But Seriously...

The republicans have a huge problem, and that is that they are completely selling themselves out long-term for short term gains. They have been doing this since slightly before Obama won.

See, while I know I come off as very liberal, I am actually socially liberal/fiscally conservative. I get that lower taxes and a more simplified tax code can stimulate the economy and create jobs. I just don't want a guy advocating sexual assault and racism to be the guy doing it, and my socially liberal side outweighs my fiscally conservative side.

That said, in 2008, I was all ready to vote for John McCain. That is, until he chose Sarah Palin because he was afraid of losing the republican base. He shored up his republican base, but she was such a disaster it cost him the election. I really liked and respected McCain as a guy who could reach across the aisle, and since this incident, he has seemingly devolved like my Republicans into pandering only to their base. The Republicans are SO WORRIED about angering their base that it is destroying their party, because their base is, quite frankly, Trump voters... and we've seen what that means.

The republican base (vast, vast majority being white, and probably about 70 to 75% male) isn't going to vote for a democrat. Ever. I mean literally, the Democrats could find a way to clone Abraham Lincoln and run him as their Presidential nominee, and Republicans (and mind you, they call themselves the party of Lincoln) would vote against him for the simple (D) next to his name. They will not ever vote for a Democrat, ever ever ever. McCain fucked up by not realizing it is impossible for him to "lose the party base." You can't. As long as you have that (R) next to your name, a minimum of 30% of Americans will vote for you, regardless of what you do. Donny T is proving that right now.

So what should republicans do? Start thinking long-term instead of this short term bullshit, and take their party back.

Step 1: Don't drop Trump, but at least acknowledge his election is a losing cause and start focusing on maintaining the house and (maybe) the Senate. At this point, the Senate may even be a lost cause.

Step 2: Hold a hearing and approve Garland for supreme court justice. Yes, he will be fairly liberal, but from what I've seen, he would be to the liberal side what Kennedy is to the Conservative side; more of a swing vote. That would be a million times better for republicans than waiting for Hillary and a potential Democrat Senate majority to choose someone, because they'll be significantly more conservative. (on a side note: if Hillary wins, Dems need to convince Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire, cause she is almost certainly the next to go, and they'd rather she go during what will likely be Hillary's only term).

Step 3: Start building a candidate now, and make it someone that appeals to the middle and swing voters. Make a conscious decision to NOT pander to your base. They aren't going anywhere. They will turn out in 4 years to get rid of Hillary, so don't try and win them over. There is literally nothing on this planet that would make them vote against you as a republican, so don't pander. Aim for the middle. Who could do this? Off the top of my head, Paul Ryan seems the best choice, maybe even Rubio. You're going to have to fight off Ted Cruz, who WILL pander to the base, which brings me to:

Step 4: Amend your primary process. As shitty as it sounds, you need to go the Democrat "Superdelegate" route. I know it pissed off a lot of Dems to see the superdelegates "steal" the election from their boy Bernie, but take note: the vast majority of Bernie Bros fell in line and will vote for Hillary; just like the the republican base will. Stop worrying about losing a group that it is impossible to lose, and start focusing on winning the group you need to win, i.e. swing voters.

Honestly, if 2008 (pre-Palin) McCain would come back, I'd vote for him. If you could find an even remotely sensible republican candidate, that'd be amazing. Stop pandering to the lunatic minority in your party just because they're the loudest. Who gives a fuck. Go back to Nixon's pushing of the "Silent Majority." Those that aren't loud, aren't protesting, aren't going insane and frothing at the mouth about birth certificates and emails, and just want someone fucking sensible to run this country. Then, maybe, in 4 years, you could actually take back the house, senate, and White House.

Problem is: The Republicans won't do this. They live and die by whether or not their "base" is happy, and their base is never, ever fucking happy. More importantly, the majority of Americans are moving away from the Republican base, and that base is getting proportionally smaller by the year. They see the Birther bullshit, the pandering to people like David Duke, people defending Trump when he advocates sexual assault, and they just think the Republican base has lost their fucking minds, and the majority of Americans really don't want to be associated with that kind of thinking, which is why I think this election is a lost cause for the Republicans, and could mark the beginning of the end of their party.

BUT it doesn't have to be. This could be the beginning of a new era for their party if they take the lessons from this election and actually focus on a long term plan to regain some power and popularity. If they don't, the Republican party will be fractured in half within 8 years, into socially conservative and fiscally conservative. When one party splits 45%-50% of the vote, the other united side (Democrats) will almost always win.

 

They already did the majority of what you're saying.

Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb Bush had a strategy that was essentially a mirror of what you've just written. They know their base isn't going anywhere and that the democrats are killing them with women and minority voters, as well as swing voters who are just disgusted with the lunatics. Maybe what you're saying can still work if they find the right candidate who acts more careful strategically. Jeb Bush was blathering about women a lot during his campaign, and rather than compelling, it was awkward and annoying.

I like McCain a lot too, and as bad a choice as Palin was, the main reason he lost that election was the last few months of Bush's presidency put him hole he could never dig out of. Part of the reason I voted for Obama was I just couldn't trust someone who had stood by Bush through all of his bullshit.

 

See, I don't really think they are. Or, more accurately, I think they're very torn on whether to do this or not. They're tip-toeing around the idea, putting their foot in the water to test it, but not committing fully to changing the party and its reputation. Paul Ryan is a perfect example:

Ryan has said he won't campaign for Trump, but he won't un-endorse him, either. Why? Because he got heckled in Wisconsin by Trump supporters when he uninvited Trump and Pence didn't show. That scared the shit out of him, because he lacks the perspective that it is just a small minority doing it. Just un-endorse. What does Ryan have to lose? His district in Wisconsin isn't going anywhere, and from what I've seen it is a very heavily Republican district. He isn't in danger of losing his seat. Just say "fuck Trump."

In fact, this is the reason I think Cruz ISN'T going to back away from Trump despite everything that's happened. Cruz knows he needs that base to win the nomination in 4 years. Right now, based on the Republican primary system and the state the party is in, I think Ted Cruz is the next nominee unless something changes. He panders to the base better than anyone else in that party (he'll cast himself as Trump but more in control and politically savvy) but he is also just slightly above Trump in how he is viewed by independents and democrats. Cruz is the Republican Hillary: lifelong politician who will say or do ANYTHING for that whiff of power. If Cruz is the nominee, it will demonstrate that the Republicans have learned nothing, and this entire circus may just repeat itself in 2020.

If the Republicans make a concerted effort to change, though, starting NOW (no waiting and bullshitting) and put up a good nominee (again, Paul Ryan is a top choice if he quits fence sitting and just makes a stand, but I forgot about Kasich, maybe even Nikki Haley), they'll absolutely CRUSH Hillary in 2020, so much so that it wouldn't surprise me to see Dems panic and try to run someone against her, and you'd see the Democratic party start to unravel the way the Republicans have been. The best way to do that is to change their primary process to take the power away from the lunatics. Sure, the "base" won't be happy, but what are they going to do? Vote for "Killary?" Vote for any Dem that might "take away their guns and use them to shoot unborn babies while letting prisoners free with a $10,000 check from the government for their crack and gangsta parties?" C'mon. Worst case scenario, they don't show up, but even that is unlikely given how passionate their base is.

If they keep hemming and hawing about whether to stick with the sinking Trump ship or not, I don't just think it'll cost them the White House, its looking increasingly like they may lose the Senate, and some analysts are saying there is even a chance the Democrats take the House back. That was an unheard of possibility just a month ago.

In addition, the Senate needs to act on Garland now. Unfortunately, they're in recess until after the election, by which time it may be too late. If Hillary wins, I could easily see Obama withdrawing his nomination and just saying "well, Republicans, y'all got what you wanted. SUCK IT!"

Paul Ryan needs to give this speech the next time he speaks, except replace "My Old Man" with "Trump" and the Car with "The Republican base."

 

How does Ryan win in the primaries while essentially telling his base to go fuck themselves? It's a complex problem. Maybe the ship will have to sink and I'm kind of ok with that. The republicans need a moderate who can just get with the times and drop all of the antiquated nonsense. I agree with you that their base will always be angry. They're outraged by everything and they even hate many of their own politicians, but it's just not as simple as slipping a moderate through the cracks and trouncing the dems in the general election. It will be interesting to see what they do next election. Maybe they gang up on the Teds of their party and just barage them with scandals during the primaries.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make though. They need to change the primaries to be more like the democrats primaries. Ensure there are enough "superdelegates" or uncommitted delegates that, even if he doesn't quite have enough voted delegates, he'll have enough with super delegates. Give the party itself the ability to control who their nominee is, instead of the crazies. Then their nominee doesn't have to pander anymore; they can actually be somewhat moderate and still get the nomination.

 

I don't know the answer to this but at that point why does anyone vote in the primaries? DNC and RNC are just then selecting their nominee and saying, here you go, this is who you're voting for. We might actually get better candidates but I doubt the general public would ever sign off on that whether they understand it or not. I know I didn't offer a counter idea because I'm not sure how we attract better candidates, those who would be good or who would generally try to leave the country better rather than those who just want to get rich.

 

When Ted Cruz won nearly all the delegates in Colorado through backroom deals the republicans lost any chance of holding a contested convention. They tried to tell people that not letting a state vote was totally ok because that was the rules. Well, who's writing the rules? Uh, we are...

Trump stormed through the remainder of the primaries in a landslide. Kasich was talking publicly about holding a contested convention even if Trump secured enough delegates and people got fucking pissed. We have a very serious problem when states aren't voting and candidates are talking about throwing democracy into the proverbial wasteland of history.

These are the pieces of shit who run this country, whether we like it or not. The only bright thing I can take away from this election is that an outsider has a legitimate shot because there is no effective way to stop them from joining a party.

 

Again, it's the biggest issue with Presidential elections. The only people who vote in primaries are the absolute edges of the party. Every election is the same story: person says insane shit to win over lunatic base and win primary, then immediately takes it all back for the main election. Over the years, the fringe has gotten more and more out there, and the next thing you know you have Trump.

The options to fix it are as follows, if you're a republican:

1) find a way to get more mainstream or moderate minded republicans to vote in primaries. Difficult, if not neigh impossible.

2) go the democrats superdelegate route.

The other thing I need to point out is the fallacy of the democratic primary. Hillary beat Bernie. Not via superdelegates, though she had most of them, she beat Bernie by votes and regular delegates. She didn't hit the "necessary number," but that is because that's how the superdelegate system works. By pure vote numbers and delegate numbers, Hillary won. If Bernie had more votes and they chose Hillary anyway, then you'd have a case to rail against it.

The point of superdelegates, In my opinion, is to save a party from itself; to account for a primary where the only voters are the absolute fringe of the party; for situations like what is happening with the republicans right now. Think about it for a minute and you'll realize the primaries are a hilariously terrible way to choose a nominee.

"We're going to poll the most vocal and passionate 20% of our party (10% of the nation as a whole, give or take), and make who they choose our nominee."

"Will we at least chose SOME moderates?"

"Nope, just those who show up, which is almost entirely extremists, especially at caucuses."

"So were choosing our nominee based on the most fringe elements of our party, in the hopes of winning over undecided and independent moderate voters, by not giving a voice to any moderates."

"Yes, democracy!"

"We got a batshit crazy person? Whoda thunk it!"

Almost literally ANY OTHER Republican is destroying Hillary by 20 points right now. I will vote for Hillary, but I have no illusions that any other year she is getting smoked like weed in a Cheech and Chong movie. Sure, Trump people would've been mad at the time, but they'd have been thrilled to have any Republican in the White House over "Killary." Instead, they're shooting themselves in the head (foot is too nice for the mess that is the current Republican Party), because they're listening to the smallest, most vocal part of their party.

The only other option is fully open primaries, everywhere. Let anyone vote. No caucuses, all primaries, anyone can vote. Then make a massive "get out the vote" campaign to moderates to push a moderate candidate.

They won't do that, of course. Just don't be surprised when the republicans find themselves out of the White House for 20 straight years because they refuse to take their party back from the minority out of fear of angering those who are already angry and wouldn't leave them anyway.

 

Have anyone's political opinions changed because of these discussions? Likely no? Main reason I abstain from these conversations, they tend to be mostly about smugness and don't really influence anyone because the people engaging in them tend to be so entrenched anyway and those who aren't get out of Dodge.

 

I will state my opinion when I vote, not on an internet forum.

 

The problem is, in some cases (I.e. Caucuses and closed primaries) they don't ask you what you want for lunch. They come in and say "we voted and you're getting pizza." You ask "do I get a vote?" They respond with "we asked the first 5 people in the office. They chose. You could've had a say if you'd have shown up earlier or found us. We just figured you didn't care enough."

Or more accurately:

You work in an office of 100 people. 10 really want pizza, 10 really want sushi. They won't stop screaming at each other so the boss says the entire office will vote for a winner. Maybe you want burgers but when you say that they scream in your face that if you don't want pizza to "get out of the office." The other side just says "we can totally get you hamburgers later; sushi first." Then the entire office, 60 of whom don't want either, have to vote on pizza or sushi.

 

I agree. You guys seem awfully quick to give up on democracy as long as you get the candidate you want. Well, what happens 3 elections later when it's the candidate you hate, and not only you are unable to do anything about, neither can anyone in the general populace? With all the corruption in our politics right now, selling out more democracy sounds like a totally insane idea to me.

D26, the Bernie/Hillary contest was close in the general electorate. To defeat Trump, you would need a lot of superdelegates, more than the dems use right now. And that's even after the other ways the party has the election rigged for the establishment. Also, Cruz was second who is maybe even worse than Trump, and Kasich was so far into third you would pretty much have to discount the popular vote entirely to have put him into the general election.

Ok dude, we get it. You're above all of this.

Edit: It looks like Ryan is removing his endorsement of Trump.

 

Let me clarify: the current primary process isn't really democratic. Not everyone can vote. Hell, most can't vote in caucuses, and most primaries are closed. The people who do vote in those cases are the batshit insane fringes, which is how candidates like Trump happen. The reason for it is that the RNC and DNC make up their own rules about how they chose nominees. It is as democratic as they want it to be. If they decided tomorrow to abolish primaries and the party leadership would just choose, they can do that. Then it's up to the public to decide if they'd get behind that candidate. If the public at large truly doesn't like it, they'll reject the chosen candidate or vote independent. Shit, until the 1960s, primaries barely mattered, the party chose who they wanted (see: 1912 and the split between Teddy Roosevelt and Taft) anyway.

Either let the parties choose the nominees with some public input (I.e. Superdelegate route) or let anyone and everyone choose (I.e. Completely open primaries).

Pretending our current primaries are "democracy" is kind of a joke. They're not. At best they're republicanism (i.e. People choose someone (delegates) to make choices for them), at worst it is an oligarchy (i.e. Voting is limited to only those they want to vote, meaning their base). I'm just advocating the parties embrace the fact that the primaries aren't a docratic process and choose candidates that are worthy of the title of President, or go to a truly democratic process. Shit or get off the pot.

 

Juice Edit: Without commentary, no it isn't. If you're going to post a video, don't co-opt a pundit's views and just say it's relevant.

 

So those email leaks that are totally not from the Russian Government released their "smoking gun" where Sydney Blumenthal (top Clinton aide) admits Benghazi was preventable.

Except it was actually quotes from a Newsweek article. And the author called them on it.

So Trumps leaks are his words unedited (with likely more coming). Clinton leaks are looking increasingly likely to be either altered by Russian hackers hoping to influence election for Trump OR (more likely, honestly) Russians and Leakers diving on anything that might be a smoking gun of Hillary's guilt and being so eager they fuck up continually.

 

I am enjoying the sinking ship that is Trumps campaign and its interesting to watch people try to get away from it as fast as they can. Apparently there are worse clips of him out there and just today the Christian right thoroughly denounced him in one of their publications. Trump may be starting to gain water quicker and quicker, it'll be interesting to see what he pulls down with him.

He does remind me of a grade school bully. He's not using logic or reason but will say whatever he can to try to hurt someone regardless of whether is true or not. The only thing that matters to him is if he gets cheers and it feels good to him to say it.

 

What's funny to me is how they are praising his debate "performance". And how they think it actually matters at this point. If watching Hillary slightly struggle to respond to the behavior of an insane person indicates a win, where is the bar for victory?

I don't feel someone can win a debate if they don't actually argue substance. And if after the debate, it shows a lie/falsehood factor of 79%, that's also not a win. But I guess if you can be the bigger bully, that's a win?