Republican response for 2024 - A new political party

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
Not what you would think.

Keep the Republican Party intact.

But help form and fund a reliable socialist party, one who would nominate a devout socialist for president and for house/senate seats every election cycle.

Republicans would keep the approximately 49% of the electorate.

Democrats would have about 40% (35% actual democrats and 5% socialists who know that a vote for the socialist party is a vote for the Republicans).

Socialists would have about 10% (I literally believe that 10% of the electorate would vote for the socialist, no matter what).

Libertarians would have about 1%. (These are people, like most of the Socialists, who don't understand or care that a vote for their candidate is a vote for a democrat, who opposes everything that they believe in).
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,691
11,758
113
Not what you would think.

Keep the Republican Party intact.

But help form and fund a reliable socialist party, one who would nominate a devout socialist for president and for house/senate seats every election cycle.

Republicans would keep the approximately 49% of the electorate.

Democrats would have about 40% (35% actual democrats and 5% socialists who know that a vote for the socialist party is a vote for the Republicans).

Socialists would have about 10% (I literally believe that 10% of the electorate would vote for the socialist, no matter what).

Libertarians would have about 1%. (These are people, like most of the Socialists, who don't understand or care that a vote for their candidate is a vote for a democrat, who opposes everything that they believe in).

Small problem: neither the Republican nor Democrat Parties have exceeded 40% share of the electorate since 2004 and currently only 26% of the electorate consider themselves "Republican"
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,920
12,504
113
Fvck off Randy. No one cares what you think.
I will not tell you to FO. I doubt that "No one" cares what I think. Clearly you do or you wouldn't reply.

Look, I had a good thing happen today on the scrolls with another poster that I really appreciate and I think it's time for a new day. Let's have fun here instead of being so mean.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Not what you would think.

Keep the Republican Party intact.

But help form and fund a reliable socialist party, one who would nominate a devout socialist for president and for house/senate seats every election cycle.

Republicans would keep the approximately 49% of the electorate.

Democrats would have about 40% (35% actual democrats and 5% socialists who know that a vote for the socialist party is a vote for the Republicans).

Socialists would have about 10% (I literally believe that 10% of the electorate would vote for the socialist, no matter what).

Libertarians would have about 1%. (These are people, like most of the Socialists, who don't understand or care that a vote for their candidate is a vote for a democrat, who opposes everything that they believe in).
Interesting. Percents might be off, but your premise is spot on.

I do find it strange, that you think to win, the minority (GOP) needs to split the majority.

Why not adopt policies and enact legislation that attracts more followers?

I would think the latter benefits voters like all of us, more than your idea.

Dems may just counter by trying to continue to make Trump relevant and continue to split the GOP vote.
 

DRay827

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2016
2,200
4,557
113
Lincoln, NE
Not what you would think.

Keep the Republican Party intact.

But help form and fund a reliable socialist party, one who would nominate a devout socialist for president and for house/senate seats every election cycle.

Republicans would keep the approximately 49% of the electorate.

Democrats would have about 40% (35% actual democrats and 5% socialists who know that a vote for the socialist party is a vote for the Republicans).

Socialists would have about 10% (I literally believe that 10% of the electorate would vote for the socialist, no matter what).

Libertarians would have about 1%. (These are people, like most of the Socialists, who don't understand or care that a vote for their candidate is a vote for a democrat, who opposes everything that they believe in).

Sounds good on paper (for you), but actually making that happen would be unbelievably more difficult than taking @Red_Hack 's suggestion of actually growing your party instead of trying to rat f*ck the other party.

What you're describing is the perfect storm that trump lucked out on in 16' with Stein. Pretty difficult to shoot the moon twice.
 

Gonzo3705

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2006
12,464
14,615
113
The Bay or the Sierras
I think it's much more likely to see a split within the GOP for the Trump faction and those that want to split with it. Trump is trying to be the power broker and kingmaker.

You'll see more of the GOP split with him so they can get the stench of Trump off of them. However, the Q/Hawley/Cruz/Rubio/MTG/Paul/insert Trump lackey name here faction will stay true to Trump because they want to tap into his voting demographic.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
Interesting. Percents might be off, but your premise is spot on.

I do find it strange, that you think to win, the minority (GOP) needs to split the majority.

Why not adopt policies and enact legislation that attracts more followers?

I would think the latter benefits voters like all of us, more than your idea.

Dems may just counter by trying to continue to make Trump relevant and continue to split the GOP vote.

Methinks the Socialists (and let’s be real it ain’t 10%, its gotta be more) actually running the Dem agenda now are gonna turn away a lot of moderate Dems. At least if early legislation is any indicator... and I don’t think Dems have a majority. A LOT of Pubs voted against Trump, and understandably so. Think a socialist party makes sense, and I think a larger Libertarian party makes sense. The ‘moderates’ are worthless as the fringe elements, because they want everything to stag the same, to stay in DC. Stay in power. Keep raping the rest of us.
 

steinek11

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,026
7,539
113
I think it's much more likely to see a split within the GOP for the Trump faction and those that want to split with it. Trump is trying to be the power broker and kingmaker.

You'll see more of the GOP split with him so they can get the stench of Trump off of them. However, the Q/Hawley/Cruz/Rubio/MTG/Paul/insert Trump lackey name here faction will stay true to Trump because they want to tap into his voting demographic.

there should be 4 parties. Trumpets, not stupid republicans, lazy democrats, and awesome progressive liberals

Hawley, sasse, buttigig, Bernie

Only one of those three terrify me and I think that covers more Americans than our current dichotomy
 
  • Like
Reactions: tb233 and Todd P

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Methinks the Socialists (and let’s be real it ain’t 10%, its gotta be more) actually running the Dem agenda now are gonna turn away a lot of moderate Dems. At least if early legislation is any indicator... and I don’t think Dems have a majority. A LOT of Pubs voted against Trump, and understandably so. Think a socialist party makes sense, and I think a larger Libertarian party makes sense. The ‘moderates’ are worthless as the fringe elements, because they want everything to stag the same, to stay in DC. Stay in power. Keep raping the rest of us.

It is funny seeing this narrative with the Democratic Party had their “socialist” candidate destroyed by a moderate Democrat.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,191
113
Maine
Methinks the Socialists (and let’s be real it ain’t 10%, its gotta be more) actually running the Dem agenda now are gonna turn away a lot of moderate Dems. At least if early legislation is any indicator... and I don’t think Dems have a majority. A LOT of Pubs voted against Trump, and understandably so. Think a socialist party makes sense, and I think a larger Libertarian party makes sense. The ‘moderates’ are worthless as the fringe elements, because they want everything to stag the same, to stay in DC. Stay in power. Keep raping the rest of us.

People far overestimate how many people are party-allegiant. Over 40% of the country now identify as Independent. Both parties are a joke. Neither party is for the people. Neither will be until our politics are no longer sold to the highest bidder. Interesting how neither party is pushing super hard for campaign finance reform, innit?
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,472
24,177
113
Not what you would think.

Keep the Republican Party intact.

But help form and fund a reliable socialist party, one who would nominate a devout socialist for president and for house/senate seats every election cycle.

Republicans would keep the approximately 49% of the electorate.

Democrats would have about 40% (35% actual democrats and 5% socialists who know that a vote for the socialist party is a vote for the Republicans).

Socialists would have about 10% (I literally believe that 10% of the electorate would vote for the socialist, no matter what).

Libertarians would have about 1%. (These are people, like most of the Socialists, who don't understand or care that a vote for their candidate is a vote for a democrat, who opposes everything that they believe in).

And then the democrats could counter punch and start a wacky “Love trump and think famous people are drinking baby blood” party and then everything is back to where we started except the crazies are stuffed into their corners.

I think you’re onto something here Ragecrack. This would be a great way to get rid of Trump and his cult and the annoying hippy dippy yuppies all in one swoop.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
It is funny seeing this narrative with the Democratic Party had their “socialist” candidate destroyed by a moderate Democrat.

Point is, it’s not ‘Moderates’ dictating policy. Harris is a DINO socialist, and Biden doesn’t dictate beyond choosing between Ensure and Boost for his breakfast drink. He probably has a favorite denture adhesive...
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
People far overestimate how many people are party-allegiant. Over 40% of the country now identify as Independent. Both parties are a joke. Neither party is for the people. Neither will be until our politics are no longer sold to the highest bidder. Interesting how neither party is pushing super hard for campaign finance reform, innit?

Well-said
 

biscuitbagger3

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 9, 2009
4,637
5,170
113
Point is, it’s not ‘Moderates’ dictating policy. Harris is a DINO socialist, and Biden doesn’t dictate beyond choosing between Ensure and Boost for his breakfast drink. He probably has a favorite denture adhesive...
Heard he was a seabond man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mhosek

whiteshoes97

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 30, 2004
12,871
10,696
113
Sure, you can twist it whatever way you want. But to act like Bernie didn’t get whooped by Biden, which is what my OP was about, still stands.
Sure.... but the socialist wing of the party seems to be growing
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
Yes this. Separate the wackos

Q is religious whack-job. And he (or she or however ‘it’ identifies) hasn’t posted since 8 Dec. most ‘Trumpers’ aren’t religious fringe (some are!), they just want less government, and Trump was who espoused that. There are for sure wackos, but most Trump supporters (10’s of millions), aren’t.
 

94husker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 28, 2014
2,510
4,264
113
I just shake my head at all these socialists comments flying around today. It’s funny how I haven’t seen anyone suggesting the Federal government should start building factories to manufacture cars and trucks or buy up farms to grow food. Strange when tax payers get back money we now want to refer to it as socialism instead of tax cuts. I suppose when an infrastructure bill comes forward which will provide money to local governments to pay private companies to pave roads and install water pipes or high speed fiber that will also be called socialism. Boy we sure do like our labels that attempt to deligitimize the ideas of others even if it benefits us just because we want to win elections more than we want to solve problems and make a better life and society. People really have no clue what socialism means.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
Interesting. Percents might be off, but your premise is spot on.

I do find it strange, that you think to win, the minority (GOP) needs to split the majority.

Why not adopt policies and enact legislation that attracts more followers?

I would think the latter benefits voters like all of us, more than your idea.

Dems may just counter by trying to continue to make Trump relevant and continue to split the GOP vote.
Sorry you believe the establishment cares what we think.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
I just shake my head at all these socialists comments flying around today. It’s funny how I haven’t seen anyone suggesting the Federal government should start building factories to manufacture cars and trucks or buy up farms to grow food. Strange when tax payers get back money we now want to refer to it as socialism instead of tax cuts. I suppose when an infrastructure bill comes forward which will provide money to local governments to pay private companies to pave roads and install water pipes or high speed fiber that will also be called socialism. Boy we sure do like our labels that attempt to deligitimize the ideas of others even if it benefits us just because we want to win elections more than we want to solve problems and make a better life and society. People really have no clue what socialism means.
Sorry you don’t keep your eyes open. It’s not funny at all, you just don’t keep your eyes open and/or don’t know history.

your ignorance makes sense.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
You know what would make the socialist talk go away more than anything? If capitalism would stop bending 90% of the population over and taking it to pound town daily
Haha like warren buffet and his boy Biden?

you must not have worked hard for stuff?

capitalism brings proper out of poverty, socialism doesn’t. How do you not get that?
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
You know what would make the socialist talk go away more than anything? If capitalism would stop bending 90% of the population over and taking it to pound town daily
Now if you have an issue with political spending, that is a whole different issue.
 

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
14,875
17,988
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
Sure.... but the socialist wing of the party seems to be growing
As long as the 50 wealthiest people in America have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 165,000,000 people, why wouldn't Socialism be growing?

That is the question you need to be asking yourself.

If you want to slow socialism's popularity, deal with the growing wealth gap problem.
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
As long as the 50 wealthiest people in America have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 165,000,000 people, why wouldn't Socialism be growing?

That is the question you need to be asking yourself.

If you want to slow socialism's popularity, deal with the growing wealth gap problem.
Yeah asked and answered. Liberals want all the wealth to keep people more down.

buffet is a big time liberal and reason why he wanted Hillary. Duh.

work hard and climb out bro
 

Hyattea

Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2012
7,876
6,733
113
Lincoln
As long as the 50 wealthiest people in America have the same amount of wealth as the bottom 165,000,000 people, why wouldn't Socialism be growing?

That is the question you need to be asking yourself.

If you want to slow socialism's popularity, deal with the growing wealth gap problem.
Oh and also the reason liberals run inner cities so people can’t get out of poverty. Hmmm