What's Next for the Republican Party?

[broncofan]

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?

Another thing to consider is that some of the dislike of Hillary is based on misogyny. She is mocked for what she wears, for wanting power, and generally not behaving as some traditionalists expect women to behave. The problem is that a lot of this sexism is so ingrained that even someone fleeing from the excesses of the Republican party might have some aversion to her and not know why...for the same reason some women on juries in rape cases engage in victim blaming. So it's quite possible that a woman is repulsed by the Republican stance on many women's rights issues but in some way carries around prejudices they are unaware of.

None of this is to say they aren't other reasons not to support Hillary Clinton.

[broncofan]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...gyn-kelly.html

Thought this was an interesting article about how Fox is trying to bring Trump back into the fold. Despite the lack of integrity it shows by Fox when it leaves its own reporter out to dry, at least it's acting more like a news station than an arm of the republican party. What I mean is, I think the truce with Roger Ailes means it is choosing ratings over the party agenda.

As I said, I think Trump is bad for the Republican party. But Fox has decided that as long as he's around and getting attention they might as well get the ratings from it.

[trish]

Often Trump supporters, when interviewed, say they like the fact that he doesn't need to be financed by billionaires because he has his own money. That's amusing on two counts: 1) It's like saying it's better to have an oligarch in White House than have wannabe oligarchs vying to influence the White House. 2) Trump is not nearly wealthy enough to finance a presidential campaign on his own. Indeed, yesterday he announced he'll be accepting money from big donors.

I'm wondering, should he get the nomination, will he divest himself and will he be making his tax records available? And what about that animal precariously perched on his head?...it doesn't look like any American animal I ever saw...where's it's birth certificate?

[broncofan]

Trump is the loosest of the loose canons. He is dead-set on building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico that would cost billions of dollars. Who knows what his foreign policy will be like but it has to be dangerous.

I agree about his net worth. Whatever the exact figure is I don't expect that a lot of it is liquid, but tied up in real estate with a lot of debt. As you say, I don't see how it's an advantage to be a wealthy person in a position of power (as you say, he may not be influenced by the wealthy but he will naturally identify with that interest group as a class member).

I don't see his wealth as a demerit but he has shown a flare for self-promotion rather than skill in investing or even economic forecasting. So I don't see how his hugely leveraged real estate empire, which was built from a substantial inheritance says anything about how efficiently he'll run the economy. I don't see what he offers other than divisive rhetoric, scapegoating, and bluster.

[Stavros]

I spent over an hour watching the Republican candidates debate from the Ronald Reagan library on Wednesday, and I must admit I have rarely come across people seeking the highest office in the USA and one of the most influential in world politics who come across as unintelligent, uninformed, and threatening to a frightening degree. While all or most of them paid great praise to what Reagan had achieved for the USA none of them said they wanted to follow Regan's example and ship millions of jobs overseas, and none of them implied that at the end of their term in office they would have borrowed so much money it would leave the USA with the largest budget deficit in its history.

That aside, Donald Trump comes across as a man who is, quite simply, rude. I suspect his rude remarks are a cover for an absence of policy detail, but Trump is not the only nutter on the list, because I was incredulous at the hysterical reactions to the negotiations with Iran, the public declaration 'I won't talk to Putin' and the fact that people can talk about building a wall across America to keep illegal immigrants out without once thinking in simple, practical terms what that would mean in practice.

It is true that after Friday prayers in Tehran a crowd gathers to shout 'Death to America' when the Ayatollah Khamene'i appears to greet them; it is also also true that the crowd has been smaller year on year, that it was never a spontaneous demonstration of loathing but a stage-managed event, and that across Iran mosque attendance has been falling, and that the UK recently re-opened its embassy n Tehran -because if anything the situation in Iran is calmer than it was, and less aggressive toward the USA than many might think. Iran is of course involved in the wars in Iraq, Syria and to a lesser extent in the Yemen, but so is the USA, but at no time did any of the candidates express any serious thought about the closest allies of the USA in the Middle East, where in Saudi Arabia people have their heads chopped off in public week in week out, are flogged to within an inch of their lives, week in week out, and where the long-established raising of money to attack the USA across the Middle East and inside the USA has been going since the days when Ronald Reagan was President. Supporting Saudi Arabia for the second time fighting the Yemen (as it did in the 1960s) and killing innocent civilians ought to be near the top of the agenda on foreign affairs, but like Cambodia in the 1970s, nobody seems to know or to care about the destruction or the deaths.

Candidates railed at the Iran's nuclear weapons as if they were rolling off the production line but none asked the obvious question -if Iran does produce a nuclear bomb will it use it, and if it uses it, what will be the response? Think it through and the candidates appear so out of touch with reality you wonder why men in white coats did not storm the stage.

Walls, wars and insults. Given the issues that the USA like other advanced capitalist economies has to deal with over the next 25 years, this line-up looked as if it should have taken place in a police station, not on prime time tv. And to think the Democrats are not that much more intelligent either.

Scary stuff.

[buttslinger]

When the People of the United States decided that we should elect our own Representatives to lead us, most of the World had Kings and Queens. Abraham Lincoln is considered to be a great President now, but when he was elected, half the Country left!!! Nixon was elected by a landslide his second term! And while Reagan is considered a God amongst Republicans, he had Alzheimers while he was President!
I think the reason you see a bunch of clowns running on the Republican side is everybody knows Hillary is going to be in the White House next, so who cares? The Republicans are picking who they want to lose to Clinton. (don't tell the voters that)
The problem isn't the Republican Slate, it's the American voters who only get serious about politicians when they're being indicted on TV. Cheney shot a guy when he was drunk. That woke people up.
From the HUNG ANGELS perspective, it's probably a good thing Trump is the Dynamic Presence in the Republican field, because if they had somebody with a real shot that would mean Gay Rights might grind to a screeching halt along with all the other Liberal concerns.
Carly Fiorina does have a face that would break a mirror. Jeez!

[martin48]

Can we hope for this?

[Stavros]

Is it not a paradox of contemporary American politics that the Republican Party does not look as if it can win a Presidential election but does look capable of maintaining a majority in Congress? If the Party is so weak, so divided, can its enduring success in Congress merely be the result of stale districts with majorities guaranteed by secure boundaries? Would boundary changes make a real difference?

[Stavros]

For those of you interested, The Times of London in an editorial today has voiced its support for Marco Rubio as the Republican candidate for President; highlighting its belief that Rubio can win back the 'Latino' vote for the GOP.

[trish]

Is it not a paradox of contemporary American politics that the Republican Party does not look as if it can win a Presidential election but does look capable of maintaining a majority in Congress? If the Party is so weak, so divided, can its enduring success in Congress merely be the result of stale districts with majorities guaranteed by secure boundaries? Would boundary changes make a real difference?

Here's my theory: I think the political makeup of Congress and largely be explained by gerrymandering. So in that sense "borders" make all the difference. By and large, in most States the population is concentrated in a few urban cities. The population of these urban centers lean democratic. There are fewer people living in the rural areas, towns and small cities. This largely conservative population (being spread out over a larger area) is partitioned into many more districts. So the representatives from these areas outnumber the urban representatives; i.e. instead of favoring the majority of people, the system favors the majority of districts. With gerrymandering one can secure a given representative's seat for a long time. Unfortunately, in a relatively recent decision, the Supreme Court bestowed its imprimatur upon the practice.


The Senate is elected differently, since there are exactly two senators per State. Besides the popular vote a Senator usually needs name recognition and of course she always needs monied backers.