- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If you are a Republican strategist, what would be your goals and
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:32 am
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:32 am
objectives for rebuilding and unifying the party?
How do you squash the 'war on woman' rhetoric the Democrats are dominating with on the evening news?
The word "Equality" seems to be a challenge because of it's implications
93% of Blacks vote Democrats
these votes are essentially the reason Democrats are winning elections.
What should the new message be?
Is it possible to run a new campaign message that isn't divisive?
Leadership / team dysfunctions
How do you squash the 'war on woman' rhetoric the Democrats are dominating with on the evening news?
The word "Equality" seems to be a challenge because of it's implications
93% of Blacks vote Democrats
these votes are essentially the reason Democrats are winning elections.
What should the new message be?
Is it possible to run a new campaign message that isn't divisive?
Leadership / team dysfunctions
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 7:35 am
16
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:43 am to ApexTiger
quote:
these votes are essentially the reason Democrats are winning elections.
No
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:47 am to ApexTiger
quote:
what would be your goal
Just one. Lock up Carl Rove and Dick Morris somewhere in an isolated Rocky Mountain cabin somewhere until after the election is over.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:48 am to ApexTiger
quote:You can't. This is a line of argument that COMPLETELY relies on people being statistical idiots(and believing the 77 cents thing) along with people believing retarded shite like if I don't pay for your thing, I've somehow denied it to you. 90% of liberalism rhetoric is basically designed to take advantage of public stupidity. Unless you have some sort of ray that we can shoot at people and make them give a shite long enough to inform themselves, I got nothing.
How do you squash the 'war on woman' rhetoric the Democrats are dominating with on the evening news?
quote:And will continue to because the left successfully made not voting Democrat tantamount to not being an "authentic" black. A black person today coming out as a conservative basically has made the decision to have almost no black friends at best and to be publicly vilified by nearly all blacks at worst. That's a tough pill for a normal person to swallow.
93% of Blacks vote Democrats
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:48 am to ApexTiger
quote:
objectives for rebuilding and unifying the party?
frick unifying the party. The old fricks need to die off.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:50 am to ApexTiger
quote:
Is it possible to run a new campaign message that isn't divisive?
Yes, but it doesn't work very well. The boogeyman is effective at getting out the votes.
quote:
93% of Blacks vote Democrats
This and the growing number of Hispanic voters is a big problem. For every knucklehead you see on tv, there are 10 hard working AAs/Hispanics. Rand Paul has the right idea: appeal to those that know personal responsibility is the key to success. I'd focus on churches, community leaders and try to get them to start grass roots efforts to talk about responsibility, talking back the community, etc.
The problem is: as much as republicans like to think nobody is racist in their party, there are racists in the republican party. It is a small number but it's such an offensive message, you can't drown it out.
Also, when U.S. Congressmen wonder aloud if the President of The United States is really a citizen of this country... yeah, that doesn't help either. GOP is fricked on this one for the time being.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:51 am to ApexTiger
It's very simple. You lead with a dream. You lead with your beliefs first, and your policy second. People follow beliefs, they don't follow policy. People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. If you have a strong belief in what you're doing and you can verbalize it with conviction AND back it up with policy, people will follow that. Why? It's because it's the emotional part of the brain that ultimately makes decisions, not the part that controls logic or processes language.
I have long argued on this board that what small government-types need is some populism. Most libertarians and an-caps see populism as "pandering" or "talking down to people". In reality, it's nothing of the sort. Populism is speaking to the heart and soul of the people rather than just their pathos. People don't buy what you do they buy why you do it.
I would run as "the most honest man in show business". They couldn't "gotcha" me because it would all be out in the open. I am who I am, take me or leave me. I would say that I believe in the freedom of all men and all people. That we must restore freedom and individual liberty to the citizens of this nation. That government has grown too large and too combersome for far too long. The time has come to rise up and take our freedom back! And here's how we do it...
You must start with the belief first. Why you do what you do. What is your dream, your vision, your goal. Then go into how you would achieve it. Finally, after all of that, you say that you're running for public office and that people should vote for you if they share that belief.
People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it.
I have long argued on this board that what small government-types need is some populism. Most libertarians and an-caps see populism as "pandering" or "talking down to people". In reality, it's nothing of the sort. Populism is speaking to the heart and soul of the people rather than just their pathos. People don't buy what you do they buy why you do it.
I would run as "the most honest man in show business". They couldn't "gotcha" me because it would all be out in the open. I am who I am, take me or leave me. I would say that I believe in the freedom of all men and all people. That we must restore freedom and individual liberty to the citizens of this nation. That government has grown too large and too combersome for far too long. The time has come to rise up and take our freedom back! And here's how we do it...
You must start with the belief first. Why you do what you do. What is your dream, your vision, your goal. Then go into how you would achieve it. Finally, after all of that, you say that you're running for public office and that people should vote for you if they share that belief.
People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:54 am to ApexTiger
quote:
objectives for rebuilding and unifying the party?
Start with rejecting the Chamber of Commerce. That organization is filled with corporatist crony capitalistic filth.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:00 am to ApexTiger
Simply give up on the socially conservative "values."
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:00 am to ApexTiger
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
With this in mind, how does a party or movement that is for the reversal of this trend gain any traction with a society that is highly dependent (whether K-street or Elm Street), highly distracted and frankly doesn't give a shite?
The idea of limited federal government is inherently a losing one. Governments always tend towards centralization. The founders thought they had something to check this trend, but they always knew the caveat was the enlightenment and awareness of the people. Without that, you're better off being a liberal Democrat. Otherwise it appears to be a losing proposition.
With this in mind, how does a party or movement that is for the reversal of this trend gain any traction with a society that is highly dependent (whether K-street or Elm Street), highly distracted and frankly doesn't give a shite?
The idea of limited federal government is inherently a losing one. Governments always tend towards centralization. The founders thought they had something to check this trend, but they always knew the caveat was the enlightenment and awareness of the people. Without that, you're better off being a liberal Democrat. Otherwise it appears to be a losing proposition.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:01 am to a want
quote:
The problem is: as much as republicans like to think nobody is racist in their party, there are racists in the republican party
One guy believes that people of other races are stupid and beneath him, therefore should be shoved to the side. Another guy believes that people of other races are stupid and incapable of doing for themselves, so he has to do everything for them.
Wonder what the difference is?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:04 am to Mohican
quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
With this in mind, how does a party or movement that is for the reversal of this trend gain any traction with a society that is highly dependent (whether K-street or Elm Street), highly distracted and frankly doesn't give a shite?
The idea of limited federal government is inherently a losing one. Governments always tend towards centralization. The founders thought they had something to check this trend, but they always knew the caveat was the enlightenment and awareness of the people. Without that, you're better off being a liberal Democrat. Otherwise it appears to be a losing proposition.
Wow, that's pretty well stated..and kind of sad isn't it?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:05 am to Cajun Tigah
quote:
One guy believes that people of other races are stupid and beneath him, therefore should be shoved to the side. Another guy believes that people of other races are stupid and incapable of doing for themselves, so he has to do everything for them.
Wonder what the difference is?
Perceived help
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:06 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The old fricks need to die off.
Word
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:09 am to Mohican
quote:
The idea of limited federal government is inherently a losing one.
It is as long as the people living under that government believe it to be so. The key is to convince them that this thinking is false. The arguments can be made. People just need to argue them from the right viewpoints. Start with the beliefs and then go to the policy.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:11 am to Veritas
quote:
Simply give up on the socially conservative "values."
Gay Marriage is social value...that is important to Liberal Democrats who think it's an issue of Equality.. they care not about spiritual judgments
So you think conservative should just "give up" their social values so Liberals can have theirs?
Isn't that the tug of war?
I do think Conservatives should tone it down, but they can't fake who they are or what they really believe either
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:13 am to ApexTiger
Stop fighting for dead social issues, like now.
Stop saying crazy religious shite
Stop saying crazy religious shite
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:18 am to ApexTiger
quote:
Gay Marriage is social value...that is important to Liberal Democrats who think it's an issue of Equality.. they care not about spiritual judgments
So you think conservative should just "give up" their social values so Liberals can have theirs?
Isn't that the tug of war?
I do think Conservatives should tone it down, but they can't fake who they are or what they really believe either
No, they need to endorse individual liberty and create a solution that works for everyone, as I have frequently advocated on this board. You pass the FAIR Tax Act which eliminates the income tax, you abolish "marriage" as a government institution, pass a law that allows any two consenting adults to create "community property" (all previously married people would now fall under this jurisdiction). This automatically makes that person (if they didn't create the document after the law was passed, in that case, it could say whatever they want) their automatic beneficiary of benefits and assets in time of death, power of attorney, ect. They would get all of the legal rights of a married couple, except it's open to everyone and not called "marriage". The process of dissolving one is similar to divorce and can even be called "divorce" to keep things simple.
"Marriage" will simply be in the eye of the beholder. Anyone can be "married" if they say they are. Anyone can perform weddings if they want. They mean nothing in the eye of the state. If your church doesn't want to marry gay people, that's fine. If your chapel wants to marry only gay people? That's fine too. If your brother who's a High School Gym teacher wants to officiate your marriage, he can.
EVERYBODY WINS!
Trial lawyers keep divorce (and get more potential clients), conservatives keep their marriages, gays get their marriages, and everyone gets more rights and more freedom.
See, freedom is a winning concept for everyone when it is embraced.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:18 am to ApexTiger
No amount of strategy can stop the demographics train.
The Democrats have a strangle hold on the minority vote and it's all they need.
Obama lost the white vote by 20 points and still won.
Blacks will always vote for the Dem 90%+ and the Hispanic vote is going to settle in at probably 75% to 85% Dem.
That's all the Dems need at least for President.
The only thing the Republicans can do is to focus on keeping the House. They do have an advantage there because Dem voters tend to congregate into urban centers, leaving enough congressional districts outside of urban areas for Republicans to keep plenty of seats.
The Democrats have a strangle hold on the minority vote and it's all they need.
Obama lost the white vote by 20 points and still won.
Blacks will always vote for the Dem 90%+ and the Hispanic vote is going to settle in at probably 75% to 85% Dem.
That's all the Dems need at least for President.
The only thing the Republicans can do is to focus on keeping the House. They do have an advantage there because Dem voters tend to congregate into urban centers, leaving enough congressional districts outside of urban areas for Republicans to keep plenty of seats.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:24 am to ApexTiger
Have a Republican nominee that comes out and supports the legalization of marijuana and doesn't take a stance against gay marriage. The democrats wouldn't know what to do.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News