Republican Party Called, "Too Old, Too White and Too Male"

[Junkman2008]

Before responding, understand this. I didn't write this article (see link) and I am not commenting on the subject until I get some opinions of the content from our resident conservatives. I want to know if there are those of you who feel that the article is complete BS or if it does have merit. Read and discuss.



BOSTON — President Barack Obama’s thrashing of Mitt Romney exposed glaring structural weaknesses in the GOP that will shut the Republicans out of the White House until they find a way to appeal to a rapidly changing America.

Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada.

Republicans face a crisis: The country is growing less white, and their coalition has become more white in recent years.

In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.

“The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who will immediately be looked to as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But the GOP’s problem is more fundamental than one bloc of voters. For the second consecutive presidential election, the Republican got thumped among women and young voters in the states that decided the election.

“Our party needs to realize that it’s too old and too white and too male and it needs to figure out how to catch up with the demographics of the country before it’s too late,” said Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union and a longtime GOP leader. “Our party needs a lot of work to do if we expect to be competitive in the near future.”

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a prospective 2014 statewide candidate in a state moving sharply to the middle, was just as blunt: “After tonight, the GOP had better figure out that a big tent sounds good, but if there aren’t any seats in it, what good is it.”

The desperate straits Republicans find themselves in are structural. But Romney should not be completely absolved of responsibility for his party’s ebb. He galloped to the right on immigration and reproductive issues in the GOP primary and only awkwardly attempted to move to the middle on those issues in the fall. His 50s-era persona was almost comically far removed from Americans who are in their 20s and 30s. And he never attempted to distance himself from or truly challenge a Republican Party that still bears bruises left from the Bush years.

But the rapidly growing population of minorities is something that looms larger than one flawed candidate.

Look no further than Florida, that reliable battleground that usually picks White House winners. Obama won there by only 2½ percentage points in 2008, but somehow found a way to eke out a narrow lead again in the face of 8.7 percent unemployment there.

Why? Partly because there are 190,000 more Hispanics and 50,000 more African-Americans in the state than there were in 2008.

Florida Republicans were staggered: Obama managed to actually increase a 20-point margin from 2008 in suburban Orlando’s Osceola County, home to thousands of Hispanic immigrants, to 25 points.

“Hispanics continue to grow in importance, and we need to embrace these voters for two reasons: It is simply the right thing to do, and it’s mandatory demographically if we are to avoid more presidential disappointments,” said former George W. Bush political director Matt Schlapp. “It’s about simple math and basic moral decency.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html

[Vette_Newb]

The GOP has been defeated from within. Gonna take one heck of a shake up to fix it.

On the plus side, they are running out of people to alienate from the party..

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

The GOP has been defeated from within. Gonna take one heck of a shake up to fix it.

Elaborate on this. Tell me why you feel this way.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

Elaborate on this. Tell me why you feel this way.

The GOP is going to have to become a principled party again, to gain any respect. Reagen won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Carter. Bush 1 won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Dukakis. GW Bush won in 2000 by presenting himself as a conservative, and a huge contrast to Gore.

Dole lost in 1996 trying to run as a moderate. McCain lost in 08 trying to run as a moderate, Romney lost in 2012 trying to run as a moderate.

The GOP has no principles, no values, no gameplan, no answers. That is not the GOP of the last 30 years. Extraordinary steps were taken within the party to cut-off and alienate as much of the base as possible, the leadership of the party is either the most incompetent of the last 3 decades, or isn't on the same team as the voters. I think the folks pulling the strings at the top of the party are wolves in sheeps clothing.

[c6vettedude]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

The GOP is going to have to become a principled party again, to gain any respect. Reagen won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Carter. Bush 1 won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Dukakis. GW Bush won in 2000 by presenting himself as a conservative, and a huge contrast to Gore.

Dole lost in 1996 trying to run as a moderate. McCain lost in 08 trying to run as a moderate, Romney lost in 2012 trying to run as a moderate.

The GOP has no principles, no values, no gameplan, no answers. That is not the GOP of the last 30 years. Extraordinary steps were taken within the party to cut-off and alienate as much of the base as possible, the leadership of the party is either the most incompetent of the last 3 decades, or isn't on the same team as the voters. I think the folks pulling the strings at the top of the party are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Good stuff, though I'd have to disagree with regards to "Moderates". I think on the contrary, the party went so far Right, that they've just turned a lot of people away and turned a lot of people off.

You do make good points with regards to those Races, but the electorate today compared with the electorate of 30-40 years ago from a political standpoint are more tolerant, more educated and have access to much more info. Also, with all of the current problems going on in our country and around the world, Americans want more than ever, for both Parties to work together. Too far Right or Left simply turns todays voters off.

[walleyfisher]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

The GOP is going to have to become a principled party again, to gain any respect. Reagen won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Carter. Bush 1 won as a conservative, presenting a huge contrast to Dukakis. GW Bush won in 2000 by presenting himself as a conservative, and a huge contrast to Gore.

Dole lost in 1996 trying to run as a moderate. McCain lost in 08 trying to run as a moderate, Romney lost in 2012 trying to run as a moderate.

100%

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

The GOP has no principles, no values, no gameplan, no answers. That is not the GOP of the last 30 years. Extraordinary steps were taken within the party to cut-off and alienate as much of the base as possible, the leadership of the party is either the most incompetent of the last 3 decades, or isn't on the same team as the voters. I think the folks pulling the strings at the top of the party are wolves in sheeps clothing.

I will agree to a point, The GOP still has its principles and values but will fold like a lawn chair when pressured. Obama and the media already proved you can make up stuff and make a big deal out of little stuff and repeat it enough it becomes the truth. I don't think anybody has a chance being electected now if they say and plan to do the tuff stuff to save our country. Talking about cutting any entitlement is the death sentence to being elected. Sorry to say but the only way a non-Democrate will get elected to POTUS is if there is a major failure while one is in office. Thats where we are now

[Texdentist]

Couple of comments. First, although whites are becoming a smaller portion of the population, they still were 72% of voters this time. If race were the dominant factor in voting, whites could still have their way with elections. But the fact that 72% of voters were white, and the "old white guy" didn't win, says that our demographic voting is not primarily about race. That's a good thing and should be noted.
Second, Mitt Romney - old?? OK, maybe a little older than Clinton, Bush, Obama. But historically top leaders have been at least in their late 50's, and most were well over 60. It's only in the last 20 years that youth has come to be desirable in a candidate, and that is largely due to the media coverage.
Third, does the GOP have some soul-searching to do? Absolutely. But the answer is not necessarily in younger, less white guys. They need to get on board with a rational, humane solution to the immigration problem more than anything else to draw another 10% of Hispanic voters. And my early choice for a 2016 candidate happens to be younger and less white -- Marco Rubio.

[walleyfisher]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

Good stuff, though I'd have to disagree with regards to "Moderates". I think on the contrary, the party went so far Right, that they've just turned a lot of people away and turned a lot of people off.

but if Romney were a true moderate and said he would say he would do what the majority of people wanted Don't cut spending, don't worry about the debt, and supply more government programs, what would the difference between Obamma and Romney then. The only way to stay Republican the Democrates will have to fail totally. Just ask the American public

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

You do make good points with regards to those Races, but the electorate today compared with the electorate of 30-40 years ago from a political standpoint are more tolerant, more educated and have access to much more info. Also, with all of the current problems going on in our country and around the world, Americans want more than ever, for both Parties to work together. Too far Right or Left simply turns todays voters off.

How can the two party's work together? The differences are to big. If the Republicans are the ones to have to conceed to get along whats the point of being Republican, again the public has shown dam the torpedoes full steam ahead. gimmy gimmy gimmy the national debt is something the republicans have invented to scare

[c6vettedude]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

but if Romney were a true moderate and said he would say he would do what the majority of people wanted Don't cut spending, don't worry about the debt, and supply more government programs, what would the difference between Obamma and Romney then. The only way to stay Republican the Democrates will have to fail totally. Just ask the American public



How can the two party's work together? The differences are to big. If the Republicans are the ones to have to conceed to get along whats the point of being Republican, again the public has shown dam the torpedoes full steam ahead. gimmy gimmy gimmy the national debt is something the republicans have invented to scare

Quite frankly, I don't believe many conservatives see Romney as a conservative.

Congress has worked together in the past with presidents to get stuff done. As for the debt, oh it's real. If you think that it doesn't matter, look at some of the countries in Europe. Hell, did you know that some of the ruins in Greece are on the stock markets?? That's what happens when you lose your sovereignty through debt. There are direct consequences...have you checked to see how much interest your getting in your savings and checkings? It's not directly related, but it is a consequence.

Your savings interest rate is a direct correlation to the value of the dollar. More debt isn't going to make the dollar more valuable.

Also, it was the Tea Party that brought the debt to the forefront of things.

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

Quite frankly, I don't believe many conservatives see Romney as a conservative.

Congress has worked together in the past with presidents to get stuff done. As for the debt, oh it's real. If you think that it doesn't matter, look at some of the countries in Europe. Hell, did you know that some of the ruins in Greece are on the stock markets?? That's what happens when you lose your sovereignty through debt. There are direct consequences...have you checked to see how much interest your getting in your savings and checkings? It's not directly related, but it is a consequence.

Your savings interest rate is a direct correlation to the value of the dollar. More debt isn't going to make the dollar more valuable.

Also, it was the Tea Party that brought the debt to the forefront of things.

I agree 100%.
Tell me though....what have the Democrats, the Democratic controlled Senate, or Obama done in the past 20 years to eliminate or even reduce this issue? How can the party of entitlements reduce debt when they won't consider reducing entitlements? We're already over taxed.

[MayZ]

It is my belief, not all Republicans endorse extremism, intolerance, and exclusivity. Conservatism is not owned by the Republican party.

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

... Also, with all of the current problems going on in our country and around the world, Americans want more than ever, for both Parties to work together. Too far Right or Left simply turns todays voters off.

BINGO. This is so true. This is why so many Americans are turned off to politics. We are tiered of seeing which party can one up the other, we want to see both parties building a stronger America.

This isn't Auburn versus Alabama, this is the United States of America.

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

... Talking about cutting any entitlement is the death sentence to being elected

But didn't Obama run on the premiss that he was going to do away with tax breaks for the rich? And if you ask me, $250 thousand a year ain't rich.

Originally Posted by Texdentist

Couple of comments. First, although whites are becoming a smaller portion of the population, they still were 72% of voters this time. If race were the dominant factor in voting, whites could still have their way with elections. But the fact that 72% of voters were white, and the "old white guy" didn't win, says that our demographic voting is not primarily about race.

Nailed it!

People are a lot more diverse and tolerant now compared to when I was a kid. Times have changed, and the GOP is lagging behind on changing with the times. I feel the same way as a lot of republicans do about immigration but there is a way to bring your message to the people and then there's a way to bring your message to your radical members. Guess which one wins more votes...

Originally Posted by Texdentist

It's only in the last 20 years that youth has come to be desirable in a candidate, and that is largely due to the media coverage.

Doc, you're two for two.

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

... How can the two party's work together? The differences are to big. If the Republicans are the ones to have to conceed to get along whats the point of being Republican...

Now that's the mentality that BOTH parties need to lose. It's not about conceding, it's about what's RIGHT for America.

Originally Posted by MayZ

It is my belief, not all Republicans endorse extremism, intolerance, and exclusivity. Conservatism is not owned by the Republican party.

BINGO.


Now, you all are making some good points but let's get back on the article that is the subject of this thread. For the conservatives on the forum, do you feel that it is dead on, half true or not true at all?

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

BINGO. This is so true. This is why so many Americans are turned off to politics. We are tiered of seeing which party can one up the other, we want to see both parties building a stronger America.

This isn't Auburn versus Alabama, this is the United States of America.



But didn't Obama run on the premiss that he was going to do away with tax breaks for the rich? And if you ask me, $250 thousand a year ain't rich.



Nailed it!

People are a lot more diverse and tolerant now compared to when I was a kid. Times have changed, and the GOP is lagging behind on changing with the times. I feel the same way as a lot of republicans do about immigration but there is a way to bring your message to the people and then there's a way to bring your message to your radical members. Guess which one wins more votes...



Doc, you're two for two.




Now that's the mentality that BOTH parties need to lose. It's not about conceding, it's about what's RIGHT for America.



BINGO.


Now, you all are making some good points but let's get back on the article that is the subject of this thread. For the conservatives on the forum, do you feel that it is dead on, half true or not true at all?

Your good at wooping it up and agreeing with others. How about stepping out of the comfort of your shadows and putting your opinion out there BEFORE you hear everyone elses? Just saying.

As for what's RIGHT FOR AMERICAN....why don't you expand on that for us? After all, it must be a simple agreement, since it is "What's Right". This country has never been more further split, except maybe during the Civil War, on what is "Right for America". The libs have been and remain in power. What is Right is their decision. Will they cram their point of view down our throats or will they do what the other 50% feel is "Right"? I have a feeling that you believe your beliefs are "Right". So tell us, what is "Right for America"?

Also-please explain to us how the "rich" being taxed higher is giving up an entitlement, as you put it?

[walleyfisher]

"Suggesting cutting entitlements is a death sentence to getting elected" (or something like that

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

But didn't Obama run on the premiss that he was going to do away with tax breaks for the rich? And if you ask me, $250 thousand a year ain't rich.
:

Didn't know cutting tax breaks for the rich was an entitlement, sounds more like revenge to me At least thats what the angry left wants and who does the angry left vote for?

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

"Suggesting cutting entitlements is a death sentence to getting elected" (or something like that



Didn't know cutting tax breaks for the rich was an entitlement, sounds more like revenge to me At least thats what the angry left wants and who does the angry left vote for?

The left want us to believe that a citizen keeping more of their own hard earned money is a government entitlement. After all, it is the government's money.

Funny how leftisms fall from some peoples minds.