-
Future of Republican Party?
-
[link=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jumbo_blunder_KcdGiDxKWG6qkLcRPe8RLP/1]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jumbo_blunder_KcdGiDxKWG6qkLcRPe8RLP/1[/link]
An interesting take on the poor marketing product that is “the autopsy”
Is this a plan for the future or a suicide note?
Readers of the report who voted for Obama would conclude they made the right decision, while readers who voted for Romney would doubt their choice.
Without directly saying so, the 100-page document also oozes contempt for the Tea Party, which is odd on several levels. Without the Tea Party, Republicans would be a minority in the House.
And its the Tea Party, not the Washington establishment, that has produced most of the GOPs leading minority members. Think Cuban-American Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, and Indian-American Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. And it was Haley who appointed Tim Scott to replace the retiring Jim DeMint, making Scott the first black senator from the South since the 19th century.
The rage from many on the right reflects the ways the report foolishly incorporates liberal criticism that the most conservative members of the GOP are the problem. The result, for now, is that the clumsy effort to unite the party actually makes a split more likely.
It was also terribly timed. Republicans finally are winning something the battle of the sequester, and thus showing the fallacy of the idea that all federal spending is sacred. But instead of stories about Obama canceling White House tours while wasting millions on golf trips and giveaways, the MSNBC crowd now has a new talking point: Republicans admit theyre awful people!
So a strong GOP candidate in 2016 with a modicum of charisma which would be more than either Romney or John McCain had would start the race with a reasonable shot.
The first task, though, is to find party leaders who dont insult their customers and talk down their brand. If there is to be a GOP comeback, it will have to start there.-
Let them do more of the same then & we’ll all see who was correct after all.
-
ditto, ditto
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from dergon
If the GOP moves in favor of civil unions I would consider that to be a rather dramatic shift leftward in policy. Hells, that is still the position of most democrats, of Obama until a year ago, and Hillary Clinton until 72 hours ago.
Why is it that when the democrats flip-flop it’s normal “evolution” but when the republicans change, it’s clear evidence of hypocrisy????
What did I say that claimed republican hypocrisy.
I said that if the GOP moved from their current position to one in favor of civil unions it would represent a significant leftward shift.
If democrats move from civil union to gay marriage and republicans move from “god hates queers” to civil union….. well that represents a significant shift overall.-
The political spectrum is being warped before our eyes. Instead of left/right, it is becoming a choice between more freedom(less govt) and less freedom(more govt) and the republicans are just expanding their natural economic “more freedom” natural habitat into the social sphere.
-
We really should have a OT header that says: What has happened to the democrat party and what will the result be for future elections.
The dems held onto the executive branch by fear mongering and directly lying meant to stoke their base-no more/no less. The propaganda ‘wars’ on women, gays, throwing granny off a cliff, killing middle aged women stricken with cancer, felonious tax cheats, and the lies about repubs desire to have dirty air and water, along with the whole gun control circus are nothing more than sound bites for the MSM to replay over and over in the news cycles until the masses believe it true. Just turn on MSNBC for 30 seconds and one of these topics will be discussed and discussed, and discussed…etc, etc. These are nothing but distractions that is only as good as the jokers, liars, thieves telling them. And obama was/is good and deceptive at doing it. So good at it, he’s inspired a whole bunch of leftists to parrot intense fear mongering. Problem is, the dems own this economy and it’s going to be harder and harder to regurgitate the same message with someone as uninspiring as Mrs. Clinton.However, with the convenient foil of Romney out of the way, people are already asking the President, where are the jobs? And the Presidents stunt responses about closing WH tours and Easter Egg hunts are deflating him in the polls. Reagan and Clinton enjoyed 60%+ approval ratings by this time, and Obama’s dipping below 50 and trending lower. Its the second time around for this President and yes where are the jobs? Didnt Reagan/Clinton have unemployment below 6 percent by now in their second terms? What are we doing about the debt? Is gas going to stay between 4-5 dollars a gallon? Why are we not taking all the energy we can from under our feet? How are we going to get massive switch of population made re-dependent on government back to work and to responsibility for themselves?
In other words, fear is now your democrat message and socialism is the goal. Contrast that to our message: freedom, utility, and no-nonsense hard work.
The democratic party of Moynihan, Kennedy and O’Neil has been replaced with a group of progressive socialists and statists who would have Washington command-control everything any businessman would ever do, down to his/her individual thoughts if they could. And what’s the new agenda for dems: 22 dollar an hour minimum wage!!? WTF!! Elizabeth Warren is a useless odd novice. If the high school dropout is getting 22 dollars an hr (70,000.00/yr), if there would be any jobs left, I’d be worth Lebron James money. Sen Warren is a wacky socialist schoolmarm so extreme that she makes Ted Cruz seem like a RINO.-
Quote from RVU
Contrast that to our message: freedom, utility, and no-nonsense hard work.
[blockquote][i]Quote from [b]aldadoc[/b][/i]
They should stick to the principles of smaller government, low taxes and personal freedoms.
[/blockquote]If they rediscovered the “personal freedoms” part of this triad they could actually probably become a majority. But gay marriage opposition, reproductive rights opposition, the too cozy relationship with christianity as the nation’s religion, and opposition to drug decriminalization among other issues has made them definitively *not* the party of personal freedoms.
_____
You might remember this exchange from months (and 2 pages in this thread) ago.
It is very difficult for the republican party to broadly market itself as the party of “freedom” while the social conservative/chrisitan conservative wing of the party wields so much power and has a message that often is directly contradictory and opposed to the notion of individual liberty.
The public split between GOP the libertarian wing, the social conservative wing, and the strong-defence-just-shut-up-about-everything-else-so-we-can-win-elections wing of the GOP is growing before our eyes.The reason there isn’t a thread about “future of the democratic party” is that, for now, the democratic party has a roughly stable and growing demographic and is not threatened with being unable to win national elections.
Yeah, guns and overreach on progressive policy might hurt them on older working class rural white, but that is losing market share in a shrinking demographic which is more than replaced by the gains in other demographic groups.
That said, there is no permanent democratic majority on the horizon. At some point the party is either going to have to get out in front of entitlement reform which risks fragmenting their base, raises taxes a lot more (extending into the middle class) which risks popularity, or stay in denial and take the blame (and the electoral losses) that come with the sequelae of failing to get the debt under control. [i]That[/i] has the potential to provide the GOP with a once in a generation “I told you so” of epic proportion.
-
Quote from dergon
You might remember this exchange from months (and 2 pages in this thread) ago.
It is very difficult for the republican party to broadly market itself as the party of “freedom” while the social conservative/chrisitan conservative wing of the party wields so much power and has a message that often is directly contradictory and opposed to the notion of individual liberty.
Give me a break. It is plainly obvious from the filibuster and the smackdown of the “moss covered” republicans that “freedom” is a winner. The christian conservatives will vote republican even if they have to hold their noses to do it.
It’s the DEMOCRATS that need to figure how to handle a party split. The kumbaya wing is growing increasingly uncomfortable with the party of drone strikes. Furthermore, with the appointment of Jacob Lew, the dems are increasingly becoming the party of big banksters, how will that play with the OWS wing???-
13 hour filibuster over nothing….call me when Rand Paul gets a repeal of the Patriot Act…until then it is a bunch of bluster. Who is bankrolling Rand anyway?
-
Who is bankrolling Rand anyway?
The Heritage Foundation and the Koch Brothers? (( that comment made with no googling or actual knowledge… just from my gut))
-
The dembots live. Heritage bad. Koch bad. Soros good. Moveon good.
-
[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00030836&newMem=N&cycle=2012]http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00030836&newMem=N&cycle=2012[/link]
Nah just some corporate cronies with their hands out…so much for purity-
Quote from Thor
[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00030836&newMem=N&cycle=2012]http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00030836&newMem=N&cycle=2012[/link]
Nah just some corporate cronies with their hands out…so much for purity
Shocking. Politicians are now taking campaign contributions!! Thank you for letting me know.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Between the rigid ideologies of the Tea Party and the right-wing Infotainment Complex, Rush & Faux News against the pressures of reality, which is going to break the GOP? If you test these rigid ideologies with results things will only get worse. That is the ultimate conclusion of the report.
The right-wing lives on anger and mythology, whether it is go-it alone individualism of the Libertarians or the small-government nonsense. How small is small? Not to mention suddenly the right wing is a spending miser after spending the surpluses on binges & fighting 2 wars, one totally unnecessary and based on a lie. Yeah, let’s do more of the same. When you find yourself in a hole, keep digging, the GOP platform.-
You have just set the record for the number of baseless accusations, stereotypes and pre-packaged talking points in one post. Good job!
-
Quote from billainsworth
You have just set the record for the number of baseless accusations, stereotypes and pre-packaged talking points in one post. Good job!
“baseless accusations” you say? Let’s see, just off the top of my head:
[ul][*]rigid ideologies: [i]”No more taxes, no matter what”[/i] -baseless[*]mythology: [i]”government is too big”[/i], or [i]”trickle-down works”[/i], or [i]”Obama isn’t fixing the economy fast enough”[/i] – baseless[*]anger: [i]”marriage can [u]only[/u] be between a man and a woman”[/i], or[i] “do whatever we can to make this a one-term presidency”[/i] – baseless[*]go-it-alone individualism: [i]”[u]WE[/u] built it, without any government help at all”, [/i]or [i]”we all have our shot; too bad if it doesn’t work out for some”[/i], [i]”redistribution of wealth; socialism”[/i] – baseless[*]spending miser: [i]”the deficit is the most important problem in the economy”[/i], or [i]”we know exactly how big the government should be and it’s too big now” [/i]- baseless[*]fighting 2 wars: [i]”to preserve the American way of life”[/i] – baseless [/ul] There’s plenty more where that came from. I’m not saying the Democrats aren’t guilty of similar stuff, but to accuse Thor of posting[i] “baseless accusations”[/i] is a very strong indication that you just have no idea what’s going on in the Republican party at this point.
-
I wear all insults from Billy as a badge of honor, but I believe Frumi got this badge.
Besides if anyone is good at making baseless accusations and complete non-sequiters it is Billy (its a defense mechanism for being ignorant and oh so easy to throw around)-
Kinda like being on Nixon’s enemies list, a compliment. Only I have Bill blocked since he’s never posted anything useful or truthful, he’s only good at insults. I think he’s a past troll under a different name.
You listed it pretty well Lux.
BTW Bill, it’s not just me saying those things that get your panties in a knot, it is the RNC report that concluded the GOP is busy alienating everyone. In fact it clearly said so.-
Quote from Frumious
Kinda like being on Nixon’s enemies list, a compliment. Only I have Bill blocked since he’s never posted anything useful or truthful, he’s only good at insults. I think he’s a past troll under a different name.
You listed it pretty well Lux.
BTW Bill, it’s not just me saying those things that get your panties in a knot, it is the RNC report that concluded the GOP is busy alienating everyone. In fact it clearly said so.
You take a vastly disproportionate interest in someone you have blocked…..
-
An appropriate topic for this thread, “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe who just died yesterday.
The protagonist commits suicide as thing spin out of his control, something the GOP has been doing is slow motion.
The nice thing about being a republican, conservative or libertarian is that they are not burdened by facts. Even the fact checkers have burned out by some of them.
-
Quote from Frumious
An appropriate topic for this thread, “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe who just died yesterday.
The protagonist commits suicide as thing spin out of his control, something the GOP has been doing is slow motion.
The nice thing about being a republican, conservative or libertarian is that they are not burdened by facts. Even the fact checkers have burned out by some of them.
You seem to possess a vast repository of “facts”, but you are quite miserly when it comes to sharing them with us? Your rants would be slightly more convincing if you just supplied a fact or two.
-
-
-
-
Oops, right, sorry Frumious!
It’s easy to lose track of all the badges. -
Quote from Thor
I wear all insults from Billy as a badge of honor, but I believe Frumi got this badge.
Besides if anyone is good at making baseless accusations and complete non-sequiters it is Billy (its a defense mechanism for being ignorant and oh so easy to throw around)
So it should be very easy to cite a few examples…..
-
-
-
-
-
Yet another interesting on the heels of the RNC report-
[b]Memo to GOP: You can’t put lipstick on an elephant[/b]
…….
So beyond the mechanics, the outreach, the shorter presidential primary seasonall the recommendations of the RNC reporthere is what the party has on offer.
A gentler tone on gay rights accompanied by a hard line in the Supreme Courtand almost certainly in the next rounds of primaries for the Senate and for president.
A confused, shilly-shallying, often slur-riven approach on immigration reform that surely wont convert Hispanics and other ethnic minorities.
And one place where the RNC report is truly shy: an enmity toward a womans right to choose and womens health services that will perpetuate and widen the gender gap.
The coup de grace comes with the Ryan budgets rank economic injustice and massive cuts for the middle class, seniors, and the poor. The RNC may be trying hard, but Paul Ryan has starkly shown that you cant put lipstick on an elephant.
-
Clearly republicans need to reach out to more women working on their fifth husbands: (because the dems already have a monopoly on those too-ugly-to-be-married(tm))
[image]https://www.vdare.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullsize/images/James_Fulford/image001_2.png[/image]
-
That’s an interesting chart.
It is what the GOP chooses to do with this information that matters. It can choose to moralize and say “Look, marriage is still viewed with sanctity in our stronghold states. We are morally superior to the democrats”.
OR they could choose an interpretation that might actually bring them to national electoral victory and say “Look, long term marriage is decline in the USA, particulary in the large population centers with many electoral votes in play. This is a social trend we need to understand. Perhaps if we stopped moralizing marriage and about how women should live their lives we might narrow the gender and flip a couple of those blue states with lower marriage rates into the red column.”
This is just one of many issues that brought about the need for this thread. GOP needs to decide whether its self-righteous moralizing is more valuable to it than winning.-
From the head of the Pew polling research group:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-numbers-prove-it-the-republican-party-is-estranged-from-america/2013/03/22/3050734c-900a-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-numbers-prove-it-the-republican-party-is-estranged-from-america/2013/03/22/3050734c-900a-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html[/link]
[b]The numbers prove it: The GOP is estranged from America[/b]In my decades of polling, I recall only one moment when a party had been driven as far from the center as the Republican Party has been today.
The outsize influence of hard-line elements in the party base is doing to the GOP what supporters of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern did to the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s radicalizing its image and standing in the way of its revitalization.
In those years, the Democratic Party became labeled, to its detriment, as the party of acid, abortion and amnesty. With the Democrats values far to the left of the silent majority, [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-mcgovern-on-his-1972-presidential-defeat/2012/09/28/dded48fc-f78c-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html]McGovern lost in a landslide[/link] to Richard Nixon in 1972.
While there are no catchy phrases for the Republicans of 2013, their image problems are readily apparent in national polls. The GOP has come to be seen as the more extreme party, the side unwilling to compromise or negotiate seriously to tackle the economic turmoil that challenges the nation.
The Republican Partys ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a [link=http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/26/gop-seen-as-principled-but-out-of-touch-and-too-extreme/]recent Pew Research Center survey[/link]. Although the Democrats are better regarded (47 percent favorable and 46 percent unfavorable), the GOPs problems are its own, not a mirror image of renewed Democratic strength.
The politicization of news consumption is certainly not new; its been apparent in more than 20 years of data collected by the Pew Research Center. What is new is a bloc of voters who rely more on conservative media than on the general news media to comprehend the world. Pew found that 54 percent of staunch conservatives report that they regularly watch Fox News, compared with 44 percent who read a newspaper and 30 percent who watch network news regularly. Newspapers and/or television networks top all other news sources for other blocs of voters, both on the right and on the left. Neither CNN, NPR or the New York Times has an audience close to that size among other voting blocs.
Conservative Republicans make up as much as [link=http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/]50 percent of the audiences[/link] for Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O Reilly. There is nothing like this on the left. MSNBCs Hardball and The Rachel Maddow Show attract significantly fewer liberal Democrats.
I see little reason to believe that the staunch conservative bloc will wither away or splinter; it will remain a dominant force in the GOP and on the national stage. At the same time, however, I see no indication that its ideas about policy, governance and social issues will gain new adherents. They are far beyond the mainstream.
Any Republican efforts at reinvention face this dilemma: While staunch conservatives help keep GOP lawmakers in office, they also help keep the party out of the White House. Quite simply, the Republican Party has to appeal to a broader cross section of the electorate to succeed in presidential elections.
This became apparent last fall. Voters generally agreed with the GOP that a smaller government is preferable to a larger, activist one, and therefore they disapproved of Obamacare. However, exit polls showed popular support for legalizing same-sex marriage and giving illegal immigrants opportunities for citizenship.
This combination of conservative and liberal views is typical. To win, both parties must appeal to the mixed values of the electorate. But it will be very hard for the Republican Party, given the power of the staunch conservatives in its ranks.
Of course, the Democrats of the 1970s were able to overcome their obstacles. All it took was Watergate, an oil embargo and a presidential pardon of Nixon for Jimmy Carter to secure a thin victory in 1976. Not even the most frustrated Republicans could hope for a similar turn of events.-
Quote from dergon
[b]The numbers prove it: The GOP is estranged from America[/b]
Disagree. Only [b]PARTS[/b] of America
[image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aWzEdNHt–U/UI95m7OiAfI/AAAAAAAAAeo/x_6F3Ycpgis/s1600/Steve_Sailer_Obama_Romney_October_2012b.png[/image]-
Why on earth do you continue to REFUSE to explain your point. I will not look at a graph and interpret it to mean anything other than the data it presents. You save actually have not made a SINGLE point in this entire discussion so far.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT, BILL?
-
Well given whites are soon to be a minority I would say the right is screwed (unless the Mormons step up their marriages/childbearing)
-
Quote from Thor
Well given whites are soon to be a minority I would say the right is screwed (unless the Mormons step up their marriages/childbearing)
Since the direction of our whole country will be determined by single black mothers, I’d say we are all screwed. Buy gold and take the Canadian Boards.
-
Better them then you Billy…enjoy socialist life in Canada
-
Quote from Thor
Better them then you Billy…enjoy socialist life in Canada
That’s the sad thing. In a lot of ways, particularly with regards to business environment, Canada is becoming LESS socialist than the US. But for accuracy sake, with Obama confiscating means of production for the benefit of the state, I would posit Canada is becoming less fascist than the US.
-
-
Bill..IMHO. get help…
black woman tend to be the first fired /easily gotten rid off than any working group in this country even if they are einstein so if you fell this way, you need to get HELP quick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Thor
Well given whites are soon to be a minority I would say the right is screwed (unless the Mormons step up their marriages/childbearing)
Since the direction of our whole country will be determined by single black mothers, I’d say we are all screwed. Buy gold and take the Canadian Boards.
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
Bill..IMHO. get help…
black woman tend to be the first fired /easily gotten rid off(sic) than any working group in this country even if they are einstein (sic) so if you fell(sic) this way, you need to get HELP quick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!evidence?
-
-
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from dergon
[b]The numbers prove it: The GOP is estranged from America[/b]
Disagree. Only [b]PARTS[/b] of America
[image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aWzEdNHt–U/UI95m7OiAfI/AAAAAAAAAeo/x_6F3Ycpgis/s1600/Steve_Sailer_Obama_Romney_October_2012b.png[/image]
Welll, yes. Only *parts* of America…. but the majority of America nonetheless. If the GOP could win a governing majority with only the red bars Romney wouldn’t have lost, there would have been no “autopsy”, and this thread would likely not exist……………..but he did, it happened, and it does.
This chart is merely a graphic representation of Romney’s 47% comment or Sarah Palin’s “real America”.
The implication here is that GOP voters (white, affluent, married, christian, and rural) are better people than democratic voters. It is exactly that perspective that caused the GOP to lose its popularity with the majority of the country. And if the GOP base continues to think that way and address all the people represented in the “blue” columns in an insulting manner (I would argue the chart itself is intentionally inflammatory …… in unintentional it just shows even more insensitivity) the GOP will not be able to gain a governing majority.
That is the lesson of the 2012 loss and the sebsequent autopsy. Based on the responses here on AM it is clear that the republican party has a long way to go in bringing its base into the 21st century. -
I think any rationale person with the hopes of America prospering and not dissolving would graviatate the leadership of the reddest 5 groups than the bluest 5. That’s pretty obvious. In fact, the bluest five give me nightmares. They would have reducation camps and accept government with people of less talent, formal education or intellect.
-
Quote from MRImadman
In fact, the bluest five give me nightmares.
DO you realize how that sounds? If you just add each group individually you sound like a racist anti-semite and misogynist.
Single black women give me nightmares.
Blacks give me nightmares.
Muslims give me nightmares.
Gays and lesbians give me nightmares.
Single jewish women give me nightmares.
Lucky for the hindus… they came in at only the 6th most unamerican voters to be feared and distrusted.
-
Go to google and google news-step 1.
Step 2-look up ” Detroit bankruptcy” “violent crime by race statistics” “prison popiulation by race-statistics” “college 4 year graduates by race” “califate” “suicide and lesbians”
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/pol…ential-candidates.aspx[/link][link=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm]http://usatoday30.usatoda…02/02/27/usat-poll.htm[/link]
[link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality]http://www.guardian.co.uk…-germany-homosexuality[/link]
If the question is would one want a sampling of people who have much higher rates of poor education, intolerance, depression, and violent behavior choose or be your leaders, vs. a sampling of married white people–the answer, however painful, is obvious. If you disagree with that, then you are blind or being intentionally deceitful.
There is social decay in some of those groups that goes above and beyond whatever their liberal attitudes may ruin society with.
-
Blue states are so bad they top the list of states with highest income per capita while the reddest of the red are at the bottom of the list of 50 states,
Blue states also provide the state welfare so many red states depend on. It is the red states that are the takers. freedom in red states is the freedom to be dirt poor for many. The reddest states generally are lowest in education and public health as well.
A veritable paradise for conservatives.
-
The red states are dragged down by their blue cities. Memphis, New Orleans, Birmingham are all good examples. Furthermore the bluest areas of blue cities in the bluest states are the country’s worst–south chicago, for example. Atlanta is two cities–a thriving red north and a hellish blue south.
-
Quote from billainsworth
The red states are dragged down by their blue cities. Memphis, New Orleans, Birmingham are all good examples. Furthermore the bluest areas of blue cities in the bluest states are the country’s worst–south chicago, for example. Atlanta is two cities–a thriving red north and a hellish blue south.
There are exceptions to every rule, Bill, but you’re making the classic mistake of turning the exceptions [i]into[/i] the rule.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Clearly republicans need to reach out to more women working on their fifth husbands: (because the dems already have a monopoly on those too-ugly-to-be-married(tm))
Bill, is there ANY chance of getting you to explain how your conclusions are drawn from the graphs you post?
Please tell us, exactly, what point you are trying to make with that [b]”Marriage Matters: 2012 Election”[/b] graph, because the graph ONLY shows the average number of years white women are married.
There’s nothing in that graph that indicates the [u]number of times[/u] someone has gotten married, or [u]how long[/u] each marriage lasts, or [u]how old they were[/u] when they first got married, or who they [u]voted[/u] for, or anything else. It only shows the total number of years white women have been married in each state.
Also note that the graph starts at 12 years which places zero far off to the left of the page.
Basically, your OP is silly, Billy.
-
-
Quote from Bill Ainsworth
Quote from Thor
I wear all insults from Billy as a badge of honor, but I believe Frumi got this badge.
Besides if anyone is good at making baseless accusations and complete non-sequiters it is Billy (its a defense mechanism for being ignorant and oh so easy to throw around)
So it should be very easy to cite a few examples…..
Hey Thor, is that crickets I hear????? -
If you had to live in a township of 5000 residents and their rules, who would you choose as a bloc? 5000 random citizens from Chicago, Washington DC, or, 5000 residents from Kennesaw Ga?
-
Id probably choose DC
Have you ever been there? -
In juxtaposition to the OP, I’m just curious about the future of the democrat party. Why are the democrats dogmatic/inflexible and have:
religious beliefs in confiscatory and ever increasing taxes,
religious beliefs against spending and budget controls,
religious beliefs in global warming and anti-growth,
religious beliefs against carbon based energy and therefore the basis of Western economies,
religious beliefs that throwing more money in the inner city will improve minorities lots in life or decrease crime,
religious beliefs in unions and funding every benefit, although the trillions owned to those who work less at municipal jobs could never be paid out under anybody’s plan
religious belief in giving more money and permitting the status quo in failing schools,
religious beliefs in equality of outcome and income redistribution,
religious beliefs against traditional values,
religious beliefs in a huge government centrally commanding others what to do,
religious beliefs in tort lawyers,
religious beliefs against guns, yet providing for more lenient sentencing for violent criminals,
religious beliefs in porous, non-secured borders,
religious beliefs about citizenship on a rolling/flexible admissions basis,
religious beliefs in most forms of public vulgarity unless directed against the those artificially protected by the politically correct (blacks, gays, muslims, liberal women)
religious beliefs in blaming America first in negative foreign response to our freedoms
religious beliefs in protesting most American military involvement overseas, unless performed for a politically correct ideal
religious beliefs against prosperity,
religious beliefs against (actually hatred for) e pluribus unum, but always reminding us of difference and striking division,
religious beliefs against leadership and governance instead of grand-standing and hyperbole/ talk.
religious beliefs against medical technology and doctors independence,
religious beliefs that people can chose not to be in the workforce and thrive,
religious belief in Nancy Pelosi,
religious belief in the nanny state,
-
The reason democrats are winning National elections is because most people aren’t buying your above rhetoric.
Most of the country outside of the rural areas view Republicans as extremists. It is the truth. That is why you are losing.Democrats are more main stream. That is why they are the winning.
The center wins. Democrats since The Clinton Years have been closer too the center than republicans.-
Exactly…. that laundry list is the lament of the far right. The hard right holds warped perspective of the democratic party that simply is not held by the majority of the populace as demonstrated by poll after poll.
The perspectives offerred here in this thread show how difficult it will be for the GOP party leadership to drag its base forward. The base thinks the problem is on the other side. -
Quote from kpack123
The reason democrats are winning National elections is because most people aren’t buying your above rhetoric.
Nope. It’s identity and groupthink politics in electing a black individual as President. If there was a wide consensus about liberalism, the House wouldnt have historically over-ridden any resemblance of a liberal mandate in 2010.
And, how does a liberal explain 2010? The republicans didnt lose that much in the 1974 mid-terms after Nixon resignation and Reagan didnt in 1982 despite a very bad recession. Oh yes, it happened before when Clinton imprudently went left early in his Presidential term. Then lost Congress by the second largest margin in a century, fired Podesta, and hired D1ck Morris.
In other words, the political history doesnt support your thesis that America is turning or has tolerance for leftist stronger government.
Quote from
Most of the country outside of the rural areas view Republicans as extremists.
Wishful thinking there big time. Beside the House elections, twice as many people (40% to 21%) consider themselves conservative rather than liberal.
And, an overwhelming majority of people not living in the NE and western coast, and IL, think that liberals are dangerous and unprincipled extremists who would lead American into a second or third world status.
Quote from
It is the truth. That is why you are losing.Democrats are more main stream. That is why they are the winning.
Its more of your wishful thinking, and not the truth. If you think it is the truth, please rebut each of my points. Show evidence and tell me why for instance a majority of Americans believe in throwing money at failed schools, strong increases in government growth and spending, or why they want to eliminate fossil fuels? And, we’ll just have to see when the democrats dont have such a well-spoken symbolic racial figurehead, who by the way can seem to get over a soft 50% approval (now below), while Reagan and the moderate Clinton exceeded 60% by now.-
Really?????
What political history are you looking at
Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. The one they lost……was in a time of War and marginal panic
“Wishful thinking there big time. Beside the House elections, twice as many people (40% to 21%) consider themselves conservative rather than liberal. ”
Well if that statist is true then 32% of the rest of the 100% are voting democrat because Obama got close to 53% of vote
Ill take my wishful thinking over your reality distortion any day
-
As many Dems will tell you Obama is the best Republican president since Eisenhower
-
Quote from Thor
As many Dems will tell you Obama is the best Republican president since Eisenhower
LOL…what similarities? Both were raised by caucasians women with roots in Kansas?
-
Ross Douthat says that without Bush & Cheney, their lies, exaggerations & incompetencies we’d have no Obama or Democratic resurgence. Even republicans ran quickly away from Bush after the 2008 loss blaming Bush for everything. I will further add that the GOP became the ultimate lunatic fringe party with their social and economic policies since the 1990”s and especially as an extremist reaction to Obama’s and Democratic wins.
Some of Douthat’s analysis is self-serving for the movement but I agree with much of his analysis. Thank you GOP for helping to return sanity to the country with your extremism.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-obama-era-brought-to-you-by-the-iraq-war.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…u-by-the-iraq-war.html[/link]
-
-
-
It is true that nearly twice as many people identify as conservative comared to liberal.
The republicans are simply alienating the middle. …..and having just conservative voters isn’t enough to win over on national elections.-
The democrats are winning because they are the centrist
-
Quote from kpack123
The democrats are winning because they are the centrist
Ha! Libertarians are the most centrist—A democrat-like view on social freedoms and a republican-like view on the economy. The average voting retard wants their particular brand of extremism, not centrism.
-
Liberatarians are like unicorns
They don’t exist
-
Quote from kpack123
Liberatarians are like unicorns
They don’t exist
True enough. Back in ’34 when you were a resident, they didn’t.
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from kpack123
The democrats are winning because they are the centrist
Ha! Libertarians are the most centrist—A democrat-like view on social freedoms and a republican-like view on the economy.
Unfortunately, poltical positions are not like additive math equations. Holding one set of views from the left and another set of views from the right does no necessarily add up to being centrist.
This has been the problem for libertarians for a long time. You have people of a libertarian bent coming down in both parties depending upon which issues they express their libertarianism or even wobbling between the two.
There is no natural home for them in the 2 party US system.
-
Got me thinking about “Libertarian Centrism” – some pretty appealing stuff there-
[link=http://www.nolanchart.com/article6423-what-is-libertarian-centrism.html]http://www.nolanchart.com/article6423-what-is-libertarian-centrism.html[/link]
What do Libertarian Centrists on the whole believe?
We are 100% pro-choice, because government has no valid business running women’s lives for them. That means we reject government bans on abortion.
We are confident: All Americans are entitled to equality in marriage, adoption, divorce, and access to military service.
We state with certainty: Slavery was the American Holocaust. Confederate apologists are rightly grouped with Holocaust deniers, and are shunned by all decent people. People who claim that the Civil War was not about slavery should be encouraged to read the actual statements by southerners at the time, because they have been hoodwinked by racist filth who sought to build our party by polluting it with supporters of the KKK and the White Citizens Councils.
We observe that Thomas Jefferson for all his flaws correctly wrote: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men’. It is only through government, limited government, that men and women will stay free. The people who claim non-aggression means that we have agreed to reject all taxes and governments are anarchists, not libertarians.
As supporters of our actual Constitution, however much it may need improvement, we reject the so-called “States-Rights” doctrine. The so-called ‘States Rights’ doctrine, claiming that states may keep African-Americans from voting and women from having abortions, is un-American. Politicians who say ‘leave it up to the states’ are an opposite of libertarian.
We firmly proclaim: While there have been conspiracies, conspiracy theorism is not libertarianism. The incoherent mutterings of conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers, central banking foes, and 16th amendment deniers, offer nothing to the Libertarian political movement. They also have nothing to do with libertarianism. When they claim to be libertarians, they should be politely ignored. When they claim to be Republicans, well, cheer them on. The Bush Republican War Party and the not-at-all-conservative-party of torture have earned whatever plagues descend upon them, and the conspiracy theorists are indeed a plague.
We believe in modern science. The opponents of fact-based knowledge including evolution deniers, anti-immunizationists, flat-earthers, global warming deniers, not to mention the people who still claim that the ozone holes could not possibly be caused by chlorofluorocarbons fit in well in the Republican Party, where their explanation that belief in evolution, etc. is due to conspiracies will warm the cockles of the conspiracy theorists.
America needs an effective Libertarian political movement.
Only Libertarian Centrism offers the firm foundation on which a successful libertarian political movement can be built.
The home of that movement remains to be decided.
-
Dergon–there is a name we give to that set of beliefs–Progressives
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from kpack123
Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. The one they lost……was in a time of War and marginal panic
Peaceful secession is our only hope for a free society.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Go right ahead
-
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/26/the_gops_primary_problem_117640.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/26/the_gops_primary_problem_117640.html[/link]
[b]The GOP’s Primary Problem[/b]Missing from the report are any critical words about the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. These are the early contests where, if past is prologue, the presidential candidates of the future will take positions pleasing to the ears of extraordinarily conservative and religious voters. They will call for a roundup of illegal Hispanics immigrants, condemn same-sex marriage, sing hosannas to local control of the schools, denounce the federal government in all its varied forms, promise to die for ethanol, lament the absence of God from the schools, utter cockamamie warnings about vaccinations, vow to eradicate Planned Parenthood from planet Earth, rail against foreign aid, the United Nations, the mainstream press, the teaching of evolution and, for good measure, the mainstream press again. Whoever does this best might win the first two contests.
……
This would be nice and warmly traditional if these two states {Iowa and NH} were representative of the Republican Party as a whole. But they are not. They are far to the right and the candidates who do best there often do poorly thereafter. Presidential hopefuls spend months in those states and, because Iowa is the first contest, it gets a hugely disproportionate share of the news coverage — what seems like an event (debates, etc.) a week, starting with the preposterous Ames Straw Poll, won last time by the highly incompetent Michele Bachmann.
Cohen’s Law goes like this: Republicans who win Iowa in January lose America in November.
The official winner of last year’s Iowa caucuses was Rick Santorum — by 34 votes. Santorum, not one to rest on his victory margin, is due back in the state next month. He will address two fundraisers, one for Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition, a vociferous opponent of same-sex marriage and most things fun.Santorum is almost certain to run in 2016. Given the nature of the Iowa GOP, he has to be considered the favorite. In almost all his positions, he represents precisely what so alarms moderate Republicans. He’s a one-man band of losing issues.
For Republicans, Iowa and New Hampshire only look like the beginning. Really, they’re the end. -
Quote from thor
Dergon–there is a name we give to that set of beliefs–Progressives
Let’s evaluate that
We are 100% pro-choice, because government has no valid business running women’s lives for them. That means we reject government bans on abortion.
Well progressives are pro-choice. But they do indeed believe they can run women’s lives. The govt thinks women can’t be trusted to get the money to pay for their own birth control. Progressives don’t trust women to pick the best school choice for their kids
We are confident: All Americans are entitled to equality in marriage, adoption, divorce, and access to military service.
Progressives don’t believe in freedom of adoption! Quoting from Wikipedia: The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) has taken this stance, suggesting that interracial adoption is a form of “[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide]genocide[/link]” and that “black children in white homes are cut off from the healthy development of themselves as black people.”
We state with certainty: Slavery was the American Holocaust.
Progressives promote the new slavery by disproportionately addicting people of color on welfare programs, progressives promote intergenerational dependency and discourage self advancement. Ironically, the progressive “college for all” mantra ruins lives by forcing higher education on many kids that would do much better in high quality vocational programs. The progressive education-industrial complex has so pushed the 4 yr degree that these sorts of vocational programs are hard to find.
It is only through government, limited government, that men and women will stay free.
[b]LIMITED[/b] government has no place in the progressive agenda
We believe in modern science. The opponents of fact-based knowledge including evolution deniers, anti-immunizationists, flat-earthers, global warming deniers, not to mention the people who still claim that the ozone holes could not possibly be caused by chlorofluorocarbons.
They don’t admit it, but mainstream progressives are as anti-science as they come. They ignore good data on genetics, IQ, race and education. Prominent progressives falsify data (Stephen Jay Gould) to further the progressive agenda. Fringe progressives also are associated with ridiculous new age mantra.
-
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/a-republican-left-turn/?ref=opinion]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/a-republican-left-turn/?ref=opinion[/link]
Arguing that the GOP [i]can[/i] afford to turn left on social issues because white evangelicals are now also the most “strong defense” “small government” group in the US. They’ll vote republican regardless.
The Republican Party has begun to move to the left on social and cultural issues, as well as on immigration. Despite the warnings of mass defections of white evangelical and born-again Christians, these shifts will not be as costly as some people, both inside and outside the party, claim.
The fact is that on pretty much every noncultural issue government spending, taxes, the regulatory state and national defense the Christian right holds orthodox Republican views virtually identical to those of mainstream Republicans. Its members are unlikely to bolt the party.
Take a look at this [link=http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q30i/government-regulation-of-business-does-more-harm-than-good/#religious-preference]Pew Center chart[/link], Figure 1.
The constituency most convinced that government regulation of business usually does more harm than good, a core tenet of the modern Republican Party, is white evangelical Christians:
In other words, the Republican Party can afford to marginalize Tony Perkins and other Christian right leaders because evangelical social conservatives, who make up [link=http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx#comp]more than a third[/link] of the Republican electorate, are not going to vote Democratic. Nor are they going to join an exodus to a third party. Rush Limbaugh to the contrary, they wont stay home either.
Minimal losses among these voters could be made up for by slight gains among other constituencies like young voters, minorities and single white women.
Withdrawing full-throated support for the religious right (for example, by altering [link=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57497592-503544/republicans-approve-platform-with-strict-anti-abortion-language]the anti-abortion plank[/link] of the 2012 Republican Party platform, which called for a constitutional amendment banning abortion without exception for victims of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother) may be a gamble and may cost the party donors but at the moment the Republican Party holds a losing hand.-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/a-republican-left-turn/?ref=opinion]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/a-republican-left-turn/?ref=opinion[/link]
Arguing that the GOP [i]can[/i] afford to turn left on social issues because white evangelicals are now also the most “strong defense” “small government” group in the US. They’ll vote republican regardless.
They voted for McCain and Romney—Mormons might as well be Satan worshippers as far as the bible thumpers care, so they are solidly R. Not unlike one particular democrat constituency (that you can’t mention lest you may get banned) that votes D, no matter how dumb, drugged out, bad, criminal or completely worthless the candidate is. Slap a D on a rutabaga and they will vote for it.
-
How broken is the Republican Party? Are they capable of governing anymore or is it all about gimmicks & posing, & no depth? Are they so opposed to government they intend to bring down the best effort of our Founding Fathers & Lincoln?
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/28/the-house-republicans-in-one-amazing-quote/]http://www.washingtonpost…-in-one-amazing-quote/[/link]
-
You have to have one of these every week or two: This opportunity provided by a new Gallup Pole focusing on opinions of the GOP.
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx[/link]
As Republican leaders openly scrutinize their party after a 2012 election that was disappointing for them, rank-and-file Republicans, independents, and Democrats voice the same primary criticism of the GOP: it is “too inflexible” or “unwilling to compromise.” When asked to say what they most dislike about the Republican Party, 26% of Republicans, 17% of independents, and 22% of Democrats offer this critique — leading all other mentions.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/01/the-republican-brand-problem-and-why-fixing-it-wont-be-easy/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/01/the-republican-brand-problem-and-why-fixing-it-wont-be-easy/[/link]
The second, and more important data point, is that the second most-mentioned critique of the party 14 percent named it by self-identified GOPers is that they dont stand up for their positions and give in too easily. And, when asked the things they like about their party, the three most-mentioned traits are better fiscal management/budget cuts/less debt, conservative views and favor smaller government.
Rock, meet hard place.
Republicans want Republicans to compromise. [b]But giving way on the budget and size of government strikes at the partys raison detre. [/b]Compromising on those sorts of things like the party did in the fiscal cliff deal with President Obama in late 2012 is likely to lose the party more of its adherents than it gains it in converts. And, as any party strategist will tell you, a party without a base isnt much of a party.
So, what the party compromises on then matters a lot. And, thats why making a deal on immigration may well be the best chance the GOP has to change the perception that they are allergic to deal-making.
Why? Because its something of a nothing-burger to their base 2 percent [b]volunteer[/b] [b]the partys stance on immigration as a top beef they have with the GOP [/b]while 1 percent name it as a positive thing for their side and it could well allow the GOP to court Hispanics if the party can play an active role in putting together a comprehensive immigration reform proposal.
What the numbers from Gallup make clear is that simply making a deal to make a deal wont help Republicans convince the public or their party that the image of the GOP is wrong. But, picking a high profile place or two climate change, perhaps? to cut deals might very well allow Republicans to keep their base behind them while shattering the negative image too many Americans have of them as hardened ideologues on every issue.
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112815/gop-gerrymandering-republicans-have-house-dying-nationally]http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112815/gop-gerrymandering-republicans-have-house-dying-nationally[/link]#
[b]
[b]House of Pain: [/b]Gerrymandering has been great for GOP congressmen, but poison for the party nationally[/b]
“Thanks to the way Republican legislatures drew congressional districts in 2000, the median House district leaned Republican by two points over the next decadea big edge given the tiny margins that frequently decide competitive races. Since 2010, the built-in advantage has grown to three points. The result of all this gerrymandering is to give the Republicans a death grip on the House. In 2012, they won 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats in all the House districts combined, but still managed a 33-seat majority.
“There’s no question this hold on the House is a huge short-term advantage for the GOP, giving it the power to thwart a Democratic president even when his agenda has widespread support. (Look no further than the ongoing budget negotiations, in which the president’s preference for trimming the deficit through spending cuts and tax increases far outpolls the GOP’s cuts-only approach.) But the flip side of being so insulated from public opinion is, well, being so insulated from public opinion. Thanks to the relative safety of their seats, most Republican House members feel no particular need to adjust to the political trends that have enormous consequences for anyone who isn’t running in a gerrymandered districtlike, say, the party’s presidential nominee. It’s killing the GOP nationally.”-
Wow, who would have thought that giving the party over to the extremist elements would result in national failure? Lie with dogs, etc… The Tea Party and their wealthy enablers are destroying the GOP.
-
Quote from nobody2008
Wow, who would have thought that giving the party over to the extremist elements would result in national failure? Lie with dogs, etc… The Tea Party and their wealthy enablers are destroying the GOP.
Thanks for the socialist diatribe. Any intelligent point for discussion? Specifically, do you see any negative effect of democrat 1%: Hollywood millionaires, George Soros, Jon Corzine, Jamie Dimon, Green energy barons on society? Or is it only wealthy REPUBLICANS destroying (your sophomoric vision of) political parties?
-
“soshulist!!” Ahhhhh, that’s why the GOP will continue to fail nationally. Keep it up, please.
I forgot this is coming from a Paultard. I thought you guys hated the GOP more than the staunchest leftie because they take your money and then laugh at you.-
Quote from nobody2008
“soshulist!!” Ahhhhh, that’s why the GOP will continue to fail nationally. Keep it up, please.
I forgot this is coming from a Paultard. I thought you guys hated the GOP more than the staunchest leftie because they take your money and then laugh at you.
Answer the question…..why are republican 1%er evil, worthless thugs but democrat 1%er-govt-cronies are wonderful saviors.
-
Uh, sure. I’ll get back to you. Keep checking the forum. I’ll be soon, I promise.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from nobody2008
Uh, sure. I’ll get back to you. Keep checking the forum. I’ll be soon, I promise.
Translation: I’m an 11 yr old troll and I’m going back to 4chan now.
-
Please. Quit pretending you come here for discussion, it is embarrassing.
-
My quesstion is when is the GOP going to realize that the way you say the message isn’t as important as to what the message is. You will not get a bigger tent when you call Hispanics wetbacks, push for antisodomy laws, make abortions all but illegal, etc. As long as they continue to have policies dictated by old white men they will fail to expand the tent. Unless they drop much of their base’s social issues they will never gain among their target groups.
-
Their Strategy is to find a few acceptable tokens and say
Look how inclusive we are, Why dont all you minorities act like these guys we have.
They just don’t get it. Soooooo out of touch-
I wish they would state Rubio is cuban American .
Quote from kpack123
Their Strategy is to find a few acceptable tokens and say
Look how inclusive we are, Why dont all you minorities act like these guys we have.
They just don’t get it. Soooooo out of touch
-
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-doubles-anti-gay-marriage-stance-amid-conservative/story?id=18942211]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-doubles-anti-gay-marriage-stance-amid-conservative/story?id=18942211[/link]
The hard right just won’t let the party go to the middle. With the plank firmly set I think it makes it almost certain to be an issue in the 2016 campaign. I guess Santorum is happy (and if Santorum is happy, the GOP should be unhappy)
[b]RNC Doubles Down on Gay Marriage Stance Amid Conservative Pressure[/b]With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday.
Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”
An [link=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/]ABC News-Washington Post poll[/link] conducted in March found that 58 percent of Americans said it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry. And support for gay marriage has been increasing among Republicans: In the latest poll, 34 percent of them said they supported it — an 18 point uptick from 2004.
In seeking to reboot the party after its 2012 election losses, Priebus and the RNC released a “Growth and Opportunity Project” report that suggested multiple changes to make the party more appealing to a broader swath of voters, including gays and lesbians.
“Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be,” the report’s authors wrote.
While Perkins said that passing the anti-gay marriage resolution would be “a gesture of good faith” other Republicans balked. Two former RNC employees [b][link=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345389/against-rnc-s-gay-marriage-resolution-liz-mair]wrote an op-ed in the National Review[/link][/b] on Thursday urging the committee members gathered in Los Angles to reject it.
“As former RNC operatives, we firmly believe that passage of the resolution would be a significant setback in terms of party unity and branding, and would move the RNC further into a function that is outside its primary purpose: winning elections,” wrote former staffers Liz Mair and Marco Nuñez.
-
On the possible political effects of immigration reform on the GOP-
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html?ml=po_r]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html?ml=po_r[/link]
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nations political landscape for a generation or more pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.
Key swing states that Obama fought tooth and nail to win like Florida, Colorado and Nevada would have been comfortably in his column. And the president would have come very close to winning Arizona.
Republican Mitt Romney, by contrast, would have lost the national popular vote by 7 percentage points, 53 percent to 46 percent, instead of the 4-point margin he lost by in 2012, and would have struggled even to stay competitive in GOP strongholds like Texas, which he won with 57 percent of the vote.
The analysis is based on U.S. Census and Pew Research Center estimates of illegal immigrant populations by state, and presidential exit polls showing how Obama and Romney performed among Latinos.
To support the measure virtually guarantees millions of new Democratic voters. But for Republicans to oppose immigration reform invites hostility among Hispanic-Americans who already are punishing the GOP and imperiling its electoral prospects.
This reality, say many Republican strategists, gives the party no long-term alternative but to welcome the new voters and hope this allows the party to compete for Hispanic voters in ways that are closer to how President George W. Bush performed in 2004. National exit polls that year showed he won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Some analysts have questioned this data, but there is little doubt that Bush performed significantly better with this group than Romney, who got just 27 percent.
If Republicans do nothing to repair their relationships with current and future Latino voters, we certainly wont be a national political party anymore, said GOP strategist Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to John McCain in 2008.
If one adds 11 million new Hispanic voters after immigration reform but applies 2004 percentages, the damage to Republicans is real but much less severe: Romney would have still won border states Texas and Arizona, albeit by smaller margins, while Obama would have held other Latino-heavy swing states like Nevada and Florida by slightly larger margins than the ones he did win by.
I think Rubio is betting that he can do well enough with latino vote if he’s the candidate to win it.
-
Quote from dergon
I think Rubio is betting that he can do well enough with latino vote if he’s the candidate to win it.
I don’t think Rubio has a shoe in by being latino. Let’s not forget that Sharpton, Braun, and West didn’t attract many from their ethic group.
-
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-doubles-anti-gay-marriage-stance-amid-conservative/story?id=18942211]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-doubles-anti-gay-marriage-stance-amid-conservative/story?id=18942211[/link]
The hard right just won’t let the party go to the middle. With the plank firmly set I think it makes it almost certain to be an issue in the 2016 campaign. I guess Santorum is happy (and if Santorum is happy, the GOP should be unhappy)
[b]RNC Doubles Down on Gay Marriage Stance Amid Conservative Pressure[/b]
With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday.
Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”
An [link=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/]ABC News-Washington Post poll[/link] conducted in March found that 58 percent of Americans said it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry. And support for gay marriage has been increasing among Republicans: In the latest poll, 34 percent of them said they supported it — an 18 point uptick from 2004.
In seeking to reboot the party after its 2012 election losses, Priebus and the RNC released a “Growth and Opportunity Project” report that suggested multiple changes to make the party more appealing to a broader swath of voters, including gays and lesbians.
“Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be,” the report’s authors wrote.
While Perkins said that passing the anti-gay marriage resolution would be “a gesture of good faith” other Republicans balked. Two former RNC employees [b][link=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345389/against-rnc-s-gay-marriage-resolution-liz-mair]wrote an op-ed in the National Review[/link][/b] on Thursday urging the committee members gathered in Los Angles to reject it.
“As former RNC operatives, we firmly believe that passage of the resolution would be a significant setback in terms of party unity and branding, and would move the RNC further into a function that is outside its primary purpose: winning elections,” wrote former staffers Liz Mair and Marco Nuñez.
There you go again. At it again with more regurgitated liberal hog-wash opinion pieces to reinforce your own wishful thinking. Gay marriage and abortion rights are at the lowest of the low end of interests of voters. In other words, it’s a non-issue except to rally a few at the conservative base. Even then a fair majority of republicans tend to speak in tangents rather than pit-bull Falwell-like attacks. Even Rick Santorum loses big when speaking about them. Next issue(s) please…
And about your contention of who’s brand of politics and ideology is more attune with America. Take a look at this most recent poll by Gallop.
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/162029/pelosi-best-known-least-liked-congressional-leaders.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics]http://www.gallup.com/pol…&utm_term=Politics[/link]
[link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/24/poll-nancy-pelosi-most-unpopular-congressional-leader]http://www.usnews.com/new…r-congressional-leader[/link]
Its not even close. Congresswoman Pelosi is the most despised national politician in American, bar none. Ask yourself why? She is not a particularly unlikable person. Nor is she unfaithful to her mate. And she likely doesnt send out rude or distasteful tweets.
But what she is and embodies is straight-line statist liberalism. That is why she is most despised politician in America.
-
Yeah — but no
Gay marriage has the real potential to be a split issue in GOP primaries, especially if DOMA fails and Prop 8 holds, leaving state-by-state fights.
Politics are weird .. the current rank of importance of an issue in the mind of the public doesn’t necessarily correlate to how much focus is given to it in a campaign.-
Dergon,
Take a look at the demographics of NYC.
Here’s something for you to mull over about this inevitability of democrats succeeding in the future, and subsequently heralding in social liberalism (which by any major polls is desired by less than 20% of the population). Look at the demographics of NYC.
From wiki-The city’s population in 2010 was 44% [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American]white[/link] (33.3% non-Hispanic white), 25.5% [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_American]black[/link] (23% non-Hispanic black), and 12.7% [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American]Asian[/link]. [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans]Hispanics[/link] of any race represented 28.6% of the population. Obviously white people have been in the minority in NYC for a few decades now. Yet why was a law and order conservative like Rudy Giuliani elected and re-elected, followed by a white independent? A lot of the reason is that to anybody sensible, the democrat machine in NYC offered nothing except acceptance to all types of crime and union machine racketeering corruption at its near worst (short of Chicago). It was impossible for sensible people of any race to vote for a liberal democrat.
Which leads one to think about the future of any of the political party. Demographics is not destiny the way you think they should be. That is unless you like uniform group-think politics which the liberal democrats seem to have a penchant for (i.e. Congressional Black Caucus, Liberal Caucus). The democrats dont have another symbolic figure like Obama around, unless you think Hiliary just fills the role of uninspiring older maiden to fill gender equality. However, 111th congress took away liberals gaining access to control legislation for years to come. When obamacare just is ignored by 1/2 the states, then more states will follow instead of increasing 10s of billions to pay for it, and there will be perpetual stand-offs on the budget. Meanwhile the race to increase taxes and statism is going to be frozen in its place.-
OMG, even Jennifer Rubin has has enough swill.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/29/dont-be-a-jerk-sen-cruz/]http://www.washingtonpost…nt-be-a-jerk-sen-cruz/[/link]
-
as an aside CNN has updated Anderson Cooper with a panel that resembles the five
like jeffrey tobin
like that he has diversity with Christian Amnapour and does have conservative leaning African American female but he balanced her tonight with Kamala Harris input -
RVU, I think your post shows that you make a couple of basic assumptions about democratic voters that don’t hold up.
First, you seem to believe that somehow people who vote democratic are more likely to require a charismatic candidate than are GOP voters. I don’t see any evidence that that is the case.
Secondly, voting democratic in no way means that the nation or the individual voter is affirming liberal politics. As a matter of fact, it is that the GOP has abandoned the middle that has allowed for democratic electoral success.
I also think you are ead wrong on Obamacare. I think it is much much much more likely that states that initially refuse to implement will slowly begin to adopt it as pressure mounts to claim federal dollars that are “free” in the early years. Medicare had a similar staggerred roll-out, but came to universal acceptance later. (Did you know that Arizon didn’t adopt medicare until ’82?). The pressure from voters and from the health care industry will mount over time, and even the conservative will adopt the ACA medicaid provisions. -
A new study evaluating the Tea Party in depth by American Prospect.
Lots of interesting stuff in it.
[link=http://prospect.org/article/three-new-facts-about-tea-party]http://prospect.org/article/three-new-facts-about-tea-party[/link]
The worst news for the GOP though: Tea Party members would have a candidate that is pure on principle than one that can win.
The results of the [link=http://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/rbrapo/republicanfactionalismandteapartyactivists]first political science survey[/link] of Tea Party activists show that the constituency isnt going away any time soonand Republicans hoping the activists will begin to moderate their stances should prepare for disappointment. Based out of the College of William and Mary, the report surveyed more than 11,000 members of FreedomWorks, one of the largest and most influential Tea Party groups.
For the first time, we can now look at what a huge sample of Tea Party activists believe, as well as examine how those who identify with the Tea Party differ from their establishment GOP counterparts. Here are the three biggest takeaways from the study:
[h2][b]1. Tea Party activists are not Republicans.[/b][/h2] Republicans are now reliant on the Tea Party. While the number of Tea Party supporters has declined since 2010, they still make up around half of Republicans, according to NBC/[i]Wall Street Journal[/i] surveys. More important, they are the most active supporters when it comes to voting in primaries, volunteering on campaigns, and participating in various other activities political parties are reliant upon. Seventy-three percent of Republicans who attended a political rally or meeting identified with the Tea Party. The activists are vehemently anti-Democratic. Among the FreedomWorks sample, only 3 percent of people voted for Obama or a Democratic House candidate in 2008, and less than 6 percent identify as either independents or Democrats.
[b]2. Tea Party activists arent nearly as concerned about winning. [/b]
[b] [/b]
[b]Or at least theyre significantly more concerned with ideological purity than with political pragmatism. The survey asked FreedomWorks activists if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, When we feel strongly about political issues, we should not be willing to compromise with our political opponents. Altogether, more than 80 percent agreed to some extent. Thirty-two percent of respondents agree strongly with the statement. Meanwhile, less than 10 percent disagreed even slightly. In another series of questions sent out to FreedomWorks activists, the survey asked whether they would prefer a candidate with whom they agree on most important issues but who polls far behind the probable Democratic nominee or a candidate with whom they agree on some of the most important issues but whos likely to win. More than three-fourths of respondents preferred the candidate who was more likely to lose but shared their positions.[/b]
[b] [/b]
[b] [/b]
Most jarring: On some issues, like abolishing the Department of Education and environmental regulation, the establishment Republicans are actually closer to Democrats than they are to the Tea Party respondents. Thats a gap too large to be overcome by a few political action committees and gestures of goodwill.
Tea Party activists dominate the Republican Party, and theyre no less willing to compromise with the GOP than they are with Democrats. FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe summed it up nicely in his book title: [i]Hostile Takeover[/i].
Simply put, the GOP is too reliant on the Tea Partyand based on these survey results, the Tea Party doesnt care about the GOPs fate. It cares about moving the political conversation increasingly rightward.
[b] [/b]
[b][/b]
-
At least the House looks to be well on the way to its own irrelevance
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-in-chaos-republican-leadership-eric-cantor-90803.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-in-chaos-republican-leadership-eric-cantor-90803.html[/link] -
“A poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds that 29 percent of Americans believe an armed revolt will be necessary in the next few years, and 25 percent believe we’re not being told the truth about Sandy Hook.
18 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of Independents, and 44 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties”.”
America the Stupid?
They’ll have to peel my cold dead fingers from my book first before I join those ranks.
-
Can someone fix this brain dead filter Mr. Administrator? The name of Fairleigh D University is not some subversive name for the male anatomy. Computer software has actually advanced some, even into AI, not this crude filter. It’s useless. There are far too many ways around it. It’s clumsy. It’s archaic. It’s insulting.
-
How about calling it by it REAL name: Fairleigh Ridiculous U. See, that works.
-
I will ask, I agree, it’s pretty silly. We’re not 10-year-olds here who need to be protected from bad words.
Quote from Frumious
Can someone fix this brain dead filter Mr. Administrator? The name of Fairleigh D University is not some subversive name for the male anatomy. Computer software has actually advanced some, even into AI, not this crude filter. It’s useless. There are far too many ways around it. It’s clumsy. It’s archaic. It’s insulting.
-
(( you’re Heidi Heitkampe article comes as a dead link for me, … but I bet it’s something like her distancing herself from Obama. No surprise there, she’s like a white rhino … a democrat who won in North akota… she has to mve right big time. She’s pro gay marriage, anti- gun control. She pretty much has to go with the NRA in her position.))
Anyway —
It’s not just my “wishful thinking” that the right has moved more to the right than the left has to the left. There’s data:
[link=http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/]http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/[/link]What is much, much less well-understood is that the process of polarization is[i] not symmetrical[/i]. The parties have not become equally ideologically homogenous or moved equally far toward their extremes. They do not behave in the same way or share the same attitude toward established social and political norms. Republicans have moved farther right than Democrats have left.
Two things jump out. First, over the 32 years leading up to 2004, the mean Dem moved six points to the left and the mean Republican moved 22 points to the right. Much farther! And second, there is virtually no overlap left between the parties. The humps have almost entirely separated. In short, the chart shows asymmetrical polarization.
Starting in the mid-70s, Southern (read: conservative) Democrats started bailing and going Republican thanks in no small part to Nixons [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]southern strategy[/link] and the GOP started getting more and more conservative. It is now considerably more conservative than the Democratic Party is liberal.
Anyway, so thats the nerdy political-science version. Heres how William Galston and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404234.html]describe the consequences[/link]:
[blockquote][T]hese developments have not produced two mirror-image political parties. We have, instead, asymmetrical polarization. Put simply: More than 70 percent of Republicans in the electorate identify themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 40 percent of rank-and-file Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal. It is far easier for congressional Republicans to forge and maintain a united front than it is for Democrats. George W. Bush pushed through his signature tax cuts and Iraq war authorization with substantial Democratic support, while unwavering Republican opposition nearly torpedoed Barack Obamas health-reform legislation. When Democrats are in the majority, their greater ideological diversity combined with the unified opposition of Republicans induces the party to negotiate within its ranks, producing policies that not long ago would have attracted the support of a dozen Senate Republicans.
[/blockquote] Heres the way [i]Id[/i] put it: Today, the national Democratic Party contains everything from the center-right to the far-left. Economically its proposals tend to be center to center-right. Socially, its proposals tend to be center to center-left. The national Republican Party, by contrast, has now been almost entirely absorbed by the far right. It rejects the basic social consensus among post-war democracies and seeks to return to a pre-New Deal form of governance. It is hostile to social and economic equality. It remains committed to fossil fuels and sprawl and opposed to all sustainable alternatives. And it has built an [link=http://grist.org/article/2010-09-09-the-rights-climate-denialism-is-part-of-something-much-larger/]epistemological cocoon[/link] around itself within which loopy misinformation spreads unchecked. It has, in short, gone [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html]loony[/link].
And this doesn’t even include the current house with the Tea Party holding Boehner by the short hairs.
__
As for the comparison to Medicare, you’re making an apples to oranges comparison. The ACA was structured to not roll out fully in 2014. If you want apples to apple to Medicare in 1969 then you need to wait until 2018 for where the ACA stands for adoption rates.
-
Heidi got some extra time unlike kelly who may find 2014 results to be wow
but still Heidi will be noting the results of 2014
North Dakota..one of my favorite movies is FARGOQuote from dergon
(( you’re Heidi Heitkampe article comes as a dead link for me, … but I bet it’s something like her distancing herself from Obama. No surprise there, she’s like a white rhino … a democrat who won in North akota… she has to mve right big time. She’s pro gay marriage, anti- gun control. She pretty much has to go with the NRA in her position.))
Anyway —
It’s not just my “wishful thinking” that the right has moved more to the right than the left has to the left. There’s data:
[link=http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/]http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/[/link]
What is much, much less well-understood is that the process of polarization is[i] not symmetrical[/i]. The parties have not become equally ideologically homogenous or moved equally far toward their extremes. They do not behave in the same way or share the same attitude toward established social and political norms. Republicans have moved farther right than Democrats have left.
Two things jump out. First, over the 32 years leading up to 2004, the mean Dem moved six points to the left and the mean Republican moved 22 points to the right. Much farther! And second, there is virtually no overlap left between the parties. The humps have almost entirely separated. In short, the chart shows asymmetrical polarization.
Starting in the mid-70s, Southern (read: conservative) Democrats started bailing and going Republican thanks in no small part to Nixons [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]southern strategy[/link] and the GOP started getting more and more conservative. It is now considerably more conservative than the Democratic Party is liberal.
Anyway, so thats the nerdy political-science version. Heres how William Galston and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404234.html]describe the consequences[/link]:
[blockquote][T]hese developments have not produced two mirror-image political parties. We have, instead, asymmetrical polarization. Put simply: More than 70 percent of Republicans in the electorate identify themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 40 percent of rank-and-file Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal. It is far easier for congressional Republicans to forge and maintain a united front than it is for Democrats. George W. Bush pushed through his signature tax cuts and Iraq war authorization with substantial Democratic support, while unwavering Republican opposition nearly torpedoed Barack Obamas health-reform legislation. When Democrats are in the majority, their greater ideological diversity combined with the unified opposition of Republicans induces the party to negotiate within its ranks, producing policies that not long ago would have attracted the support of a dozen Senate Republicans.
[/blockquote] Heres the way [i]Id[/i] put it: Today, the national Democratic Party contains everything from the center-right to the far-left. Economically its proposals tend to be center to center-right. Socially, its proposals tend to be center to center-left. The national Republican Party, by contrast, has now been almost entirely absorbed by the far right. It rejects the basic social consensus among post-war democracies and seeks to return to a pre-New Deal form of governance. It is hostile to social and economic equality. It remains committed to fossil fuels and sprawl and opposed to all sustainable alternatives. And it has built an [link=http://grist.org/article/2010-09-09-the-rights-climate-denialism-is-part-of-something-much-larger/]epistemological cocoon[/link] around itself within which loopy misinformation spreads unchecked. It has, in short, gone [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html]loony[/link].And this doesn’t even include the current house with the Tea Party holding Boehner by the short hairs.
__
As for the comparison to Medicare, you’re making an apples to oranges comparison. The ACA was structured to not roll out fully in 2014. If you want apples to apple to Medicare in 1969 then you need to wait until 2018 for where the ACA stands for adoption rates.
-
The GOP is a trainwreck.
[link=http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/the-republican-health-policy-trainwreck/]http://douthat.blogs.nyti…lth-policy-trainwreck/[/link]This, [i]this[/i], is the Republican Partys health care problem. It isnt that conservative ideas about health policy dont exist, and it isnt that they wont work. Its that right now the feasibility question is purely academic, because even after five years of debating these issues, and despite Eric Cantors best efforts, there still arent enough Republican lawmakers willing to take even the smallest of steps toward putting those ideas to the test. This means that no matter how much of a [link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-obamacare-rollout-will-be-a-bureaucratic-nightmare-20130418]bureaucratic nightmare[/link] the implementation of the current health care law turns out to be, liberals at least have this ace in the hole: When it comes to health care reform, there is still no [i]politically[/i] realistic alternative to their approach.
In other words, there is no there, there. The GOP is a sham. The only purpose of the GOP these days is to make sure government doesn’t work. -
That’s basically the Tea Party: “Government does work so lets cut it …. hard. Better yet, let’s burn it to the ground.”
That appleals to a small minority of people, but most people, even conservatives and especially independents want government to do things. They just want it to work efficiently. -
Quote from dergon
That’s basically the Tea Party: “Government does work so lets cut it …. hard. Better yet, let’s burn it to the ground.”
That appleals to a small minority of people, but most people, even conservatives and especially independents want government to do things. They just want it to work efficiently.
Like what? Waste money on pet projects in powerful congressmen’s districts? Invade foreign countries? Engage in insider trading? Play venture capitalist with their cronies under the guise of “green” jobs? Overhaul healthcare to the tune of trillions without asking real doctors how to best implement these changes? Live in the lap of luxury while most people can barely afford the basic things in life?
Yes we want government to do things. The problem is that due to uninformed or just plain lazy voters (or the paralyzing stupidity of Americans these days of not being able to accomplish anything without government handouts/assistance), we have a government full of lazy and corrupt morons who blow money at an alarming rate.
There is no accountability. We have just grown accustomed to the gross inefficiency, incompetence, and sometimes malicious corruption of our elected leaders because we can’t do anything properly ourselves. That’s why most of Europe is a third world sitting around on their hands with 20-25% unemployment.
America’s next. -
The current House GOP is comprised of a bunch of terrorists who are holding this country hostage. And any attempt at a bi-partisan agreement with them is simply admission that the USA negotiates with terrorists.
Sorry, but there is simply no better way to characterize what is going on in DC at this moment.
-
Good post D
Quote from dergon
RVU, I think your post shows that you make a couple of basic assumptions about democratic voters that don’t hold up.
First, you seem to believe that somehow people who vote democratic are more likely to require a charismatic candidate than are GOP voters. I don’t see any evidence that that is the case.
Secondly, voting democratic in no way means that the nation or the individual voter is affirming liberal politics. As a matter of fact, it is that the GOP has abandoned the middle that has allowed for democratic electoral success.
I also think you are ead wrong on Obamacare. I think it is much much much more likely that states that initially refuse to implement will slowly begin to adopt it as pressure mounts to claim federal dollars that are “free” in the early years. Medicare had a similar staggerred roll-out, but came to universal acceptance later. (Did you know that Arizon didn’t adopt medicare until ’82?). The pressure from voters and from the health care industry will mount over time, and even the conservative will adopt the ACA medicaid provisions.
-
Quote from dergon
RVU, I think your post shows that you make a couple of basic assumptions about democratic voters that don’t hold up.
First, you seem to believe that somehow people who vote democratic are more likely to require a charismatic candidate than are GOP voters. I don’t see any evidence that that is the case.
Say what?!!! Seriously, are you receiving unique broadcasts personalized for your own consciousness about these perceptions? There are several entire voting precincts in the inner cities of Philadelphia and Cleveland that didnt have[i] one vote[/i] for Romney and over 99% for obama. No politician in my or your lifetime deserves a near totality of the vote. If you look at the Congressional Black Caucus, a majority of these out of the mainstream leftist politicians routinely receive greater than 90% of the vote. These US democratic party voting trends in modern times only occur in a few other places, like North Korea. In comparison the deepest red districts garner 60 to 70% of the vote for a typical republican candidate.
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/]http://www.cbsnews.com/83…-some-urban-precincts/[/link]Quote from dergon
Secondly, voting democratic in no way means that the nation or the individual voter is affirming liberal politics.
You might want to read about some of the younger and moderate democrats experiences like Heidi Heitkamp what it means to disagree with bad liberal democrat policy. [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/heidi-heitkamp-defends-gun-vote-90600.html.]http://www.politico.com/s…s-gun-vote-90600.html.[/link] Bill Daley and the democratic establishment have effectively ostracized her. Look up the pejorative term for ever-vanquishing democratic moderates-“conservadems”. See what Rachael Maddow has ranted against them for years and report back. Do you wonder why there are so many retirement of Dem moderates from the Senate with this type of foul energy against them from the left?
Quote from dergon
As a matter of fact, it is that the GOP has abandoned the middle that has allowed for democratic electoral success.
More wishful thinking at its purist here. A majority of people are ready to forsake this welfare culture foisted by obama for another move to workfare, as fast as possible. Presidential democrat electoral success has been the operational success at presenting and packaging identity politics as the new norm. Liberals and democrats cant win on their ideas, and this is why obama’s agenda is now stuck in the mud.
Quote from dergon
I also think you are ead wrong on Obamacare. I think it is much much much more likely that states that initially refuse to implement will slowly begin to adopt it as pressure mounts to claim federal dollars that are “free” in the early years. Medicare had a similar staggerred roll-out, but came to universal acceptance later. (Did you know that Arizon didn’t adopt medicare until ’82?). The pressure from voters and from the health care industry will mount over time, and even the conservative will adopt the ACA medicaid provisions.
Medicare was up and running for a majority of seniors by the time Nixon came into the WH by 1969–four years after the Medicare act was signed. Nearly 4 years of the ACA, not one state has open a single exchange and regulations are confounding/strangling the medical industry. What the Obama WH says about its ‘golden’ achievement is little more than hot air objectiveless polemic opinion than specifics (its a trend if you dont notice). Yet the ACA is a convenient vehicle to have everybody’s taxes raised and central government to grow for something a consistent American majority has never wanted.
-
-
-
Quote from RVU
Gay marriage and abortion rights are at the lowest of the low end of interests of voters. In other words, it’s a non-issue except to rally a few at the conservative base. Even then a fair majority of republicans tend to speak in tangents rather than pit-bull Falwell-like attacks. Even Rick Santorum loses big when speaking about them. Next issue(s) please…
[b]
[h1]Same-sex marriage rulings complicate path forward for GOP[/b][/h1] Democrats who support same-sex marriage are now playing on increasingly friendly political turf, a circumstance that prompted a raft of Democratic senators to reverse their positions on the issue earlier this year in quick succession.
Meanwhile, the court’s rulings Wednesday were met with something less than unbridled enthusiasm by the GOP political class. The reason is clear enough: [b]Republican tacticians understand that winning modern races often means surviving the obstacle course of a conservative-dominated primary before having to appeal to general election voters who, nationally, view same-sex marriage as a non-issue. [/b]
The political fight over marriage is felt most acutely, perhaps, in Iowa, where three state Supreme Court judges were removed from the bench in 2010 in a recall election after they ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the state.
Defending traditional marriage — between one man and one woman — has become an animating issue for Iowa’s vibrant social conservative community since that initial ruling in 2009, and a litmus test for Republican candidates seeking their approval, either in contested primaries or in the state’s presidential caucuses.
At the beginning of last year’s GOP presidential primary fight, Rick Santorum narrowly won the Iowa caucuses with the backing of a dedicated network of pastors and home-school families who rallied to his side because of his furious opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
But other Republicans in Iowa say the party is consigning itself to minority status by failing to embrace the shifting opinions about marriage that Wednesday’s court ruling seemed to ratify.
“We can’t afford to create a litmus test for the party,” said David Kochel, who steered Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in Iowa and said he was pleased with the ruling. “There are too many young people, and too many people who frankly care far more about other issues, and people in the liberty movement who simply have no problem with same sex-marriage. We have to maintain a kind of open-armed stance on this.”
But Iowa Republicans seeking their party’s Senate nomination in 2014 aren’t quite jumping on Kochel’s bandwagon. None of them cheered Wednesday’s decisions. The one Senate candidate who did celebrate was Bruce Braley — the likely Democratic nominee.
For Republicans, the same-sex marriage rulings were something of a Rorshach test, exposing the almost timeless fault line between the party’s pragmatists and its ideologues.
For figures in the party’s establishment like Kochel, the rulings were met with a sinking feeling that same-sex marriage is increasingly a settled matter for voters and a potent wedge issue that Democrats can exploit for political gain in battleground states and in national elections.
-
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/02/demographics_and_the_gop_part_iv.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/02/demographics_and_the_gop_part_iv.html[/link]
After all the doom and gloom, the final of the RCP multi-part series on Demographics and the GOP.
Parties always have an almost infinite number of coalitions they can target their pitch to and emerge successfully from elections if the overall environment is favorable to them. That hasnt changed in the past 100 years, much less since 2004. Put differently, if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee in 2008, she probably would have done somewhat worse with young voters and African-Americans, but probably would have done better in Appalachia. Gordon Smith of Oregon might still be a senator, but Mitch McConnell might not be. As [link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/02/there_are_no_permanent_majorities_in_america_97110.html]Ive said here [/link]since 2009, there are no permanent majorities, because every action in politics tends to create an opposite one.
I suspect the current conventional wisdom will last only until the Republicans next encounter a favorable national environment, and win an election. (There actually hasnt been an unambiguously favorable environment for them in a presidential year since 1988, so theyre due.) At that point, the conventional wisdom will likely shift, reflecting a belief that Democrats must undertake some major changes in their coalition if they are going to ever win another election. But that conventional wisdom will be badly flawed, just as the present conventional wisdom is badly flawed.-
The [i]”so they’re due”[/i] contention is absurdly ridiculous. It implies this is solely a game of odds with no regard for changing demographics and population mores. I totally disagree with the conclusion except for the overriding theme that the population is fickle, votes only on the immediate goings on, and has zero recall of past events. In that regard, Orwell nailed it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Let’s just say it, Republicans ARE the problem!!!
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html[/link]
If you believe in the Founding Fathers and a functional government, don’t vote Republican. Rational in not any part of the Party platform.
Please feel free to point out where I might have missed some “rational” in the GOP.
-
Quote from Thor
At least the House looks to be well on the way to its own irrelevance
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-in-chaos-republican-leadership-eric-cantor-90803.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/house-in-chaos-republican-leadership-eric-cantor-90803.html[/link]
AHEM. I always thought you were somewhat adverse to magical/wishful thinking. But here’s the painful details of what Obama/dems face in the 2014 mid-term elections:
1). 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014. 21 are held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans. 6 current democratic senate seats are in states (W. Va., Ark., S.D., Louisiana, Alaska and Mont.) that Romney won by at least 10%. Only Maine has a republican seat in a state Obama won by more than 10%. It takes 6 seats to flip the senate. And this isnt counting open seats in Iowa and Michigan which have state electorates who have recently embraced/ voted for conservative candidates. Also, North Carolina is another senate seat that could easily go GOP.
2). And about the House of Reps. Here’s what leftist sabermatic blog wonk Nate Silver had to say days after Obamas re-election. There are other experienced political analysts who also say its unlikely.
“Democrats Unlikely to Regain House in 2014”
[link=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/]http://fivethirtyeight.bl…-regain-house-in-2014/[/link]
[link=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/odds-of-a-democratic-house-takeover-low/]http://www.outsidethebelt…ic-house-takeover-low/[/link]
[link=http://www.rollcall.com/news/rothenberg_is_the_house_in_play_a_district_by_district_assessment-223248-1.html]http://www.rollcall.com/n…sessment-223248-1.html[/link]
So, if the dems taking back the House was way outside shot in the heady days after the election, what about now? Do you think about liberals gaining traction in a more law-order demanding domestic/international climate and with obamacare openly collapsing on itself? More layoffs with obamacare should add logs to the fire. As will the more open discussion and exposure of the obama “leadership” style- i.e. go around to campuses and scolding the adults he has political disagreements with, or, boisterously painting imaginary ‘red lines’ he has no intention or bite to follow up on.
One would have to guess all of that political “laser like” focus on the debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, gun control, record poor growth, unbridled rise of Muslim Fundamentalism/Sharia law,and Benghazi/Syria/Iran, has left the Prez exhausted. Or has it been all the vacation travel, and West-coast celebrity hooping jots ?
Obama has a clear direction he wants to take the country and that’s hard left. Hooray to any opposition (republican and many democrats) that have made his professional life so difficult that he needs to whine more and more. So its basically the repubs to the 4 corners and dribbling out the game clock against this weak, lazy preacher of socialism.
Community agitation and speeches dont build an economy. -
And healthcare, pre Obamacare doesn’t wasn’t costing taxpayers $Trillions?
Just because it was more Lassaiz faire than Obamacare doesn’t make it better. Ok so it’s not perfect, but as I’ve posted, there is no Republican plan, there is nothing by Republicans they could even pass themselves, not even a proposal to make Heritage/Romneycare/Obamacare better because making it better is against the Republican positions.
In short not only are Republicans not part of the solution, they are largely most of the problem.
-
[link=http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/53580?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook]http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/53580?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook[/link]
Here in Ohio the Tea Party/Mainstream GOP schism playing out and getting a bit closer to full split.
Governor John Kasich is trying to get to middle pending election campaign. He’s looking to rax shale gas drillers and the GOP state republican used procedure to take a Tea Party backed “Right to Work” bill off the agenda.
Now Tea Party leaders are toying with joining the Constitution Party.
It’s a microcosm of the national fight.-
Quote from
The GOP is a trainwreck
Dont know what audience this rather ignorant and repetitive rant keeps get preached to. Or whether this is intended as a misinterpreted fallacy, wishful thinking out of frustration of current Washington stand-off or just being a troll in general.
But whatever the case maybe, it is not accurate. The GOP has held lock-step behind their leaders in the crucial matters to their base. Obama and the liberal dems are frozen on everything. Name me an issue of importance that split republicans and allowed legislation to go forward? There’s noise around the sides here and there. However, there’s a bulwark against liberalism and that’s a very good thing. It’s the likely reason why you see the need to keep repeating these statements out of frustration.
On the other hands, it was fellow democrats which prevented a ‘robust’ public option/immediate govt take over of medicine, gun legislation, and any national legislation on carbon emissions among other big pieces of legislation. Even Obama’s and northeast governors aggressive rhetoric of de facto gun abolition, has meant a very firm backlash against moderate democrats that will last for years:
[link=http://www.newser.com/article/da5k9mqg0/moderate-senate-democrats-facing-re-election-in-2014-under-intense-scrutiny-in-gun-debate.html]http://www.newser.com/art…iny-in-gun-debate.html[/link]
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/11/for_some_dems_gun_law_vote_may_hurt_in_2014__117908.html]http://www.realclearpolit…t_in_2014__117908.html[/link]
key quotes:[i]”There’s a fear in these states that this is going to go further and farther than anyone has suggested,” [/i]
[i]Baucus, the only Democrat with the NRA’s top rating, …. pointed to the 18,000 phone calls his office has received about it _ he said only 2,000 of those callers favored it.[/i]
Gun control rather than tougher criminal prosecution of criminals is a rather large fundamental cornerstone of the liberal democrat agenda. And while lib governors Obama and Al Sharpton ranted on and on[i], [/i]it change or moved nobody of consequence about the issue. However, it created a huge fissure that will result in more moderates leaving the democrat party and strengthening red America. [i]
[/i]-
Quote from RVU
The GOP has held lock-step behind their leaders in the crucial matters to their base… there’s a bulwark against liberalism and that’s a very good thing.
Going out of one’s way to stall the national economy, stalemate the government, and put tens of millions of people in financial jeopardy just because of a political ideology is not my definition of patriotism. The problem with a growing number of politicians [u][i]i[/i]s[/u] their extreme devotion to (obsession with?) what you refer to as their “base”…at [i][u]all[/u][/i] cost. And right now, it’s hurting a lot of good people.
The “base” has transformed into a real world example of Gollum’s Ring.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
The GOP has held lock-step behind their leaders in the crucial matters to their base… there’s a bulwark against liberalism and that’s a very good thing.
Going out of one’s way to stall the national economy, stalemate the government, and put tens of millions of people in financial jeopardy just because of a political ideology is not my definition of patriotism. The problem with a growing number of politicians [u][i]i[/i]s[/u] their extreme devotion to (obsession with?) what you refer to as their “base”…at [i][u]all[/u][/i] cost. And right now, it’s hurting a lot of good people.
The “base” has transformed into a real world example of Gollum’s Ring.
Hey fathead, it’s one “L” in Golum. And, secondly, “tens of millions in financial jeopardy” often repeated recent hyperbole doesn’t meet reality. That is unless you are referring to what the entire obama presidency has meant in terms of a diathesis of jobs and under one percent per annum growth.
-
No – It’s 2 “l” s in Gollum the Tolkein character. It’s 1 “l” in Golem, the animated being of folklore.
-
Quote from RVU
Hey fathead, it’s one “L” in Golum. And, secondly, “tens of millions in financial jeopardy” often repeated recent hyperbole doesn’t meet reality. That is unless you are referring to what the entire obama presidency has meant in terms of a diathesis of jobs and under one percent per annum growth.
As usual, you are full of boloney with your incessant name calling and all points you make, and that’s because you are pathetically complacent to do even the smallest amount of research before you blather away. Yeah, Obama has created an increase in financial hardship by lowering unemployment from 10.2% down to 7.5%. Is that what you’re saying? And the Republican ideology of austerity is really paying off, huh? So you think that Obama has put more people in unemployment compared to those 800,000 people per month that Bush was putting out of work for almost a year before Obama took office?
And Gollum with one “L”? Really? Even [u][i]that[/i][/u] is so terribly hard for you to verify?
-
Change in unemployment/misery-Typical troll liberal confusion and the same time used as a smear tactic. The last 5 presidential terms, both democrat and republican, had a AVERAGE unemployment in the mid 5 %. Obamas terms–average in the high 8 %. And that’s not counting the record number of disability claims and other custodians of the state Obama has made/encouraged. Avg growth is 5 to 6 times LESS than under Reagan, Clinton or both Bushes. This is what statism intends.
-
Quote from RVU
This is what statism intends.
Statism? Yeah, the economy was high on the hog by the end of Bush’s term compared to Obama, right? Funny how some poeple here complain to high hell that Obama is to blame for a crummy economy, and yet they do admit the economy [i]is indeed growing[/i]. Their complaint is that it’s “not growing fast enough”, as though they had any idea whatsoever what it takes to pull out of the global economic nosedive of ’08.
You are incorrect. It has nothing to do with statism. You’ve simply become [i]a-conservative-hanging-his-hat-on-meaninglessly-myopic-statistics [/i]simply because your selfish disposition deprives you of any interest in preserving the well-being of others who are in weak economic standing. It’s the old[i] “The money I make is mine and there can be no reason that I should feel obligated to give any of it back to keep the engine running”[/i]. Instead, you might point out a few anecdotal scammers who game the system, then generalize this anecdote as if it represents the entire low-income population, and then proceed to vilify those damn “liberals” for wanting to perpetuate such thievery of the US Treasury by those freeloading “takers” all across America. The big irony, though, is that your attempt to take the high ground strikes me as having the exact opposite effect in your posts-you take a very hard-ass position that would put many millions of people’s financies, health, and opportunities in extreme jeopardy just because you believe it is not a good time for America to spend money on these things (if not in tough times, then what IS it a good time?).
I wouldn’t be surprised if you think Brian is a damn liberal for only shutting down participants that share your extreme right tendencies. It would never occur to you that perhaps your tendencies are so objectionally extreme that they violate basic principles of civility and logical reasoning expected from people who are actually educated about, and take some modicum of initiative to do a tad of research on, the topic at hand before putting their foot in their mouth, over and over again…
Look, you can ignore whichever stats you want if you feel the need to believe your nonsense (as if any of the previous 5 POTUS terms had to navigate through a global economic catastrophe anywhere near the severity of the current fiasco). Unlike many people who share your idiotogy, many of us believe it would be inhumane to pull funding from healthcare, education, aid to the poor, infirm, and sick, etc., and that we believe the country should tow together to help those in need as part of our realization of [i]land of the free, home of the brave, chicken in every pot, trust but verify, “ask not…” [/i]capitalistic society[i].[/i] Recent history has confirmed that in tough times, trickle down is as irrelevant as austerity. Instead, government spending jumpstarts the engine from the bottom up because middle class consumers do most of the consuming and generally spend a far greater portion of their annual income on tangible goods and services compared to higher income segments, and that is what sustains an economy. On the other hand, “investing” money so that you can try to grab 15% cap gains is about the worst thing you can do in times like this because “investment” spending/profit is not very “productive” in terms of economic growth. In fact, “investments” make a profit DURING growth, and AFTER the consumption revs up.
Comparing just about any economic parameter in recent decades to our current situation as a means to claim that the current term should somehow be able to claim parity with previous terms shows a very naive perspective of the principles of sustaining a national economy.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
This is what statism intends.
Statism? Yeah, the economy was high on the hog by the end of Bush’s term compared to Obama, right? Funny how some poeple here complain to high hell that Obama is to blame for a crummy economy, and yet they do admit the economy [i]is indeed growing[/i]. Their complaint is that it’s “not growing fast enough”, as though they had any idea whatsoever what it takes to pull out of the global economic nosedive of ’08.
You are incorrect. It has nothing to do with statism. You’ve simply become [i]a-conservative-hanging-his-hat-on-meaninglessly-myopic-statistics [/i]simply because your selfish disposition deprives you of any interest in preserving the well-being of others who are in weak economic standing. It’s the old[i] “The money I make is mine and there can be no reason that I should feel obligated to give any of it back to keep the engine running”[/i]. Instead, you might point out a few anecdotal scammers who game the system, then generalize this anecdote as if it represents the entire low-income population, and then proceed to vilify those damn “liberals” for wanting to perpetuate such thievery of the US Treasury by those freeloading “takers” all across America. The big irony, though, is that your attempt to take the high ground strikes me as having the exact opposite effect in your posts-you take a very hard-ass position that would put many millions of people’s financies, health, and opportunities in extreme jeopardy just because you believe it is not a good time for America to spend money on these things (if not in tough times, then what IS it a good time?).
I wouldn’t be surprised if you think Brian is a damn liberal for only shutting down participants that share your extreme right tendencies. It would never occur to you that perhaps your tendencies are so objectionally extreme that they violate basic principles of civility and logical reasoning expected from people who are actually educated about, and take some modicum of initiative to do a tad of research on, the topic at hand before putting their foot in their mouth, over and over again…
Look, you can ignore whichever stats you want if you feel the need to believe your nonsense (as if any of the previous 5 POTUS terms had to navigate through a global economic catastrophe anywhere near the severity of the current fiasco). Unlike many people who share your idiotogy, many of us believe it would be inhumane to pull funding from healthcare, education, aid to the poor, infirm, and sick, etc., and that we believe the country should tow together to help those in need as part of our realization of [i]land of the free, home of the brave, chicken in every pot, trust but verify, “ask not…” [/i]capitalistic society[i].[/i] Recent history has confirmed that in tough times, trickle down is as irrelevant as austerity. Instead, government spending jumpstarts the engine from the bottom up because middle class consumers do most of the consuming and generally spend a far greater portion of their annual income on tangible goods and services compared to higher income segments, and that is what sustains an economy. On the other hand, “investing” money so that you can try to grab 15% cap gains is about the worst thing you can do in times like this because “investment” spending/profit is not very “productive” in terms of economic growth. In fact, “investments” make a profit DURING growth, and AFTER the consumption revs up.
Comparing just about any economic parameter in recent decades to our current situation as a means to claim that the current term should somehow be able to claim parity with previous terms shows a very naive perspective of the principles of sustaining a national economy.
Gee that is a lot of run-on non-sense for my three or four sentences, all done with predictable Lux, Nobody 2008, Specultus, tell-tale overuse of CAPS and italics to make circumlocutions points amounting to nothing but gas-bag Marxist filibustering.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
