an outlier, he is hitting all the erogenous zones of the GOP electorate.

Donald Trump is the monster the GOP created​

 

[Calboner]

An excellent summation of the case against the present-day GOP here:

"Really, it’s time to shut down the GOP: A deeply unserious party, hijacked by lunatics and Fox News, is driving us all into a ditch" (Sean Illing, Salon, July 21, 2015)

Trump, quite literally, is an actor; he’s delivering the lines his audience (the Republican base) wants to hear. But he’s not the first of his kind. He’s doing what many Republicans have done in recent years: pretend to run for president in order to promote his personal brand. Trump is playing a role previously filled by people like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, both of whom, at one point, were front-runners in the race for the Republican nomination. And of course there’s Sarah Palin, the failed reality-TV star and once half-lucid part-time governor of Alaska who Republicans thought capable of running the country.

Everyone (well, almost everyone) acknowledges that Trump is a bloviating clown totally unfit for public office, but is he really that much different than Herman Cain or Sarah Palin? None of these people have any business running for president or vice president or any other office. Bachmann, admittedly, was at least an experienced member of Congress, but her campaign was thoroughly unserious. Like so many of her fellow Republicans, Bachmann became a Pez dispenser of fatuous Fox News talking points – and that’s the problem.

These people exist in the Republican Party for a reason: the GOP sold its soul to Fox News and the broader conservative mediascape years ago. Republicans are now constrained by these forces, which manufacture unhinged, absolutist narratives that dominate discourse in the party. Republicans, as a result, can’t afford to compromise or propose realistic policies – the zealots won’t let them. Worse still, any Republican who dares to step out of line gets pummeled on Fox News for weeks on end. In the face of such pressure, is it any wonder the GOP has become what it has?

The GOP, in many respects, is no longer a legitimate governing party. They’ve become a self-perpetuating hype machine, a jobs program for conservative political entrepreneurs. When running for office, Republicans are forced to say and do stupid things in order appease their disconnected base, whose worldview is shaped almost exclusively by conservative media. When elected, Republicans continue to say and do stupid things – and for the same reasons. This is what they’ve become. Trump didn’t emerge wondrously out of a whirlwind; he’s an authentic expression of the contemporary Republican Party. If he wasn’t, he would have been laughed out of the room, not catapulted to the top of the polls by Republican voters.​

 

[jaap_stam]

An excellent summation of the case against the present-day GOP here:

"Really, it’s time to shut down the GOP: A deeply unserious party, hijacked by lunatics and Fox News, is driving us all into a ditch" (Sean Illing, Salon, July 21, 2015)

Trump, quite literally, is an actor; he’s delivering the lines his audience (the Republican base) wants to hear. But he’s not the first of his kind. He’s doing what many Republicans have done in recent years: pretend to run for president in order to promote his personal brand. Trump is playing a role previously filled by people like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, both of whom, at one point, were front-runners in the race for the Republican nomination. And of course there’s Sarah Palin, the failed reality-TV star and once half-lucid part-time governor of Alaska who Republicans thought capable of running the country.

Everyone (well, almost everyone) acknowledges that Trump is a bloviating clown totally unfit for public office, but is he really that much different than Herman Cain or Sarah Palin? None of these people have any business running for president or vice president or any other office. Bachmann, admittedly, was at least an experienced member of Congress, but her campaign was thoroughly unserious. Like so many of her fellow Republicans, Bachmann became a Pez dispenser of fatuous Fox News talking points – and that’s the problem.

These people exist in the Republican Party for a reason: the GOP sold its soul to Fox News and the broader conservative mediascape years ago. Republicans are now constrained by these forces, which manufacture unhinged, absolutist narratives that dominate discourse in the party. Republicans, as a result, can’t afford to compromise or propose realistic policies – the zealots won’t let them. Worse still, any Republican who dares to step out of line gets pummeled on Fox News for weeks on end. In the face of such pressure, is it any wonder the GOP has become what it has?

The GOP, in many respects, is no longer a legitimate governing party. They’ve become a self-perpetuating hype machine, a jobs program for conservative political entrepreneurs. When running for office, Republicans are forced to say and do stupid things in order appease their disconnected base, whose worldview is shaped almost exclusively by conservative media. When elected, Republicans continue to say and do stupid things – and for the same reasons. This is what they’ve become. Trump didn’t emerge wondrously out of a whirlwind; he’s an authentic expression of the contemporary Republican Party. If he wasn’t, he would have been laughed out of the room, not catapulted to the top of the polls by Republican voters.​

Interesting article. But a lot of pot calling the kettle black. I would say Bernie Sanders is the cariacature from the Democrat side of the aisle, created (or sustained) by the same hype machine, just from the other party. It takes an extreme sense of self-righteousness to absolutely refuse to see the genuine beliefs held by "extreme" candidates in favor of the blown up talking points that get endlessly retread on this same criticized media hype machine.

In other words, the issue isn't Donald Trump or any other extreme candidate getting airtime for "unserious" views. It's the fact that so many are so willing to become ideologically entrenched based on party lines that they have lost the desire to empathize and relate to the fears and perspectives of those who hold differing sets of values.

 

[jaap_stam]

Not that I disbelieve the idea that Trump may be a ringer who is running interference for another candidate in order to negotiate for some kickbacks down the road.

 

[Calboner]

Interesting article. But a lot of pot calling the kettle black. I would say Bernie Sanders is the cariacature from the Democrat side of the aisle, created (or sustained) by the same hype machine, just from the other party. It takes an extreme sense of self-righteousness to absolutely refuse to see the genuine beliefs held by "extreme" candidates in favor of the blown up talking points that get endlessly retread on this same criticized media hype machine.

In other words, the issue isn't Donald Trump or any other extreme candidate getting airtime for "unserious" views. It's the fact that so many are so willing to become ideologically entrenched based on party lines that they have lost the desire to empathize and relate to the fears and perspectives of those who hold differing sets of values.

That is by far the most ill-considered and unintelligent post that I have ever seen from you. Show me one specific in which the policies of Bernie Sanders are "extreme" or a "caricature." Show me one fact that would show him to be unserious. The idea that he can be in any way likened with buffoons like Donald Trump and Ben Carson is preposterous.

 

[jaap_stam]

That is by far the most ill-considered and unintelligent post that I have ever seen from you. Show me one specific in which the policies of Bernie Sanders are "extreme" or a "caricature." Show me one fact that would show him to be unserious. The idea that he can be in any way likened with buffoons like Donald Trump and Ben Carson is preposterous.

I have already posted a number of articles that show how and why Sanders has failed to appeal to the non-white groups within the Democratic party, so I will not beat that dead horse. He does have a very curious connection to the pro-gun lobby, as well as border patrol groups on the Mexican border - connections that are inconsistent with his democratic socialist persona
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/...ed-to-protect-racist-vigilante-border-militia

To a certain extent, almost every political personality is a cariacature or persona. Despite stump speeches and campaign promises, most US presidents tend to be fairly centrist in practice:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-jo...most-liberal-president-lbj-doesnt-really-mean

This is largely because in aggregate, the citizenry is relatively moderate in ideology.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~glenz/openprimary/openprimary.pdf

In the case of Bernie Sanders, he is unserious because when you dig beneath the philosophizing - what actual allies or resources does he have to implement his agenda? He does not have establishment support, has a demographic issue within his own party, and his "democratic socialism" is distasteful even to moderate conservatives. A serious candidate has not only a platform, but the necessary allies and access the requisite resources to execute that platform. You really think Bernie and his white, urban liberal support base will by themselves transform the US into a democratic socialist paradise?

The GOP has shown itself to be willing to commit economic suicide to block a president with ample establishment support and good approval ratings (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/us-debt-downgraded-by-sp.html). Bernie as president would get destroyed.

 

[temptotalk]

Republicans like the Republican Party less and less. Why?

These latest approval numbers for the GOP show that party leaders who are nervous about Trump have real reason to be. If they don't cut ties with Trump, and do it quickly, their nightmare appears to be on its way to becoming true: People are associating Trump with the Republican Party -- and as a result, turning away from the party itself.

I don't really see any other politician from other groups having the same effects as republicans when it comes to appealing to certain groups. Guessing thats their burden. One they haven't handled very well. Which sucks for everybody.

 

[temptotalk]

The Planned Parenthood hoax has devolved into a string of Nazi comparisons

Why is there little appeal for the republican party? Cause of how many of them act.

 

[jaap_stam]

The Planned Parenthood hoax has devolved into a string of Nazi comparisons

Why is there little appeal for the republican party? Cause of how many of them act.

Resorting to comparing something to Nazi's to demonstrate its "evil" is the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, and shows the person doing the comparison as unwilling or unable to make a reasoned criticism.

 

[temptotalk]

Resorting to comparing something to Nazi's to demonstrate its "evil" is the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, and shows the person doing the comparison as unwilling or unable to make a reasoned criticism.

I partly agree. That is when we aren't talking about people waving nazi flags or people following the nazi ideals (which is something that doesn't really get called out as being nazi ideals, instead it's "they have mental issues"). As far as i can tell it's the same calling someone a race baiter or feminazi. The only thing behind it is fear mongering. And the attempt is to completely and utterly silence competing ideas.

 

[Calboner]

I have already posted a number of articles that show how and why Sanders has failed to appeal to the non-white groups within the Democratic party, so I will not beat that dead horse. He does have a very curious connection to the pro-gun lobby, as well as border patrol groups on the Mexican border - connections that are inconsistent with his democratic socialist persona
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/...ed-to-protect-racist-vigilante-border-militia

To a certain extent, almost every political personality is a cariacature or persona. Despite stump speeches and campaign promises, most US presidents tend to be fairly centrist in practice:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-jo...most-liberal-president-lbj-doesnt-really-mean

This is largely because in aggregate, the citizenry is relatively moderate in ideology.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~glenz/openprimary/openprimary.pdf

In the case of Bernie Sanders, he is unserious because when you dig beneath the philosophizing - what actual allies or resources does he have to implement his agenda? He does not have establishment support, has a demographic issue within his own party, and his "democratic socialism" is distasteful even to moderate conservatives. A serious candidate has not only a platform, but the necessary allies and access the requisite resources to execute that platform. You really think Bernie and his white, urban liberal support base will by themselves transform the US into a democratic socialist paradise?

The GOP has shown itself to be willing to commit economic suicide to block a president with ample establishment support and good approval ratings (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/us-debt-downgraded-by-sp.html). Bernie as president would get destroyed.

None of this justifies putting Bernie Sanders into a category with Donald Trump, who is purely a vanity candidate.

 

[jaap_stam]

None of this justifies putting Bernie Sanders into a category with Donald Trump, who is purely a vanity candidate.

Clinton has a historic lead over Sanders. Given his very narrow appeal, and utter unsuitability as an actual president, his only real impact is to force Clinton to "talk more lefty" during the primary. He is the definition of a vanity candidate.

I know, it's hard to acknowledge about a candidate whose politics you actually like. Not all vanity candidates/cariacatures are Colbert-like, grossly exaggerated parodies of broadly unpalatable viewpoints. For what it's worth, I think Trump's candidacy is more for his personal profile and for political sabotage than an actual desire to be president.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Clinton has a historic lead over Sanders.

Historic? I wonder.
Gallup has released a poll this month that shows Sanders' favourable rating up to 24 percent from 12 percent in March, a doubling. He remains clearly behind Clinton, whose favourability rating is 43 percent, a five-point slip from March. But it is clear who has the momentum. And it seems clear that his being only 19 percent behind her (and closing) hardly represents a historic lead on Clinton's part. (Clinton's unfavourable rating, one should add, has increased to 46 percent, giving her a net rating of minus three percent, hardly a comfort-giving performance.)

Given his very narrow appeal, and utter unsuitability as an actual president, his only real impact is to force Clinton to "talk more lefty" during the primary. He is the definition of a vanity candidate.

I don't believe he is a vanity candidate. I think he feels a near-holy mission to increase the penetration of truly left opinion during the campaign. There is nothing narcissistic about this. His has been a selfless crusade, one which has never before enjoyed the positive prospects he enjoys in this outing.

 

[hckyfan03]

Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air.

 

[jaap_stam]

Historic? I wonder.
Gallup has released a poll this month that shows Sanders' favourable rating up to 24 percent from 12 percent in March, a doubling. He remains clearly behind Clinton, whose favourability rating is 43 percent, a five-point slip from March. But it is clear who has the momentum. And it seems clear that his being only 19 percent behind her (and closing) hardly represents a historic lead on Clinton's part. (Clinton's unfavourable rating, one should add, has increased to 46 percent, giving her a net rating of minus three percent, hardly a comfort-giving performance.)



I don't believe he is a vanity candidate. I think he feels a near-holy mission to increase the penetration of truly left opinion during the campaign. There is nothing narcissistic about this. His has been a selfless crusade, one which has never before enjoyed the positive prospects he enjoys in this outing.

I'm not talking about favorability rating. I'm talking about "who will you vote for in the primary" polling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-most-fractured-in-recent-memory-by-a-lot/
There is a difference in the question between the two, and the latter is more meaningful. Citizens often vote for candidates they find distasteful for pragmatic or other psychological reasons.

And being on a "near holy mission" to spread your personal belief system is the ultimate height of narcissism. No matter how much you sacrifice of yourself to do so. I deeply distrust ideologues because for them, the ideology is more important than the implementation and people in general - being naturally moderate - will suffer as a consequence. Some of the most bloody leaders of the 20th century were on "near holy missions" to push their personal ideology, and racked up quite the impressive body count.

I trust a Donald Trump, a self-aggrandizing politician more because at least they can be easily bought off and are less of a danger of getting carried away with self-righteousness.

 

[jaap_stam]

*Note - the last sentence of the comment above was not at all an endorsement of Donald Trump