The Future of the GOP

[4/5]

If only the US had anything approaching a free market in housing. If only. We would have much more housing available and it would be much more affordable. Housing shortages and high prices in the US are a result of political, not economic, forces.

i'd say it's both

I think if somebody snapped their fingers and removed the ability of politicians at all levels of government throughout the country to block housing construction

Do you think that politicians block construction, or that they incentivize one sort of construction over another? And if the incentives were changed -- to better encourage more affordable housing (with a mix of condo/townhome/singe family developments), and to curb the purchase of secondary vacation/rental homes by the affluent -- couldn't that address some of the problems?

I missed this reply, sorry.
I don't think politicians are usually evil or stupid in their actions regarding housing. We all know about NIMBY-ism, we see opposition to new housing construction by current residents who worry about declining property values, increased traffic congestion, the poors getting too close to them, etc. And local officials respond to the people who show up to town halls opposing that construction for the basic reason that they are voters whereas the people who would directly benefit from the new construction aren't there because they don't live there yet. There's a weird coalition on the left and right of opposition to housing for very different reasons, some selfish and others I think well-intentioned but that lack an understanding of economic incentives. I don't think positive policies explicitly intended to encourage "affordable" housing are necessary; removing the multitude of barriers and streamlining the political approval process would do far more good than a policy that requires some ratio of luxury to new "affordable" housing or something similar.

But yes, I think they incentivize expensive/luxury housing. Not intentionally, but that's the result of the long, expensive process of getting new construction approved. Take that away and you'd see middle/working class housing increase very quickly. Imagine that there was a government policy that led to the up front costs of new cars rising by $10,000 due to whatever lobbying, compliance, government fees, legal fees, etc. New cars would still get made, but they would be more expensive and it would be the lowest cost cars that would be impacted the most. That $15,000 Nissan Versa just can't be made and sold at that price anymore and is going to end up pricing out the buyers who need a budget car. That same policy makes a luxury car more expensive too but that market is better able to handle that $10,000 increase than the budget market. So Nissan is likely to divert their manufacturing away from budget models and towards luxury. I'm arguing that this is analogous to what's happened in housing.

[4/5]

Republicans have faced two historic electoral losses in a row. I think most people are expecting a popular vote regression to the mean post-Trump, but party attitudes and actions haven’t changed much as of yet and neither have voter responses. So what happens if they don’t?

How do we think the party will respond if the upcoming midterms produce a third lopsided result? And separate from that, how should they respond?

You already addressed this in your response to my other post but I just want to say that I don't think it's anywhere near a given that 2022 will be a bad year for the GOP. Okay, that out of the way...

I'm assuming that the goal is simply electoral victories/political power and not ideologically oriented. I'm afraid that the answers are probably the exact opposite of what I'd prefer them to do, but I think that Trump might have showed them the way: nationalist populism, unrelentingly oppose leftist populism while Democrats are in power, red scare infinity.

To go back to one of your earlier posts in this thread I guess the real question is what's their winning coalition at the national level. I hate using "Hispanic" as a catch-all demographic, but as 2020 showed they can still do well with Hispanics and they should work on that. That probably means pro-life, anti-socialist and strongman messaging. They don't need to "win" the Hispanic vote, but they need to be a priority. The other priority should be the suburbs. This one is trickier as I see it. They could probably win back the burbs just by retreating to normal dog whistle politics of the Nixon-Bush 2 GOP rather than the overt bigotry of Trump, but they risk losing Trump's white populist base who wants that stuff said explicitly. To win back the suburbs they might need to also distance themselves from the QAnon part of the party, explicitly if not implicitly, but again how you do that as long as Trump is alive and kicking I don't know. Trump is simultaneously an albatross and savior of the party, both totally unacceptable and completely indispensable.

The biggest reason for hope for the GOP is probably the ensuing Democratic Party civil war assuming that the progressives win that war.

[McParadigm]

Republicans have faced two historic electoral losses in a row. I think most people are expecting a popular vote regression to the mean post-Trump, but party attitudes and actions haven’t changed much as of yet and neither have voter responses. So what happens if they don’t?

How do we think the party will respond if the upcoming midterms produce a third lopsided result? And separate from that, how should they respond?

You already addressed this in your response to my other post but I just want to say that I don't think it's anywhere near a given that 2022 will be a bad year for the GOP. Okay, that out of the way...

Yup. Like I said, the map favors them and they've got a lot of redistricting power right now. My honest prediction (assuming the party messaging continues to be similar to what we've seen in the last 2 months) is that the results in 2022 are tepidly fine...not a typical full-throated midterm course correction, but enough to balance the legislature when given a favorable map....and therefore just good enough that there's no drive to introspection.

I'm assuming that the goal is simply electoral victories/political power and not ideologically oriented.

To the same extent that politics is always a balancing act between ideological ambitions and the ability to produce those ambitions, sure.

I'm afraid that the answers are probably the exact opposite of what I'd prefer them to do, but I think that Trump might have showed them the way: nationalist populism, unrelentingly oppose leftist populism while Democrats are in power, red scare infinity.

This is certainly a path to maintaining 38% of the vote. But I'm just not convinced there's evidence that this can win on a national level, minus the condition that record numbers of jaded left-leaning voters stay home (as happened in 2014, 2016). And the thing about that is (you can call this Trump Derangement Syndrome or whatever), after 2016-2020 I think it'll be a long time before those voters risk staying home while the other ticket is pushing nationalist populism.

To go back to one of your earlier posts in this thread I guess the real question is what's their winning coalition at the national level. I hate using "Hispanic" as a catch-all demographic, but as 2020 showed they can still do well with Hispanics and they should work on that. That probably means pro-life, anti-socialist and strongman messaging. They don't need to "win" the Hispanic vote, but they need to be a priority.

This is one of the pathways I had in mind when I posed the question. I was curious if it would come up, and I also think it's a group that could be welcomed into the party.

The other priority should be the suburbs. This one is trickier as I see it. They could probably win back the burbs just by retreating to normal dog whistle politics of the Nixon-Bush 2 GOP rather than the overt bigotry of Trump, but they risk losing Trump's white populist base who wants that stuff said explicitly. To win back the suburbs they might need to also distance themselves from the QAnon part of the party, explicitly if not implicitly, but again how you do that as long as Trump is alive and kicking I don't know. Trump is simultaneously an albatross and savior of the party, both totally unacceptable and completely indispensable.

Yeah, this is exactly the reason I think the party is in a rough place. The current state draws big numbers in the places where they can already win and is a good answer for ActBlue's donation power, but at the cost of losing the people they most need in order to be reliably, regularly able to claim a legislative majority. And the thing about tuning down the current rhetoric is....you don't know for sure that it will actually bring enough people back. You just might lose some of your base, risk creating an oppositional third party, and ultimately gain nothing. It's a rough gamble.

The biggest reason for hope for the GOP is probably the ensuing Democratic Party civil war assuming that the progressives win that war.

Boy do I ever not think this is going to happen.

[4/5]

This is certainly a path to maintaining 38% of the vote. But I'm just not convinced there's evidence that this can win on a national level, minus the condition that record numbers of jaded left-leaning voters stay home (as happened in 2014, 2016). And the thing about that is (you can call this Trump Derangement Syndrome or whatever), after 2016-2020 I think it'll be a long time before those voters risk staying home while the other ticket is pushing nationalist populism.

Yeah, this is the big question and probably the biggest factor that will determine 2022 elections. I can see it working both ways: the existential threat of Trump is gone (at least in 2022), Biden is blah, and voting Democratic doesn't feel as urgent as it did in 2018 and 2020. Or it goes the way you said where that 2018-20 cohort of new voters remains politically engaged and continues voting at higher rates.

Yeah, this is exactly the reason I think the party is in a rough place. The current state draws big numbers in the places where they can already win and is a good answer for ActBlue's donation power, but at the cost of losing the people they most need in order to be reliably, regularly able to claim a legislative majority. And the thing about tuning down the current rhetoric is....you don't know for sure that it will actually bring enough people back. You just might lose some of your base, risk creating an oppositional third party, and ultimately gain nothing. It's a rough gamble.

Agreed. The things that would bring back voters they've lost are the same things that could lose them Trump's base.

[Rob]

Republicans have faced two historic electoral losses in a row. I think most people are expecting a popular vote regression to the mean post-Trump, but party attitudes and actions haven’t changed much as of yet and neither have voter responses. So what happens if they don’t?

How do we think the party will respond if the upcoming midterms produce a third lopsided result? And separate from that, how should they respond?

You already addressed this in your response to my other post but I just want to say that I don't think it's anywhere near a given that 2022 will be a bad year for the GOP. Okay, that out of the way...

Yup. Like I said, the map favors them and they've got a lot of redistricting power right now. My honest prediction (assuming the party messaging continues to be similar to what we've seen in the last 2 months) is that the results in 2022 are tepidly fine...not a typical full-throated midterm course correction, but enough to balance the legislature when given a favorable map....and therefore just good enough that there's no drive to introspection.

I'm assuming that the goal is simply electoral victories/political power and not ideologically oriented.

To the same extent that politics is always a balancing act between ideological ambitions and the ability to produce those ambitions, sure.

I'm afraid that the answers are probably the exact opposite of what I'd prefer them to do, but I think that Trump might have showed them the way: nationalist populism, unrelentingly oppose leftist populism while Democrats are in power, red scare infinity.

This is certainly a path to maintaining 38% of the vote. But I'm just not convinced there's evidence that this can win on a national level, minus the condition that record numbers of jaded left-leaning voters stay home (as happened in 2014, 2016). And the thing about that is (you can call this Trump Derangement Syndrome or whatever), after 2016-2020 I think it'll be a long time before those voters risk staying home while the other ticket is pushing nationalist populism.

To go back to one of your earlier posts in this thread I guess the real question is what's their winning coalition at the national level. I hate using "Hispanic" as a catch-all demographic, but as 2020 showed they can still do well with Hispanics and they should work on that. That probably means pro-life, anti-socialist and strongman messaging. They don't need to "win" the Hispanic vote, but they need to be a priority.

This is one of the pathways I had in mind when I posed the question. I was curious if it would come up, and I also think it's a group that could be welcomed into the party.

The other priority should be the suburbs. This one is trickier as I see it. They could probably win back the burbs just by retreating to normal dog whistle politics of the Nixon-Bush 2 GOP rather than the overt bigotry of Trump, but they risk losing Trump's white populist base who wants that stuff said explicitly. To win back the suburbs they might need to also distance themselves from the QAnon part of the party, explicitly if not implicitly, but again how you do that as long as Trump is alive and kicking I don't know. Trump is simultaneously an albatross and savior of the party, both totally unacceptable and completely indispensable.

Yeah, this is exactly the reason I think the party is in a rough place. The current state draws big numbers in the places where they can already win and is a good answer for ActBlue's donation power, but at the cost of losing the people they most need in order to be reliably, regularly able to claim a legislative majority. And the thing about tuning down the current rhetoric is....you don't know for sure that it will actually bring enough people back. You just might lose some of your base, risk creating an oppositional third party, and ultimately gain nothing. It's a rough gamble.

The biggest reason for hope for the GOP is probably the ensuing Democratic Party civil war assuming that the progressives win that war.

Boy do I ever not think this is going to happen.

Good conversation. I'm actually not sure who I agree with more, because you both make good points. I am of the belief that they can't keep this up forever, and they have no new ideas to run with when the gig is up. They centered themselves around a man/personality, and you can't pass that baton like you could with Reagan and "free market capitalism". But who knows how long this takes to play out. They will probabably win back one or both houses of Congress in '22 , so this may take a while. Best hope is that a younger Republican cohort comes to town with some fresh material. That's the only workable response, I think. Will it happen? I mean, either it'll have to or the party is finished and another will come along to do so. I agree Hispanics may prove valuable for a while, but at the end of the day, there's most likely a ~38% cap there too (to use McP's number, which I agree with).

[Captain Termite]

|
|
|





Good conversation. I'm actually not sure who I agree with more, because you both make good points. I am of the belief that they can't keep this up forever, and they have no new ideas to run with when the gig is up. They centered themselves around a man/personality, and you can't pass that baton like you could with Reagan and "free market capitalism". But who knows how long this takes to play out. They will probabably win back one or both houses of Congress in '22 , so this may take a while. Best hope is that a younger Republican cohort comes to town with some fresh material. That's the only workable response, I think. Will it happen? I mean, either it'll have to or the party is finished and another will come along to do so. I agree Hispanics may prove valuable for a while, but at the end of the day, there's most likely a ~38% cap there too (to use McP's number, which I agree with).

I think they will try to pass that baton, and if so I predict they will have some success doing so.

[Monkey_Driven]

Not sure where to put this, but Missouri Senator Roy Blunt will not run for re-election in 2022. A pretty safe GOP state, but noteworthy news nonetheless.

[surfndestroy]

And local officials respond to the people who show up to town halls opposing that construction for the basic reason that they are voters whereas the people who would directly benefit from the new construction aren't there because they don't live there yet.

Isn't it the job of local officials to represent the people who live in the community and not hypothetical people who don't live there? From what I see, the constant focus on growth and making things better/more accessible/affordable for people who don't live in the community comes at the expense of quality of living of those already there.

[4/5]

And local officials respond to the people who show up to town halls opposing that construction for the basic reason that they are voters whereas the people who would directly benefit from the new construction aren't there because they don't live there yet.

Isn't it the job of local officials to represent the people who live in the community and not hypothetical people who don't live there? From what I see, the constant focus on growth and making things better/more accessible/affordable for people who don't live in the community comes at the expense of quality of living of those already there.

That's why my first sentence was "I don't think politicians are usually evil or stupid in their actions regarding housing." They're (sometimes) responding to their constituents which is a rational thing to do. You're basically making the classic NIMBY argument and I admit that it has a certain appeal. Whether new housing comes at the expense of quality of living obviously depends on what a person wants from their community and a number of other factors. I don't think the focus has to be on any of the things you said to oppose zoning laws and policies that discourage new housing. It can be a really simple liberty and private property rights argument that I know doesn't appeal to most people here, but seems like it should appeal to you. These governments are preventing construction and mutually beneficial transactions from taking place and artificially limiting the supply of housing, which pushes prices upward. Personally, I think that's the wrong policy but I admit there are trade-offs here and people will value things differently. Ultimately, this is a problem caused by governments; that was my main point originally.

[blueviper]

Not sure where to put this, but Missouri Senator Roy Blunt will not run for re-election in 2022. A pretty safe GOP state, but noteworthy news nonetheless.

Did you see who wants to run...Eric Greitens. Yeesh

[McParadigm]

lmao

[elliseamos]

lmao

He's back!

[McParadigm]

The RNC **just** moved its spring donor retreat to Mar-a-Lago.

[Monkey_Driven]

Not sure where to put this, but Missouri Senator Roy Blunt will not run for re-election in 2022. A pretty safe GOP state, but noteworthy news nonetheless.

Did you see who wants to run...Eric Greitens. Yeesh

If that's the best this state can do, we don't deserve nice things.

[surfndestroy]

And local officials respond to the people who show up to town halls opposing that construction for the basic reason that they are voters whereas the people who would directly benefit from the new construction aren't there because they don't live there yet.

Isn't it the job of local officials to represent the people who live in the community and not hypothetical people who don't live there? From what I see, the constant focus on growth and making things better/more accessible/affordable for people who don't live in the community comes at the expense of quality of living of those already there.

That's why my first sentence was "I don't think politicians are usually evil or stupid in their actions regarding housing." They're (sometimes) responding to their constituents which is a rational thing to do. You're basically making the classic NIMBY argument and I admit that it has a certain appeal. Whether new housing comes at the expense of quality of living obviously depends on what a person wants from their community and a number of other factors. I don't think the focus has to be on any of the things you said to oppose zoning laws and policies that discourage new housing. It can be a really simple liberty and private property rights argument that I know doesn't appeal to most people here, but seems like it should appeal to you. These governments are preventing construction and mutually beneficial transactions from taking place and artificially limiting the supply of housing, which pushes prices upward. Personally, I think that's the wrong policy but I admit there are trade-offs here and people will value things differently. Ultimately, this is a problem caused by governments; that was my main point originally.

I am not very libertarian regarding city planning. I do think it needs to be done with a longer term vision than it is usually done. Set out a plan and get less local input but make the vision part of the election cycle. This will help counter act NIMBY-ism and allow people who don't like the plan to move well in advance of any changes. A longer term planning cycle may also allow cities to better manage the change and co-ordinate with other agencies such as school boards, transit agencies, traffic planning and other infrastructure type agencies. Pro-actively care, something I do not see much of.

[McParadigm]

Good setup, great punch line.

[elliseamos]

Good setup, great punch line.

Isn't the Drake Meme perfect for this?

[McParadigm]

Democrats were able to pass the stimulus bill in part because Republicans were to busy complaining about cancel culture to message against it. Will they now get to pass an enormous infrastructure bill because Republicans are too busy telling corporations to stay out of politics (I’m not talking about political contributions)?

[Rob]

Democrats were able to pass the stimulus bill in part because Republicans were to busy complaining about cancel culture to message against it. Will they now get to pass an enormous infrastructure bill because Republicans are too busy telling corporations to stay out of politics (I’m not talking about political contributions)?

I like your McConnell reference there, haha. Also, why do people think it's a good idea to open with "first they came...?" I guess woke Libs are nazis now.

[BurtReynolds]

What messaging would stop anything? The rhetoric is about winning elections, not stopping policies.