GOP Purge Inevitable?

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

. Income inequality leads to mass suffering and destabalisation.



I can understand modest differences and I'm not saying that we should live in a communist society, but the kind of extreme capitalism we have right now is equally indefensible.

With the opposite being that income equality leads to mass relief and stablisation?

Memnoch wrote: »

I can understand modest differences and I'm not saying that we should live in a communist society, but the kind of extreme capitalism we have right now is equally indefensible.

Yet you are arguing that people who have more regardless if they earned it or not should hand over their property and wealth to governments, whom we all know never waste a cent poorly :rolleyes: And of course there is no evidence that wealth redistribution will help people get richer which should be the aim, it normally just means rich people are poorer.

There is nothing extreme about capitalism in the US or the western world IMO.
People always spout crap and populist nonsense about this issue.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

With the opposite being that income equality leads to mass relief and stablisation?

Well, yes. I think a fairer distribution of the world's resources would go a long way towards alleviating many of the problems.

Yet you are arguing that people who have more regardless if they earned it or not should hand over their property and wealth to governments, whom we all know never waste a cent poorly :rolleyes:

Like Romney 'earned' his millions at Bain right? People don't exist or make money in a vaccum. They didn't build that. They should pay a fair share of taxes as a percentage of their income. I don't see any benefit to society from obscene wealth and gluttony. If someone makes 1.2 billion dollars. What difference will it make to their quality of life if they made 1 billion instead and that 200 million was used to improve society? But someone making 12,000 dollars, for them, that 2,000 is the difference between feeding their kids or heating their house.

And of course there is no evidence that wealth redistribution will help people get richer which should be the aim, it normally just means rich people are poorer.

Actually there is no evidence to support this. Perhaps you should go back and read the report by the bipartisan CBO in the US that researched tax rates for the past 60 years. Increased taxes made no difference in productivity or on the economy.

There is nothing extreme about capitalism in the US or the western world IMO.
People always spout crap and populist nonsense about this issue.

There is nothing extreme about launching wars for greed and profit. Of bombing countries into rouble and then using the money you pay them for their oil to 'reconstruct,' with those contracts going to megacorporations who jsut happen to be best friends with those in power.

There is nothign extreme about people with no options and no future slaving ludicrous hours in a factory in China, being paid and absolute pittance to make a gadget that Apple will then sell in Europe at an obscene profit after which they will pay a miniscule amount of tax.

Maybe you think all this is fine. I don't. It's extreme, it's wrong morally and economically.

Gbear

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's only a wealth distribution problem in the sense that the flow of wealth is from the have nots to the haves.

If you could change the system such that all levels of society could accumulate wealth then it wouldn't really be an issue.

At present the very rich have seen their incomes continue to increase while the vast majority don't see better times in the foreseeable future than they have experienced in the past.

There is a saying that a rising tide raises all boats. And while it does there aren't as many social problems because everyone is a stakeholder and everyone can expect that while they may not benefit as much as others their life will get better.

If the poor deserved to be getting poorer and if that poverty was despite them getting a fair shot at life then morally I wouldn't have a problem with that. It mightn't create the "ideal society" but tough, life's a bitch.

However, a lot of poor people, especially black and hispanics in the US, are criminalised. The drug war and the prison-industrial complex have a lot to answer for in that regard.

It isn't that the "american dream" is wrong and the Republicans are wrong for supporting it. It's that the Republicans are going about it in completely the wrong way both morally and economically.
Even though they pretend to be for what is ostensibly a meritocracy, that's total bull**** and they're completely beholden to the wealthy and any effort to portray themselves as being for creating jobs or allowing the hard working to make it is just smoke and mirrors that thrives on the ignorance of some and the greed of others.

Reindeer

Republicans have two major issues they need to overcome to nearly insure a presidential win; neither of which will likely gain much traction.

Conservative government, to a point, attracts many centrists. So they do have a central message that does connect with many average voters. However -

They need to come to the middle on religious issues - they need to lay off abortion, and stop literally preaching. They also need to run someone less 'cultish' than a Mormon. Many Protestants and Catholics aren't remotely comfortable with voting for a Mormon(let alone those Americans that claim to not be religious, but still believe in a God). They WILL get the extremist Christian vote even if they downplay the Christianity thing. It is highly unlikely a Dem is going to call them out on it. This will lead to number two:

Female and minority votes. Stop shouting about raping women would be a great start. Stop telling them they are stuck with that child after the rape. You sound like complete morons. Stop telling Mexicans you are going to deport them would be another good idea. Mexicans, according to exit polls, made up nearly 11% of the vote. Unlike the Irish where 'Catholic' is nearly an ethnicity, Mexicans do take their Catholicism seriously as a religion. They often want to vote along with the right on many issues(they voted nearly 30% for Romney this time out). If the pubs would just stop acting like Mexicans are poison, the Mexicans would vote more for them. After all, no amount of policing is going to stop the illegal immigration along a border that is far too long to guard, and deporting millions of illegals would cost us more than it is worth even if it were possible.

Basically, sticking to principles that are virtually moot when you remove the myopic Republican lens has caused the Republicans to narrow their focus more than it should be. In the end, it boils down to the fact your average American is average. Cater to them. This is NOT catering to them:

http://www.publiusforum.com/images/romney_wanded.jpg

This is:

http://cdn.tss.uproxx.com/TSS/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/President-Obama-Fistbump-7.jpg

The problem is, the Republicans are becoming less and less average American. You think Obama saw this guy and thought, "Hey, I'll strike a pose and try to humanize myself more"? No - he IS an average guy in attitude compared to most Republican candidates. You see it in his conduct wherever he goes. People appreciate a lack of pretention. They appreciate someone that can identify with them. The Republicans have been identifying less and less with your average American. This fact isn't lost on most Americans...

Reindeer

jank wrote: »

With the opposite being that income equality leads to mass relief and stablisation?



Yet you are arguing that people who have more regardless if they earned it or not should hand over their property and wealth to governments, whom we all know never waste a cent poorly :rolleyes: And of course there is no evidence that wealth redistribution will help people get richer which should be the aim, it normally just means rich people are poorer.

There is nothing extreme about capitalism in the US or the western world IMO.
People always spout crap and populist nonsense about this issue.

So how do you feel about the US ranking very low amongst European countries in virtually every 'quality of life' survey and poll - falling behind some extremely socialist countries by comparison. Even some highly capitalist countries with socialised services handily beat the US. What would be your argument to move away from such a tendency be? What is in it for the average person in the US vs what has made life better for those in Europe if the US were to move away from similar systems?

jank

Reindeer wrote: »

So how do you feel about the US ranking very low amongst European countries in virtually every 'quality of life' survey and poll - falling behind some extremely socialist countries by comparison. Even some highly capitalist countries with socialised services handily beat the US. What would be your argument to move away from such a tendency be? What is in it for the average person in the US vs what has made life better for those in Europe if the US were to move away from similar systems?

I wouldn't classify the ranking of 4th in the 2011 Human Development Index 'very low'. That is better than France, Germany or Sweden never mind places like Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I dont think anyone trying to win an argument on economics should be comparing the US with Europe at all, Europe due to its structure, culture, EU systems and bickering is finished at least for the next 10 years as a economic growth engine. We are over 4 years into the post GFC era and the banks are still stuffed, labour costs are still too high and governments are still spending too much, passing the costs onto the children of todays taxpayers.

In the US, banking has deleveraged its risks from bad assests and are much better capitalised than european banks, manufacturing is actually growing at the moment as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-millermerrell/manufacturing-jobs_b_1733240.html
Many agree that because of better free market economics and a more flexible labour market that there is expected to be 12 million jobs created in the next 4 years.

Yes many european countries have great welfare and state progams but its killing innovation and job growth. The children of tomorrow will have to pay for it all, eventually. Did I read somewhere that it has been almost 30 years since France posted a budget surples?? Do you honestly think that can continue for another 30 years?

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Well, yes. I think a fairer distribution of the world's resources would go a long way towards alleviating many of the problems..

Yes, that would be great if people were not people but as history has shown time and again a free market capitalist system has driven more people from poverty than any other system. There is no denying this.

Memnoch wrote: »

Like Romney 'earned' his millions at Bain right? People don't exist or make money in a vaccum. They didn't build that. They should pay a fair share of taxes as a percentage of their income. I don't see any benefit to society from obscene wealth and gluttony. If someone makes 1.2 billion dollars. What difference will it make to their quality of life if they made 1 billion instead and that 200 million was used to improve society? But someone making 12,000 dollars, for them, that 2,000 is the difference between feeding their kids or heating their house..

You are putting forward the argument that because your intention is right therefore you are right regardless. It doesnt matter if you have the best intentions in the world, what really matters are the results and what they achieve in creating wealth among the poor. Taking wealth from people who already have it maybe be the right thing to do in terms of fairness in your head. However will taking wealth away from the wealthy create wealth for the poor, it rarely does. It usually just means the governments use these new funds to create programs to garner public support for their re election campaign. It often also creates poverty traps among the poor.

You will also see that one who earns 12,000 a year will in the USA more than likely not pay federal income tax at all...

Memnoch wrote: »

There is nothing extreme about launching wars for greed and profit. Of bombing countries into rouble and then using the money you pay them for their oil to 'reconstruct,' with those contracts going to megacorporations who jsut happen to be best friends with those in power..

You think that is capitalism? Making war? LOL That is crony capitalism fueled more than not by over zealous governments and lobbying.

Memnoch wrote: »

There is nothign extreme about people with no options and no future slaving ludicrous hours in a factory in China, being paid and absolute pittance to make a gadget that Apple will then sell in Europe at an obscene profit after which they will pay a miniscule amount of tax..

Again, another fallacy. The person in China has a choice to stay in their rural area and work in agriculture in a rice paddy or move to the cities to work in factories and actually improve their lot. Which one pays more? How many millions are leaving the utopian rural countryside to work in those nightmarish Dickenson factories? Are they being forced to move by gun point or out of their own free will? If out of their own free will.....WHY?

Of course to western sensibilties this is disturbing but in the long run these countries are better off as it drives investment, education levels and general quality of life.

Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan all stated out on the same path, it used to make all kinds of crap, now they are world leaders in technology and finance. China will go the same way in the next 10 or so years.

Its already happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/bmw-to-triple-china-production-with-second-factory-in-country.html

http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/26/intel-opens-2-5b-chip-factory-in-china/

And the proof?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/26/news/economy/china-middle-class/index.htm

In the west, well one can always not buy their products, if no one buys them those evil coporations will go bankrupt. Companies such has Nike and Apple are very aware of their image in regards to the exploitation of labour, this is the results not of some government intervention but of a response to the market. Consumers want to be assured that the shiny new ipod they have is not the result of exploiting some 5 year old in India.

Memnoch wrote: »

Maybe you think all this is fine. I don't. It's extreme, it's wrong morally and economically.

Can you clarify what is extreme about it as you are coming out with vague arguments. Of course you are welcome to state how you would change it for the better.

Reindeer

jank wrote: »

I wouldn't classify the ranking of 4th in the 2011 Human Development Index 'very low'. That is better than France, Germany or Sweden never mind places like Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I dont think anyone trying to win an argument on economics should be comparing the US with Europe at all, Europe due to its structure, culture, EU systems and bickering is finished at least for the next 10 years as a economic growth engine. We are over 4 years into the post GFC era and the banks are still stuffed, labour costs are still too high and governments are still spending too much, passing the costs onto the children of todays taxpayers.

In the US, banking has deleveraged its risks from bad assests and are much better capitalised than european banks, manufacturing is actually growing at the moment as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-millermerrell/manufacturing-jobs_b_1733240.html
Many agree that because of better free market economics and a more flexible labour market that there is expected to be 12 million jobs created in the next 4 years.

Yes many european countries have great welfare and state progams but its killing innovation and job growth. The children of tomorrow will have to pay for it all, eventually. Did I read somewhere that it has been almost 30 years since France posted a budget surples?? Do you honestly think that can continue for another 30 years?

Only a small amount of that index addresses middle class quality of life issues, let's be honest. The US ranks low in those polls and surveys, and I am sure you're well aware of this fact.

How many US states have a budget surplus? How often has the US had a budget surplus in the last decade? Europe CAN be maintained for several reasons. The first is Europe operates more as a lateral trading block than in times past, with greater influence from the UK and Germany. And, very importantly, Europe does not need to invest billions(or trillions as will be the case with the US shortly)in military spending. The US is the defacto military for Europe - especially it's navy, which is the largest in Europe. This saves an enormous amount of European financial and military resources. One example is many European states use much of their military as their state and local police and border force, making a civilian-based one like the US have moot. Germany has less unemployment than the US, and many other European states are doing far better than many US states.

I am not so sure we can claim socialism kills innovation and job growth when Germany has more jobs for their citizens than we do, and far better automobiles. Russia does a better job nowadays of getting us to the space station. BAE Systems and AirBus seem to be doing fine. And, of course, the death toll for US scientific innovation not only came with the death of NASA's shuttle program, but also came when we killed our large atom smasher in Texas and CERN took up the mantle for the cutting edge of scientific research in Europe. Europe makes far more efficient public transport and automobiles than the US do. They have better trains, and may countries have superior roadways.

What innovation is better in the US, it trickles down at a huge savings to the citizens of Europe. Americans spend far more on their health system in the US, which spawns innovations and better helps Europeans whom pay less for the benefits. Same with the military. One could ask why does Europe need to innovate if the two largest costs of innovation can be ameliorated in the states and it's benefits brought to Europe at a discount to it's citizens? I used to work in health care, and we could not sell our products in Europe for anywhere near the profit these for-profit clinics in the states were buying them at.

I could go on, but why bother...

nagilum2

jank wrote: »

I wouldn't classify the ranking of 4th in the 2011 Human Development Index 'very low'. That is better than France, Germany or Sweden never mind places like Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I dont think anyone trying to win an argument on economics should be comparing the US with Europe at all, Europe due to its structure, culture, EU systems and bickering is finished at least for the next 10 years as a economic growth engine. We are over 4 years into the post GFC era and the banks are still stuffed, labour costs are still too high and governments are still spending too much, passing the costs onto the children of todays taxpayers.

In the US, banking has deleveraged its risks from bad assests and are much better capitalised than european banks, manufacturing is actually growing at the moment as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-millermerrell/manufacturing-jobs_b_1733240.html
Many agree that because of better free market economics and a more flexible labour market that there is expected to be 12 million jobs created in the next 4 years.

Yes many european countries have great welfare and state progams but its killing innovation and job growth. The children of tomorrow will have to pay for it all, eventually. Did I read somewhere that it has been almost 30 years since France posted a budget surples?? Do you honestly think that can continue for another 30 years?

It is interesting that none of the top technology companies, barring SAP, are European. This is probably the biggest growth area for the world right now. Where is the European Microsoft, Google, Amazon? Even Facebook? Where is the European Tesla Motors? Where is the European Boston Dynamics?

For a company in the technology space, SAP is actually quite old - born in 1972. Only IBM and HP are older among major players. Nokia is the other large scale European tech player I can think of, if you want to call it that, but it certainly isn't a market leader and it is also a very old company (1800's in fact) compared to modern technology companies.

In fact the only real large scale tech startup style success I can think of born in Europe was developed in Estonia - Skype.

I'm curious what others here think is the primary reason for this?

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
The original OP pertained to the following:

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

While some of the recent discussions regarding US technology, etc., may be interesting, they do appear to be a departure from the OP. Let's stay on OP, and if another topic evolves, please consider starting a new thread.

Ozymandius2011

It's not really possible in the American system for a top-down "purge" of candidates. The voters choose the candidates via the primary-system.

TwoShedsJackson

Wow that Romney 'wanding' pic is an utter embarrassment.

Brian?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's not really possible in the American system for a top-down "purge" of candidates. The voters choose the candidates via the primary-system.

Yup. It's should be a great strength of the system. The problem for the GOP is that the most active grass roots members are the Tea Party and the Christian right.

Capt'n Midnight

nagilum2 wrote: »

It is interesting that none of the top technology companies, barring SAP, are European.
...
I'm curious what others here think is the primary reason for this?

Perception.

The companies you mentioned are mostly dot-coms that in the "edutainment" industry that operate tax avoidance schemes.

Romney's extra trillion for defence completely eclipses them.



Interestingly the current UK investigation into the profits of multinationals may actually generate increased revenue for the IRS as profit repatriation schemes become less profitable. How would Republican supporters feel if told that the loopholes setup on their watch are being closed especially if it means income tax can be reduced ?


Thing is most of these props for big business have come from the GOP and and more US voters will see this. It's hard for real industries to compete with this sort of subsidy essentially the companies that pay no tax are placing a higher tax burden on those that don't. Tax is also important for directing innovation. It's no surprise that US car manufacturing is facing competition from more fuel efficient imports.

The Republicans have been the party of low fuel tax. Has anyone explained to Americans that a VW or BMW diesel will do about the same miles to the euro as a typical US SUV will do miles to the dollar despite the huge difference in fuel costs ?

Look how Romney played this threat to Detroit. With complete BS about China. He lost a lot of the white working class vote. That's core GOP supporters.

Ford have shown that US car makers can produce good diesels etc. It's scary to think how much different US foreign policy could be had the government invested a fraction of the defence budget into more fuel efficient cars and homes. And all it needed was a change in the loophole that allowed pickups and SUV's not to have to meet fuel efficiency levels common everywhere else.


If fuel prices go up Republicans are the ones that in the past have toyed with the possibility of reducing education funding.


I can see more discontent and more feeling disconnected amongst people who thought the Republicans were for them.


I still can't see a purge though
- it's like FF here, the rats left the sinking ship to save their skins and far too late to save the ship.


One strategy they may try is to block Democrat legislation. The only problem is they will have to do so without appearing to do so, otherwise it will hand Obama the great excuse of "if they hadn't blocked X we wouldn't be in this position now"
I think they will try this and perhaps alienate others.


In politics you need two faces.
One for the faithful and one for the swing voters.
The tea party is preaching to the choir and they have a powerbase now.

hatrickpatrick

Mjollnir wrote: »

They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

How can anyone define the left as "enemies of liberty" when it's the right who decide they have a moral authority to tell grown adults what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes?

The conservative paradox absolutely baffles me. You can't call yourself pro freedom and oppose gay marriage and contraception.

Be like Nutella

Purging hmm
..seems more and more unlikely, looking at what their 'champion' is taking away form his election experience..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Mitt Romney: Obama Won With 'Gifts' To Blacks, Hispanics, Young Voters



but on the positive side of things Craaaazy Newt Gingrich was on the Daily Show on Tuesday night and and slated Carl Rove, said Super Pacs were a disease and admitted that in the end the Reps were just 'wrong' and they should take a moment to realize that their whole approach to the election was wrong. He equated it to a lazy marketing effort by Target or Wall-Mart in finding out what their customers want... but he still thinks moon bases are the way to go : )


Incidentally HuffPost ran with a 'Moon base plan' actual story today so Newt ya might be right yet!

Duck Soup

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Purging hmm
..seems more and more unlikely, looking at what their 'champion' is taking away form his election experience..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Mitt Romney: Obama Won With 'Gifts' To Blacks, Hispanics, Young Voters



but on the positive side of things Craaaazy Newt Gingrich was on the Daily Show on Tuesday night and and slated Carl Rove, said Super Pacs were a disease and admitted that in the end the Reps were just 'wrong' and they should take a moment to realize that their whole approach to the election was wrong. He equated it to a lazy marketing effort by Target or Wall-Mart in finding out what their customers want... but he still thinks moon bases are the way to go : )


Incidentally HuffPost ran with a 'Moon base plan' actual story today so Newt ya might be right yet!

It's kind of instructive that after Romney's efforts to distance himself from the 47% remarks during the campaign, when it's all finished and the dust is settled, he repeats pretty much exactly what he said at the fundraiser, only this time offering it as an explanation for his defeat rather than as a description of the electoral challenge he faced.

It may be the closest we ever come to a genuine Romney core belief. And for a Harvard-educated man, he seems unable to process the idea that offering 20% across the board tax cuts might be construed as bribing the electorate with goodies. Presumably he sees it as a stimulative economic measure, despite the fact that Bush's tax cuts had no such effect.

As for the purging, no, probably not. Ironically, the GOP sees the problem as not offering enough 'gifts' to minorities; witness the sudden about-face by some high-profile conservatives/Republicans on the matter of citizenship.

The two things that would have the greatest impact on the GOP's share of the minority vote they've so far shown themselves unwilling to do. The first would be to actively bring into local parties more ethnic minority members. Even as they find a few Marco Rubios and Herman Cain's to drag up onto stage, the Republican National Convention still looks like milk white. Can anyone imagine an influx of African-American GOP members in state parties in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia?

The second thing is the dropping for once and for all of the Southern Strategy, which got its debut with Nixon and found its voice with Lee Atwater and his management of George H. W. Bush's campaign.

What we got this time round was Mitt talking nice to the camera and running welfare ads as a dogwhistle to the white base.

Running against a black Democratic candidate surely gave the GOP their highest possible electoral return from the white vote and sure enough Romney's 59% share of the white vote was the highest since George H. W. Bush in 1988. Running against - for example - Hillary Clinton in 2016, you could expect that share to drop (and if it's against Hillary, they can expect to lose women by a hefty margin).

The problem may not now be a purely cosmetic matter of messaging as some GOP operatives now seem to think. They've been running for so hard and so long on race dogwhistles that in the process of defining themselves as the party of whites they've told minority voters that the Democrats are the party of minorities.

One striking thing in this last election is that the fastest-growing demographic in the US is Asian-Americans and while the Republicans never ran anything that hinted at anti Asian-American sentiment, the GOP lost them in a landslide, 72 to 28.

When you define yourself as the party of whites, don't be surprised when the broader electorate pick that up as the party of whites only.

Duck Soup

Here's what Romney actually said, post-election [the highlighting is mine]:

"The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people."

Maybe start with purging those attitudes first.

Capt'n Midnight

Winning the vote is simple.

All you have to do is appeal to the centre / swing voters while doing some damage limitation on the more extremist of your supporters.

YOU CAN'T WIN WITHOUT THE SWING VOTE IN THE MARGINAL AREAS.

It's that simple.

Applies in almost all democracies at this stage.

Look how FF buy elections by promising the world to enough interest groups. It's not rocket science and as long as you don't make yourself unelectable by screwing up while in power it's doable.


The trick is to only do enough damage limitation to keep enough of the extremists on side. And in the US there aren't any major parties to the right of the Republicans. You won't put new bums on seats by preaching to the choir.

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Republican party really does need a split.

It may come to that.

One of the hot topics of the election was the changing demographics of the US. Minorities - African-Americans and, in particular, Hispanics, are growing in number and are far less likely to vote Republican. Older people, who would more likely vote Republican, are - for lack of a better term - dying and being replaced by younger voters at the other end of the age scale who are more likely to vote Democrat.

The thing is that the consensus is that this trend is not a blip, but an ongoing trend which will make things increasingly harder for the Republicans to get majorities over time. As such it cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile you have the Tea Party; conservative, upper-middle class, religious and white, which while influential within the Republican party, is increasingly a minority view as far as the US as a whole is concerned. Note that religiosity is also in decline; between 1998 and 2008 there has been a 6.8% drop in Americans who identify with a religion.

Where the Tea Party become an issue is particularity in the primaries and candidate selection process; Tea Party candidates end up being selected, and many of them are frankly political liabilities (e.g. Todd Akin). Additionally, to get selected, their influence is such that moderate Republicans need to take harder lines on things such as family planning and immigration than they might normally do.

Both of these ended up biting Romney on the ass. Akin's comments regarding "legitimate rape" damaged him with women voters, by political association, and when he later toned down his position on immigration during the campaign, his earlier position during the primaries, was brought up to both discredit him and alienate Hispanic voters.

So getting rid of the Tea Party influence is essential to the Republican party in the long run if they want to avoid alienating an increasing number of more moderate voters. Question is how; I can't see how they can be marginalized within the party, yet kicking them out (effectively a split) could also be disastrous.

Using a token minority candidate (such as Condoleezza Rice) next time round for president or VP, may quicken them, but it is at best a temporary respite. Voter obstruction (such as the increasing trend for Republican sponsored state legislation making it harder for, in particular, minorities to vote) is another approach, but one that is increasingly failing to be implemented and even when implemented has limited results.

I suspect the politically savvy in the Republican party are all too aware of this and that if they don't do anything they're on a long-term decline. I don't envy their position.