Rebuild GOP: Reclaim and Comeback Strategies for Winning Again

[turbo]

Real conservatives that favor nationalized health care?

A single-payer health insurance system would help level the playing field between our country's companies and the foreign companies with which they compete. It would be good for business, especially since health-care coverage is their fastest-rising employee expense. It would also make certain that lower-income people (including working families who can't afford insurance) can get preventative health care, which is considerably cheaper than treating illnesses after they have gotten urgent.

The "conservatives" who rail against national health-care coverage and spread horror stories are the neo-cons who already have their coverage, and want to let the insurance companies continue to rake in cash from our health-care system while cherry-picking and denying coverage to people with serious illnesses. They are not conservatives at all, and it is irresponsible to let them get away with their illogical arguments that giving insurance companies free rein will somehow yield best results for our citizens. It is high time that the US joined the rest of the industrialized world in supplying a health-care safety net for its citizens.

 

[mheslep]

A single-payer health insurance system would help level the playing field between our country's companies and the foreign companies with which they compete. It would be good for business, especially since health-care coverage is their fastest-rising employee expense. It would also make certain that lower-income people (including working families who can't afford insurance) can get preventative health care, which is considerably cheaper than treating illnesses after they have gotten urgent.

The "conservatives" who rail against national health-care coverage and spread horror stories are the neo-cons who already have their coverage, and want to let the insurance companies continue to rake in cash from our health-care system while cherry-picking and denying coverage to people with serious illnesses.

By the same logic, why not have single payer food, housing, education, clothing, etc?

 

[mgb_phys]

By the same logic, why not have single payer food, housing, education, clothing, etc?

Or a single payer police, coastguard, fire service or army ?

 

[turbo]

Or a single payer police, coastguard, fire service or army ?

When Ben Franklin was active in Philadelphia, if you wanted fire protection, you had to buy the protection, and they would affix a badge to your home to denote the houses that the private fire companies would attempt to save from destruction. Anybody want to go back to that?

 

[Office_Shredder]

In ancient Rome, when the fire department got there they'd negotiate over how much they'd buy your house for from you while it burned (go figure, it dropped in value pretty fast) and then they'd save it after buying it for dirt cheap. I prefer that system

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Good point, Bob. There is little respect or deference shown by the Republican party to fiscal conservatives like me. Just lip service, borrow, and spend. I'd love to see the Democratic party redefine the Republican leadership for what it is - neo-con fiscal radicals who are willing to mortgage the future for the present.

A viewer of Lou Dobbs just described the situation rather nicely in an email.

What we see now is the long-term result of short-term thinking.

 

[mgb_phys]

When Ben Franklin was active in Philadelphia, if you wanted fire protection, you had to buy the protection, and they would affix a badge to your home to denote the houses that the private fire companies would attempt to save from destruction. Anybody want to go back to that?

You could do the same with policing your house.
If you are burgled you don't rely on the police to recover your property, you have insurance.
But you are still paying property taxes for the police. Simply extend the insurance to cover catching and prosecuting offenders if you thought that was a worthwhile use of your money. Just like contracting out other local city services.

You could have little signs on your lawn, but instead of saying monitored by XYZ security it would simply say Protected by city law inforcement. Then it's upto the burglar if he wants to choose to break into this home or the home next door protected by Mafia Security inc. Or if you prefer to have your own in-house solution you can use the money you saved to buy the shotgun.

 

[mheslep]

When Ben Franklin was active in Philadelphia, if you wanted fire protection, you had to buy the protection, and they would affix a badge to your home to denote the houses that the private fire companies would attempt to save from destruction. Anybody want to go back to that?

This mistakes fire fighting with fire insurance. Of course buildings weren't just allowed to burn down in a dense colonial city. We essentially still have that system, and Philadelphia became one of the safest cities in the world from fire at the time, since the implementation of private insurance forced people to take steps to improve fire hazards.

Though volunteer fire brigades responded to all fires, they had more compelling reason to fight fires at buildings bearing The Contributionship's hand-in-hand fire mark [insured]. These fire marks served several functions. They indicated to fire companies that The Contributionship would reward them for a job well done. Often, firefighters were members of The Contributionship. The less damage to a building, the less deducted from their own premiums. However, if a house was uninsured, the fire would be put out regardless, despite what some modern historians and interpreters may claim. In any case, fire brigades would usually bill the uninsured householder or an insurance company with properties nearby to seek payment for their fine work in battling the blaze.

Philadelphians were keenly aware that the growing city's economic well-being rested in the well-being of its citizenry. Allowing buildings to burn, perhaps spreading into larger fires, made no sense. Philadelphia understood even then the interconnectivity of its infrastructure and its economic health. When one citizen suffered, all suffered...

http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_contrib.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you know specifically how well they did in the southern white youth?

A look at some of the exit polls:

1. AR: McCain won about 68% of the white vote, 72% from older (>65 yrs.) whites but as much as 65% of whites 18-29.

2. KY: McCain won about 63% of the white vote and 57% of whites 18-29.

3. GA: McCain won the male vote and Obama easily won the female vote here, even though McCain won white females by a 3:1 margin. Also interesting, McCain won 79% of whites under 30. Obama did better among middle-aged whites than with the younger and older brackets.

4. AL & MS: McCain won a whopping 88% of the white vote in both these states.

Except for GA, the trend of a somewhat better performance for McCain with older whites than younger whites seems to hold among all the states I've looked at, not just Southern states.1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#ARP00p1
2. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#KYP00p1
3. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#GAP00p1
4a. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#ALP00p1
4b. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#MSP00p1

 

[Gokul43201]

You could do the same with policing your house.

Yes, yes.

k6CkltzGAxY[/youtube]

 

[Gokul43201]

I reject the premise of the thread. Considering that Obama's popular vote margin was relatively small despite getting a big boost from a recent stock market meltdown and presumed coming deep recession, I would have to say it was a pretty competitive election.

Did you forget to factor Obama's militant image?

So... that's 60%, then? I think McCain's chances are even better than that. I think the laundry list of electability problems that Obama has are going to be a serious problem. The most important is the militant black nationalist image.

 

[mathwonk]

anyone read the latest economist editorial, "LEXINGTON", p.44, november 15-21 edition? zorchh...

the last line is something like: " a famous conservative wrote a book called Ideas have consequences...some republicans today are refusing to accept that idiocy also has consequences."

(this magazine endorsed george bush in 2000.)

 

[LowlyPion]

anyone read the latest economist editorial, "LEXINGTON", p.44, november 15-21 edition? zorchh...

the last line is something like: " a famous conservative wrote a book called Ideas have consequences...some republicans today are refusing to accept that idiocy also has consequences."

(this magazine endorsed george bush in 2000.)

The rest of the article is pretty good as well:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247

 

[LowlyPion]

November 20, 2008
Poll: GOP image goes from bad to worse
Posted: 03:04 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party has hit a new low.

Just 34 percent of Americans in a Gallup Poll released Thursday say they have a favorable view of the party, down 40 percent from a month ago, before the election.

What’s worse: 61 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.

According to Gallup, that unfavorable rating is the highest the polling organization has recorded for the GOP since the measure was established in 1992.

The poll of national adults was conducted on November 13-16 with a three percent margin of error.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/poll-gop-image-goes-from-bad-to-worse/

 

[Astronuc]

For GOP: all pain, no gain - or - is this anyway to run a party?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090305/pl_politico/19636

Four months after John McCain’s sweeping defeat, senior Republicans are coming to grips with the fact that the party is still – in stock market terms – looking for the bottom.

Republicans this week are processing two sobering new polls that found the party’s support reduced to a slim one-quarter of Americans. In the absence of a popular elected leader, its most visible figure is a polarizing radio host. Its strategic powerhouse is a still-divisive former House speaker forced from power 15 years ago.

And its hopes of demonstrating swift and visible change by pushing people of color to the fore have been dented by the stumbles of the party’s two most prominent non-white leaders, national Chairman Michael Steele and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

So perhaps it’s no surprise that many prominent Republicans are forecasting a long winter.

“You think you hit bottom, and it can always go lower,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who said his party’s best hope is that President Barack Obama overreaches. “The Republicans just entered the wilderness – we’re going to wander around there for a little while before coming back stronger than ever.

. . . .

I don't think Rush will help.

 

[LowlyPion]

Rebuilding ...One brick at a time?
Well looks like the Republicans have their scapegoat. The final straw must have been the dissing of Boss Limbaugh.

RNC member calls on Steele to quit
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 03/05/09 09:44 AM [ET]
Michael Steele should resign as Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman, according to a committee member from North Carolina.

In an e-mail to fellow RNC members obtained by The Hill, Dr. Ada Fisher, North Carolina's national committeewoman, said Steele is "eroding confidence" in the GOP and that members of his transition team should encourage him to step aside. ...

Calling the Limbaugh-Steele clash a "Republican Horror Show," Fisher expressed what some other GOP strategists have until now only said privately: "I have never seen such ineptness in our GOP leadership," Fisher wrote. "And I though[t] we handled the 2008 elections very poorly."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-member-calls-on-steele-to-quit-2009-03-05.html

 

[LowlyPion]

Then of course there is this brick.

EXCLUSIVE: Rove Warns of 'Show Trial,' Says Dems 'Would Love to Have Me Barbecued'
Karl Rove tells FOX News he is looking forward to telling the House Judiciary Committee about his alleged role in the firing of federal prosecutors and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/ele...ve-rove-warns-trial-says-dems-love-barbecued/

Karl has it wrong however. I don't think it's just Democrats that would like to see him drying on the side of the barn. Speaking as an Independent ...

 

[BobG]

If you're only talking about Presidential elections, then some of the stuff Limbaugh says is right. As far as conservatives are concerned, the Republican Party doesn't need to be bigger.

Eventually, the economy is going to give you a swap in parties regardless of how conservative the candidate is. It's unlikely that the economy will be as bad as it is now in 2012, so it's unlikely Obama will be beaten in 2012. But, the economy is always cyclic and, sooner or later, Democrats will be blamed for a bad economy and a Republican will be elected President (the change in votes from Republican to Democrat was about the same across all ideologies in 2008).

If you're a conservative, may as well make it worth it. If you're a social conservative, Bush wasn't a total bust. Alito and Roberts will be on the Supreme Court a long time.

Now, if you're talking about Congressional elections and state elections, Democrats are going to accumulate some long term majorities if Republicans are willing to toss every moderate out of the party. That will have an impact, too - especially having majorities when districts are redrawn after the 2010 Census.

Some of the stuff Limbaugh says is right, but it's going to come with some serious penalties, as well.

During the last 3 presidential elections (from CNN exit polls):

                     2000      2004     2008
Democrat              39%       37%      39%
Independent           26%       26%      29%
Republican            35%       37%      32%

Liberal               20%       21%      22%
Moderate              50%       45%      44%
Conservative          29%       34%      34%

Ideology isn't getting more liberal, but the Republican Party might be shrinking. I think more moderates leave the party than conservatives (but I don't know of a poll showing that).

Or, the percentage of Republians was close to 35% in all three elections, with 2004 registering high and 2008 registering low. If there's really no change, then there's definitely no down side to Limbaugh's rhetoric.

 

[Astronuc]

Republicans See Their Party as Leaderless
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20090309/pl_rasmussen/republicanleader20090309

Who's in charge here?

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another 17% are undecided.

Just five percent (5%) view either John McCain, the GOP's unsuccessful 2008 presidential candidate, or new party chairman Michael Steele as the party's leader.

Two percent (2%) see conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh in that role, and one percent (1%) name McCain's running mate, Alaska Govenror Sarah Palin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are each seen as GOP leader by less than one-half of one percent.

Democrats have no question who's in charge. Two-thirds of the party's voters (66%) see President Barack Obama as their leader. Nobody else reaches even the five percent (5%) level.

. . . .

Leaderless or rudderless? I heard a radio call-in program where republicans and conservatives were arguing who is a real republican/conservative! I've also heard similar arguements among democrats/liberals.

 

[LowlyPion]

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader,...

Looks like the real percentage is closer to 85% to 90%, since only about 10% of the people can name a leader. That 17% undecided looks to be in with the 68% in not being able to name anyone.

 

[turbo]

Maine's senators are both moderate Republicans and they have come out publicly against Limbaugh and other extremists in the GOP. Since they win re-elections very handily here, criticizing the behavior of the right-wing is unlikely to hurt them with the voting public.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=243889&ac=PHnws

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is casting a shadow over the Republican Party's efforts to redefine itself after two losing election cycles.

For moderate U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who defied the party's national trend by easily winning re-election in Maine in 2006 and 2008, respectively, it's almost too much to bear.

"You'd think they might take a page out of our book rather than trying to fight it," Snowe said of the national GOP last week. "They don't want to acknowledge where they've gone wrong."

Limbaugh, who commands a national audience estimated at 14 million listeners a week, grabbed political headlines when, during a Feb. 28 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, he said he wants "Barack Obama to fail."