• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the GOP Needs No Agenda

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,767
Reaction score
23,379
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.
 
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election
No reason to be shocked...just get informed.

The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
 
No reason to be shocked...just get informed.

The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
And nothing had changed, no new developments in the world in the four years? Face it, this is an exaggeration, but it brought to mind Germans personal oath of loyalty to old Adolf, which of course is what Trump demands. A more benign explanation might be "L'etat, c'est moi... ou c'est Trump." But a good "why bother" explanation came from one republican, who said that Trump at some point would probably contradict whatever was the party's platform.
 
In 22 years of my interest in politics, they have had no agenda. It's lies, fear and hate mongering. I'ts "eveyrthing is the fault of stupid poopyhead liberals, scary brown people and those immigrant rapists.

Pandering to dumb scumbags and greedy, selfish assholes for at least 22 years. Probably a lot longer

It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.

They have rigged the system so much. NOw they have stacked the courts they know will rule in thier favor. Look at the panic after the great turnouts, desperate to make it harder to vote, make it easier to throw out votes they want. Look at how many Trump scum election deniers are not in charge. THey are actually going to steal the election like they actually did in the past with Bush-Gore garbage.
 
And nothing had changed, no new developments in the world in the four years?
The only thing that has changed is the damage the Biden pukes have done in less than two years. That may take an entire term or two to correct.
 
I started this thread in the Loft to avoid these kinds of responses. Can we address the topic? Read the links? Think before shooting?

The point is discuss why unpopularity is not a deterrent in politics, and policy isn't necessary.
 
No reason to be shocked...just get informed.

The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
Shrug...so the agenda is for Trump Traitors to conduct another insurrection?

Not exactly an agenda to be proud of.
 
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.
It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.

I have often observed that Republicans always win the PR battle because Democrats stick to the facts, are limited by them, depend on well informed voters (of which there are a minority; ) but Republicans are unlimited in their arguments by the facts, only by their imagination. They don't need facts to gather up votes using emotion and dirty politics.

Instead of arguing issues, they simply argue how bad Democrats are, or they make up nonsense about Democrats or perceived 'outrages.' Think: CRT. A theory to use government systemic policy to address racism, which got turned into "If you're white you are automatically a racist" by Tucker Carlson.
 
Last edited:
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.
Thirty years of intensive conditioning by conservative media is how and why they got to be this way.

And that all started in response to the fallout from Nixon. The party fell out of favor and couldn’t win elections. So Gingrich came along with the plan to baldly manipulate their voters and Fox and talk radio was the vector.

Now we just have folks on the right who only do as they were conditioned to: believe everything their media tells them and reject out of hand any other information as it is all lies.
 
It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.

I have often observed that Republicans always win the PR battle because Democrats stick to the facts, are limited by them, depend on well informed voters (of which there are a minority; ) but Republicans are unlimited in their arguments by the facts, only by their imagination. They don't need facts to gather up votes using emotion and dirty politics.

Instead of arguing issues, they simply argue how bad Democrats are, or they make up nonsense about Democrats or perceived 'outrages.' Think: CRT. A theory to use government systemic policy to address racism, which got turned into "If you're white you are automatically a racist" by Tucker Carlson.
And the other reason they do not reveal their political agenda is that it is not popular with the majority of voters. Economically it is the same as under GW Bush..coddle the wealthy and big corporations for donations.
 
They have rigged the system so much. NOw they have stacked the courts they know will rule in thier favor.
Here, I think, is something that addresses the central issue in the thread. Is it because they have "achieved their agenda"? Is the agenda to not have any check on their authority?
 
Thirty years of intensive conditioning by conservative media is how and why they got to be this way.

And that all started in response to the fallout from Nixon. The party fell out of favor and couldn’t win elections. So Gingrich came along with the plan to baldly manipulate their voters and Fox and talk radio was the vector.

Now we just have folks on the right who only do as they were conditioned to: believe everything their media tells them and reject out of hand any other information as it is all lies.
And the other reason they do not reveal their political agenda is that it is not popular with the majority of voters. Economically it is the same as under GW Bush..coddle the wealthy and big corporations for donations.

It is interesting you should raise this. Another aspect of the situation is not just the polarization that has occurred over that span, but the scope of it. The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades (Pew)
What is interesting about the graphs - based upon consistent polling - is that the polarization is not uniform.

Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have to the left
FT_22.02.22_CongressPolarization_chamber_party_new1.png

But, the primary result of this polarization is that it intensifies itself: Because of the primary process that determines the vast majority of elections, at least in the House, the more extreme the candidate, the more intense their following. When there are numerous candidates, that means a dedicated minority can control the outcome. As a result candidates have become increasingly unrepresentative of their constituencies.
  • Both parties have grown more ideologically cohesive. There are now only about two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans left on Capitol Hill, versus more than 160 in 1971-72.
  • Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative.
  • The geographic and demographic makeup of both congressional parties has changed dramatically. Nearly half of House Republicans now come from Southern states, while nearly half of House Democrats are Black, Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander.
Jennifer Rubin, in a recent piece in the Washington Post, The GOP is paying the price for Trump’s loopy Senate candidates, argues
Republicans have nominated a host of unqualified, extreme and loopy Senate candidates for the midterms. The party is now paying the price.
The New York Times reports on the latest indication that the party is facing fundraising woes: “The National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut more than $5 million in Pennsylvania, including its reservations in the Philadelphia media market, according to two media-tracking sources.” It also cut more than $2 million in Wisconsin and about $2 million in the biggest media markets in Arizona.
I am not yet convinced that the lesson has been learned. At the same time, she notes,
In Ohio, for example, the party continues to boost J.D. Vance even though his campaign is struggling (Vance’s recent suggestion that women in violent marriages should not seek a divorce certainly did not help). Republicans also haven’t diverted funds from Herschel Walker in Georgia, although he might be one of the worst Senate candidates this cycle, thanks to a his nonstop stream of fabrications, cringe-inducing incoherence and radical positions, such as his support for a nationwide abortion ban without any exceptions.
It will be interesting to see what the 2022 elections show. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, for example, only two are still candidates for their offices. Is this going to be continuation of the trend, or will the radicalism of the current crop of candidate start a reversal of fortunes for the party?
 
No reason to be shocked...just get informed.

The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
Lol, no, they said they didn't have an agenda with the exception of "whatever tRump says".
 
The only thing that has changed is the damage the Biden pukes have done in less than two years. That may take an entire term or two to correct.
1- But nothing changed between 2016-2020? There was no need for the GOP to outline what it stood for other than Trump?

2- list the damage done by Biden. What I noticed was we just got a new bill on climate and lowering Rx prices among other good things, he got an infrastructure bill that Trump couldn't, he's honoring our legal commitments to asylum seekers.


All in all, not bad. And he hasn't insulted blacks, Latinos, women, immigrants as yet during his term.
 
1- But nothing changed between 2016-2020? There was no need for the GOP to outline what it stood for other than Trump?
Correct.

2- list the damage done by Biden. What I noticed was we just got a new bill on climate and lowering Rx prices among other good things, he got an infrastructure bill that Trump couldn't, he's honoring our legal commitments to asylum seekers.
LOL!!

You call bad things good. Forget it. I can give you the list, but you'll just call them good things.
 
Correct.


LOL!!

You call bad things good. Forget it. I can give you the list, but you'll just call them good things.
LOL Like you call the Jan. 6th insurrection good? You are projecting.
 
It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.
This is true. Funds win elections, because even outrageous candidates can be prettied up with enough money.
I have often observed that Republicans always win the PR battle because Democrats stick to the facts, are limited by them, depend on well informed voters (of which there are a minority; ) but Republicans are unlimited in their arguments by the facts, only by their imagination. They don't need facts to gather up votes using emotion and dirty politics.

Instead of arguing issues, they simply argue how bad Democrats are, or they make up nonsense about Democrats or perceived 'outrages.' Think: CRT. A theory to use government systemic policy to address racism, which got turned into "If you're white you are automatically a racist" by Tucker Carlson.
I think there is more to it than that, actually, although I don't dispute your observations. The fact is, they are still winning elections, but poll after poll after poll shows they don't represent their constituencies. The Kansas abortion referendum is a good example. Even in deeply red Kansas, when given the chance to vote on the issue the measure was defeated overwhelmingly. Yet, Kansas legislators pushed it vigorously. The same is true in multiple other States.

Local gerrymandering has a LOT to do with this, too. It's not a new phenomenon; The Partisan Impact of State Legislative Reapportionment. Moreover, it has gotten markedly worse. Legislative Boundaries, Lack of Connections Lead to Few Minority Lawmakers (Pew); What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State (FiveThirtyEight); The U.S. Senate: The Most Unrepresentative Body (NPR). "Lightly populated states are overrepresented in the Senate. Consider Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Delaware, states that boast beautiful vistas and seascapes—and the fewest residents. They also can claim exceptional U.S. Senate representation. In fact, substantially fewer people live in these six states combined than live in Cook County, Illinois."
Importantly, this small-state bias is not politically neutral. Small states have many policy interests in common that are distinct from those of larger states. For example, these states have less urbanization than larger states, leading to policy differences on transportation (highways vs. mass transportation), gun control, agriculture, energy, criminal justice, and so on. For instance, this Senate tilt likely biases national policy toward building more new highways and having less gun control than if that body provided fair representation.
 
The Republican Party does not need an agenda. “Do nothing”works in line with the argument that the government cannot handle responsibility. What better way to wheedle a demographic by proving the mantra correct.

Just keep hammering the opposition party for never doing enough. That accomplishes several things. First, it slows down the process making it near impossible for the Democratic Party to pass legislation knowing a filibuster can stop it cold. Second, the progressive voters who demand change do not get it fast enough resulting in voter apathy which works in favor of the GOP. Third, the GOP base doesn’t want anything accomplished so they are more than happy to keep electing “do nothings”.
 
Opioid epidemic, stronger hurricanes than usual, increased tensions with N Korea, largest mass killings in US history, white nationalist demos, "Jews will not replace us," -- and that was just 2017. Obviously nothing to see here.
LOL!!

You call bad things good. Forget it. I can give you the list, but you'll just call them good things.
Of course! You are describing political differences. Nothing new. If Biden pushes to increase the minimum wage or to more strictly enforce safety standards in the workplace, for example, republicans will see those things as negative because they "harm" the people they represent, who donate the most to the party, while democrats will see those things as positives for the same reasons.
 
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.
I talked about it in another thread earlier today.. (spooooky..)

Their strategy is negative campaigning (one criticizes the opponent's ideology, politics or individual politicians rather than highlighting one's own proposals)

Usually it works the best if you have large ideological gaps between the various alternatives., which you don't. But you do have an increased polarization never the less. So, that is what they are feeding of (and tries to strengthen)

I am not going to take you into a political discussion on what's behind it, because you know by now there is nothing behind it. Just personal power and of course greed... (Corruption awaits you behind the next corner) And no, I am not being dramatic, just telling you how it is.
 
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.

This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.

How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?

That is what this thread is intended to explore.
In what may be a gross oversimplification, let me posit that the two competing tendencies in the GOP are on the one hand, those who noticed the "autopsy" findings, and wanted the party to be more inclusive, perhaps emphasizing conservative cultural positions, which they felt have a appeal in the growing Hispanic communities, and indeed there has been growth there. On the other hand there is the tendency to rely on the grossly undemocratic Senate and the marginally undemocratic Electoral College to maintain power, and the unfortunate recent tendency to make it harder to vote, stimulated by Trump's lies about electoral fraud. The suggested obstructionist politics of Newt Gingrich (he honed the strategy of GOP opposing things it supported when democrats propose them),, and Trump's almost strategic recklessness have served them well.

As Bill Buckley put it decades ago, he saw the role of conservatives to "stand athwart history yelling 'STOP!'" Hence their general tendency to slow enforcement of liberal-created mandates, or privatize where they can. The ideas behind the ACA, for example had conservative support -- until Big Bad Barack got involved.
 
LOL Like you call the Jan. 6th insurrection good? You are projecting.
There was no insurrection. There was a riot...and the riot is bad.
 
Opioid epidemic, stronger hurricanes than usual, increased tensions with N Korea, largest mass killings in US history, white nationalist demos, "Jews will not replace us," -- and that was just 2017. Obviously nothing to see here.
None of those things were part of the Trump agenda.

Of course! You are describing political differences. Nothing new. If Biden pushes to increase the minimum wage or to more strictly enforce safety standards in the workplace, for example, republicans will see those things as negative because they "harm" the people they represent, who donate the most to the party, while democrats will see those things as positives for the same reasons.
Correct.
 
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
There are two very simple answers here.

First, the Senate is stupid and is designed to give way too much power to states where nobody lives. So it doesn't matter if a majority hates their policies, this just causes people to move to liberal states which actually gives their own voters more power in the Senate.

But more importantly, the fundamental belief that drives all Conservative thought is that Change is Bad, Government is Bad, Everything is better in the private sector, and the free market solves all problems better than government.

Well, the sad and unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of morons in this country that actually do believe that crap. They see the government as incredibly inefficient and wasteful. They hate how much of their paycheck goes toward taxes, and they believe they could spend that money more wisely in ways that would benefit them more.

Understanding this, there is no reason for Republicans to have a platform or agenda. There is literally nothing they want the federal government to do besides prevent crime, keep brown people out of our country, kill brown people overseas, and maybe build roads. Literally, everything else is wasteful in their minds or at least better left to the states to decide.
 
Here, I think, is something that addresses the central issue in the thread. Is it because they have "achieved their agenda"? Is the agenda to not have any check on their authority?
Yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom