Modern GOP really only a minority opposition party? (2 Viewers)

[Clifford]

There is a really weird electoral dynamic developing where the GOP is very good at the House, is very good at Senate and gubernatorial statewide races, and the Democrats seem to have perfected getting out the urban vote in most of the battleground states and so having an advantage in the presidency where federal issues mostly predominate on an urban level.

GOP spends a lot of energy on redrawing districts and "eliminating voter fraud". Without these policies aimed at disenfranchising the poor and minorities I doubt they would be doing all that well but it's impossible to know. They actively campaign against about 75% of the US population (I'm including women given the efforts to deny women contraceptives and essentially calling any woman who needs them a slut).

Still they have done a great job of manipulating women and getting them to actively campaign against their own reproductive rights, just like they convinced the poor rednecks to vote against their own interests.

 

[jonessed]

There is a really weird electoral dynamic developing where the GOP is very good at the House, is very good at Senate and gubernatorial statewide races, and the Democrats seem to have perfected getting out the urban vote in most of the battleground states and so having an advantage in the presidency where federal issues mostly predominate on an urban level.

GOP spends a lot of energy on redrawing districts and "eliminating voter fraud". Without these policies aimed at disenfranchising the poor and minorities I doubt they would be doing all that well but it's impossible to know. They actively campaign against about 75% of the US population (I'm including women given the efforts to deny women contraceptives and essentially calling any woman who needs them a slut). Still they have done a great job of manipulating women and getting them to actively campaign against their own reproductive rights, just like they convinced the poor rednecks to vote against their own interests.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is a really weird electoral dynamic developing where the GOP is very good at the House, is very good at Senate and gubernatorial statewide races, and the Democrats seem to have perfected getting out the urban vote in most of the battleground states and so having an advantage in the presidency where federal issues mostly predominate on an urban level.

GOP spends a lot of energy on redrawing districts and "eliminating voter fraud". Without these policies aimed at disenfranchising the poor and minorities I doubt they would be doing all that well but it's impossible to know. They actively campaign against about 75% of the US population (I'm including women given the efforts to deny women contraceptives and essentially calling any woman who needs them a slut).

Still they have done a great job of manipulating women and getting them to actively campaign against their own reproductive rights, just like they convinced the poor rednecks to vote against their own interests.

Well gosh it would be nice to de-gerrymander districts, I agree.

All that (and the other stuff) aside, I think you see my point, this is where we are.

I will say (just taking a guess) the odd thing about federalization of so many issues, real or attempted, this has left so many statewide issues (as they are now perceived) to the behest of the GOP. The same is true of gerrymandering, great we've taken all the hardcore Democratic demos and put them into singular, bunched districts.... leaving vast swaths of states open for GOP domination. Congratulations?

 

[Sand]

If they continue to stick with the Tea Party they are. Come back to the middle with some common sense and they would win both houses and the Presidency.

I've never understood the meme that fiscal sanity and common sense have nothing to do with one another.

I personally find it amazing we have so many in this country that believe a government of infinite subsidies is the way to go.

That's exactly the type of rhetoric that has the Republican Party in the position it's in.

Rhetoric? Have you seen the newest administration budget proposal? How about the free community college proposal? Dramatically expanded child care subsidy proposal in the State of the Union address?

Seriously, for all the rhetoric (word turnaround!) from the admin about controlling spending the current proposal is an 8% hike. That is just the start with all the pie in the sky spending wish lists that have been thrown out there lately.

And "as far as the position it's in", the Republican party has a lock on the House for a long, long time and may grab a demographic hold on the senate in not too long. And controls the majority of state legislatures. The only place the Republicans hurt is the Presidential races.

Tough to gerrymander state lines I guess

In my state, at least, if lines weren't gerrymandered we'd have 7/7 Republicans instead of 6/7. As it stands I live in one of the most liberal districts in the country, courtesy of the old Democratic machine here (and protected by the Voting Rights Act). Not saying this doesn't happen in the R side, but it does go both ways.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If they continue to stick with the Tea Party they are. Come back to the middle with some common sense and they would win both houses and the Presidency.

I've never understood the meme that fiscal sanity and common sense have nothing to do with one another.

I personally find it amazing we have so many in this country that believe a government of infinite subsidies is the way to go.

That's exactly the type of rhetoric that has the Republican Party in the position it's in.

Rhetoric? Have you seen the newest administration budget proposal? How about the free community college proposal? Dramatically expanded child care subsidy proposal in the State of the Union address?

Seriously, for all the rhetoric (word turnaround!) from the admin about controlling spending the current proposal is an 8% hike. That is just the start with all the pie in the sky spending wish lists that have been thrown out there lately.

And "as far as the position it's in", the Republican party has a lock on the House for a long, long time and may grab a demographic hold on the senate in not too long. And controls the majority of state legislatures. The only place the Republicans hurt is the Presidential races.

Tough to gerrymander state lines I guess

In my state, at least, if lines weren't gerrymandered we'd have 7/7 Republicans instead of 6/7. As it stands I live in one of the most liberal districts in the country, courtesy of the old Democratic machine here (and protected by the Voting Rights Act). Not saying this doesn't happen in the R side, but it does go both ways.

That just makes all the red districts red-der, and it makes the blue district super-blue.

Mississippi actually had a majority Democratic Congressional delegation a couple terms ago, and Louisiana was the last great Demo holdout in the South until just recently.

It doesn't have to be this way. Mostly what gerrymandering accomplishes is reelection, but the effect is that it adds to our gridlock and total inability to accomplish anything in Congress regardless of party.

 

[Sand]

If they continue to stick with the Tea Party they are. Come back to the middle with some common sense and they would win both houses and the Presidency.

I've never understood the meme that fiscal sanity and common sense have nothing to do with one another.

I personally find it amazing we have so many in this country that believe a government of infinite subsidies is the way to go.

That's exactly the type of rhetoric that has the Republican Party in the position it's in.

Rhetoric? Have you seen the newest administration budget proposal? How about the free community college proposal? Dramatically expanded child care subsidy proposal in the State of the Union address?

Seriously, for all the rhetoric (word turnaround!) from the admin about controlling spending the current proposal is an 8% hike. That is just the start with all the pie in the sky spending wish lists that have been thrown out there lately.

And "as far as the position it's in", the Republican party has a lock on the House for a long, long time and may grab a demographic hold on the senate in not too long. And controls the majority of state legislatures. The only place the Republicans hurt is the Presidential races.

Tough to gerrymander state lines I guess

In my state, at least, if lines weren't gerrymandered we'd have 7/7 Republicans instead of 6/7. As it stands I live in one of the most liberal districts in the country, courtesy of the old Democratic machine here (and protected by the Voting Rights Act). Not saying this doesn't happen in the R side, but it does go both ways.

That just makes all the red districts red-der, and it makes the blue district super-blue.

Mississippi actually had a majority Democratic Congressional delegation a couple terms ago, and Louisiana was the last great Demo holdout in the South until just recently.

It doesn't have to be this way. Mostly what gerrymandering accomplishes is reelection, but the effect is that it adds to our gridlock and total inability to accomplish anything in Congress regardless of party.

Yep - the Voting Rights Act (which was used against some redistricting efforts here) essentially enshrines very polarized districts. I'm moving soon and will be going from one of the most liberal districts in the country (7) to one of the most conservative (6).

 

[timschochet]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

If you revisit the original post I think it's a good one actually and on point given the current state of things. The question is whether the GOP can (ever) win back the WH or if so when.

The Democrats also have a big gaping question whether they can do what they have done without Obama. I know, I know Hillary is up +500 points or whatever, but she may be an outlier too given her name recognition. You also have the historical anomalies (potentially) of the Iraq War and the 2008 crash and two weak candidates put forth by the GOP. On the other hand look at the red counties vs the blue cities in all the key battleground states, the blue cities have been winning in presidential elections.

 

[GoFishTN]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

If you revisit the original post I think it's a good one actually and on point given the current state of things. The question is whether the GOP can (ever) win back the WH or if so when.

The Democrats also have a big gaping question whether they can do what they have done without Obama. I know, I know Hillary is up +500 points or whatever, but she may be an outlier too given her name recognition. You also have the historical anomalies (potentially) of the Iraq War and the 2008 crash and two weak candidates put forth by the GOP. On the other hand look at the red counties vs the blue cities in all the key battleground states, the blue cities have been winning in presidential elections.

You people act like there hasn't been a Republican President in 40 years. So ridiculous.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The question is whether the GOP can (ever) win back the WH or if so when.

Yes. 2016.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

The pendulum swings left and right but the train always moves forward ...slightly to the left.

 

[GoFishTN]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

True.

But I wonder why no one has never tried to answer my question: why dont the American people trust the Republicans with the Presidency, House and Senate all at the same time?

 

[jonessed]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

True.

But I wonder why no one has never tried to answer my question: why dont the American people trust the Republicans with the Presidency, House and Senate all at the same time?

It's only been about ten years since this has happened.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

True.

But I wonder why no one has never tried to answer my question: why dont the American people trust the Republicans with the Presidency, House and Senate all at the same time?

It's only been about ten years since this has happened.

And look how that ended up.

How long before that that it happened?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)
• Watergate
• Perot
• Iraq War & 2008 crash

 

[Sand]

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)
• Watergate
• Perot
• Iraq War & 2008 crash

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)
• Watergate
• Perot
• Iraq War & 2008 crash

You are just talking about the executive branch. Go back and read the whole thread--I asked why America doesnt trust the GOP with all branches of federal government in modern times. If you look at what happens when they do, I think we all know the answer to that question. But I am curious why you think America doent trust the GOP to run the government.

And this nation isnt "largely conservative". This nation has generally always been amazingly liberal/progressive. Other than a few areas such as the stain of slavery, obviously, where we lagged far behind the rest of the first world and had to kill many of our "traditionalists" to catch up. We still have a lot of backward lookers, and always will, but that doesnt mean they make a up a majority of the country. Typically, they are a brake on the messy exuberance of forward progress, and often a much needed one. But as someone else pointed out, the "traditionalists" are always behind the times in the end.

 

[roadkill1292]

THIS BOARD IS TOO LIBERAL!!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)
• Watergate
• Perot
• Iraq War & 2008 crash

You are just talking about the executive branch. Go back and read the whole thread--I asked why America doesnt trust the GOP with all branches of federal government in modern times. If you look at what happens when they do, I think we all know the answer to that question. But I am curious why you think America doent trust the GOP to run the government.

And this nation isnt "largely conservative". This nation has generally always been amazingly liberal/progressive. Other than a few areas such as the stain of slavery, obviously, where we lagged far behind the rest of the first world and had to kill many of our "traditionalists" to catch up. We still have a lot of backward lookers, and always will, but that doesnt mean they make a up a majority of the country. Typically, they are a brake on the messy exuberance of forward progress, and often a much needed one. But as someone else pointed out, the "traditionalists" are always behind the times in the end.

I started writing out a long reply, but I thought I would just say I agree with you. My main point was to reply to the post above mine, acknowledging how the country has gone on long stretches of voting for GOP presidents in the WH. I actually agree with your OP and a lot of your premises you just mentioned.

I think the "trust" issue is important. Note that the things I mentioned, Watergate, Perot, Iraq/Crash, all involved a breach of trust with the GOP (IMO).

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)

Did he really win the first one?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well if Hillary wins this and then takes what is an almost gratuitous second these day, that will be 16. That's along stretch. The Clinton's had the benefit of a third party Perot in the 90s, that's true, but even so the GOP is looking at 24 of 32 years in Demo control of the WH. Unfortunately the US really became a 50/50 polarized electorate under their watch and their elevation of the modern campaign industry and yet here we are ready to double down once again. That's where we are.

You can cherry pick the years however you want. After Carter it looked liked the Democrats would never sniff the Presidency again. People inevitably tire of one party and look to the other for "change".

The GOP had its own stretch - Ike x 2, Dem x2, GOP x2 Dem 1ce, GOP x3, then the Clintons (which ran frankly on eating their own party's young), GOP x2, Obama etc. - basically the nation has largely been conservative and there have been some "weird" (for lcak of a better term) seismic shifts:

• JFK assassinated (would JFK have won that 2nd term? That was no sure thing...)

Did he really win the first one?

You mean did he use certain er "influence" amongst certain er "operatives" in the greater Chicago area to push him over the line? It's worth pointing out that yes that was a damned close election. Hypothetically the GOP could have won in 1960 and then 1964 too.

Henry Cabot Lodge would have been VP and he was a brilliant guy and a moderate and he would have been well positioned for president in 1968. He also came from the non-interventionist tradition of the GOP so Vietnam or at least its end may have been an entirely different story.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

The GOP seems to be at odds with remembering its own history. Does anyone even remember that George Bush Jr. ran as the "education president" and against nation building? - The 9/11/01 attacks really warped a lot of things.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The big domestic policy debate in 2000 was whether we would go with Gore who promised to lock up up our social security savings like a trust fund that would 100% be there when we retired or whether we would go with Bush who promised to let us invest it in 401K's.

Now the GOP and Democrats are wrestling over what # the retirement age should be raised to and how much our own taxed earnings should be taxed again just when we're ready to retire.

 

[TPW]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

The pendulum swings left and right but the train always moves forward ...slightly to the left.

...until it hops the tracks, drops off a cliff and falls apart.

I fully expect never to see another Republican president again in my lifetime and I strongly suspect those a good deal younger than myself will have to wait for quite a long stretch to see anyone other than a Democrat prevail, another 18 years from the present date at a bare minimum. Probably even longer than that. We are entering a phase where there will be single-party rule by the Democrats of the executive branch, much as the leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated the government of Mexico for most of the 20th century. It will be hopelessly corrupt and inefficient but deeply entrenched thanks to economic populism, identity politics, and the inability of the majority of the American public to look beyond skin color and selfish interests. Nothing will change until such time as they run out of other people's money to spend. But that day will come.

 

[roadkill1292]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

The pendulum swings left and right but the train always moves forward ...slightly to the left.

...until it drops of a cliff and falls apart.

I fully expect never to see another Republican president again in my lifetime and I strongly suspect those a good deal younger than myself will have to wait for quite a long stretch to see anyone other than a Democrat prevail, another 18 years from the present date at a bare minimum. Probably even longer than that. We are entering a phase where there will be single-party rule by the Democrats of the executive branch, much as the leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated the government of Mexico for most of the 20th century. It will be hopelessly corrupt and inefficient but deeply entrenched thanks to economic populism, identity politics, and the inability of the majority of the American public to look beyond skin color and selfish interests. Nothing will change until such time as they run out other people's money to spend. But that day will come.

You are, as usual, ridiculous. All Republicans have to do is take a big boy approach to the nation's governance and drop the opposition to the entrenched social dogma of the past and the nation's moderate voters will return. If you read Koya's post above about Republican presidential candidates not being able to admit to believing in evolution and think "what's wrong with that?" then this simple argument will indeed pass you by.

The nation's diverse electorate is committed to technological change and social liberality. The next generation of voters will demand political leaders who attack the nation's problems with data, not prayer. Your party should be leading the way to managing change, not fighting it.

 

[TPW]

"Manage change?" That's rich. Much as Sisyphus "managed change" by pushing boulders uphill only to get crushed when the weight of his meaningless task overpowered him.

No, when an out of control train is barreling downhill a wise man gets out of the way.

 

[roadkill1292]

Maybe you should pray harder. Pray for the strength to overcome your cowardice and defeatism.

 

[joffer]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

in Cruz's case, I don't think he's being forced. I think those are his positions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

in Cruz's case, I don't think he's being forced. I think those are his positions.

Ha, I agree, I was thinking the same thing,,,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

The pendulum swings left and right but the train always moves forward ...slightly to the left.

...until it drops of a cliff and falls apart.

I fully expect never to see another Republican president again in my lifetime and I strongly suspect those a good deal younger than myself will have to wait for quite a long stretch to see anyone other than a Democrat prevail, another 18 years from the present date at a bare minimum. Probably even longer than that. We are entering a phase where there will be single-party rule by the Democrats of the executive branch, much as the leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated the government of Mexico for most of the 20th century. It will be hopelessly corrupt and inefficient but deeply entrenched thanks to economic populism, identity politics, and the inability of the majority of the American public to look beyond skin color and selfish interests. Nothing will change until such time as they run out other people's money to spend. But that day will come.

You are, as usual, ridiculous. All Republicans have to do is take a big boy approach to the nation's governance and drop the opposition to the entrenched social dogma of the past and the nation's moderate voters will return. If you read Koya's post above about Republican presidential candidates not being able to admit to believing in evolution and think "what's wrong with that?" then this simple argument will indeed pass you by.

The nation's diverse electorate is committed to technological change and social liberality. The next generation of voters will demand political leaders who attack the nation's problems with data, not prayer. Your party should be leading the way to managing change, not fighting it.

I think the evolution thing is a really good point. How ridiculous is this going to get?

 

[roadkill1292]

Dammit, it wasn't Koya, it was Ivan who made the really good post about Republican candidates not being able to admit to believing in evolution. Credit where credit is due. Apologies, IK. You do good work in these threads.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But this point about millenials turning left... maybe we're all reading ink blots here. Have they?

No one's successfully pushing through taxes. The one major tax that has come through, the mandate tax, is applied against lower income people and millenials.

Gay marriage and pot legalization seem like they're the big wedge issues, but they have been about the state withdrawing from regulation. These are arguably libertarian in nature.

 

[shadrap]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

In your opinion.

 

[roadkill1292]

But this point about millenials turning left... maybe we're all reading ink blots here. Have they?

No one's successfully pushing through taxes. The one major tax that has come through, the mandate tax, is applied against lower income people and millenials.

Gay marriage and pot legalization seem like they're the big wedge issues, but they have been about the state withdrawing from regulation. These are arguably libertarian in nature.

They do indeed poll uniquely and there are libertarian leanings on some issues. I think they're a really interesting generation (pause here for standard kneejerk sneer of derision at snarky, know-it-all, Reagan-knob-gobbling Gen Xers). Haha, you know I love you, guys, even if you are a bunch of #######s.

And what I think of them is that they have come of age at a time where everything in their lives works, works well and keeps working faster -- except government. Their solution isn't to downsize government, however, but instead to insist that government work. Because government can be a monster force for good. That's not a typical outlook for us cynical older people.

 

[roadkill1292]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it.

Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

In your opinion.

What are you saying? That a Republican candidate can take a positive position on evolution or that it's a good thing that he can't?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But this point about millenials turning left... maybe we're all reading ink blots here. Have they?

No one's successfully pushing through taxes. The one major tax that has come through, the mandate tax, is applied against lower income people and millenials.

Gay marriage and pot legalization seem like they're the big wedge issues, but they have been about the state withdrawing from regulation. These are arguably libertarian in nature.

They do indeed poll uniquely and there are libertarian leanings on some issues. I think they're a really interesting generation (pause here for standard kneejerk sneer of derision at snarky, know-it-all, Reagan-knob-gobbling Gen Xers). Haha, you know I love you, guys, even if you are a bunch of #######s.

And what I think of them is that they have come of age at a time where everything in their lives works, works well and keeps working faster -- except government. Their solution isn't to downsize government, however, but instead to insist that government work. Because government can be a monster force for good. That's not a typical outlook for us cynical older people.

Well, I like that take, actually it sounds like me (or what I think is me). I wouldn't downsize or upsize government just for its own sake. I would like to see more transparency, ethics, and public speech on public issues. If I find that candidate or party I will be surprised though.

 

[joffer]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

I get what you're saying, but at the national level, the Republican party is dominated by goofballs. There's just no way around it. Consider a guy like Ted Cruz. From what I've read about him, he's an extremely bright guy. He's not actually a moron like that O'Donnell lady from DE. Yet, he's pushed into taking moronic positions because if he doesn't, he has no chance of winning the support of his own base. The Republican party has turned into a circus where its own candidates for president -- the leader of the free world -- can't openly say that they think evolution is probably true. Let me repeat: It is politically crippling for a Republican politician to openly acknowledge the process of evolution. This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

In your opinion.

zing!

 

[jonessed]

But this point about millenials turning left... maybe we're all reading ink blots here. Have they?

No one's successfully pushing through taxes. The one major tax that has come through, the mandate tax, is applied against lower income people and millenials.

Gay marriage and pot legalization seem like they're the big wedge issues, but they have been about the state withdrawing from regulation. These are arguably libertarian in nature.

They do indeed poll uniquely and there are libertarian leanings on some issues. I think they're a really interesting generation (pause here for standard kneejerk sneer of derision at snarky, know-it-all, Reagan-knob-gobbling Gen Xers). Haha, you know I love you, guys, even if you are a bunch of #######s.And what I think of them is that they have come of age at a time where everything in their lives works, works well and keeps working faster -- except government. Their solution isn't to downsize government, however, but instead to insist that government work. Because government can be a monster force for good. That's not a typical outlook for us cynical older people.

Well, I like that take, actually it sounds like me (or what I think is me). I wouldn't downsize or upsize government just for its own sake. I would like to see more transparency, ethics, and public speech on public issues. If I find that candidate or party I will be surprised though.

I think everybody would.

Government cynicism is something that is built in through time after seeing #### just not get done in any logical fashion. It's not specific to America or even a specific type of government. It's a problem with large bureaucracies. They become entrenched, slow moving, inefficient, and illogical. This is never going to change.

Like most things, it takes watching a few failures to see the inherent problems. People will move in different directions as they mature (both through experience and the natural changes of the brain) as to what they think the solutions might be, but no one generation is going to be able to do much on their own. The Baby Boomers were unique due to their size and had an inordinately sized hand in ####### things up. That's not going to happen again in any of our lifetimes.

 

[CBusAlex]

This is roughly the equivalent of turning the quadratic equation into a partisan litmus test. It's insane.

Hey, if the science is settled, how come mathematicians can't even agree whether it's plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac?

 

[Todd Andrews]

The title of this thread seems a little absurd in light of the recent election. Republicans are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Presidency. But they control the House (and will for some time), they control the Senate, they control most of the governorships and most of the state legislatures. Minority party?

The pendulum swings left and right but the train always moves forward ...slightly to the left.

...until it drops of a cliff and falls apart.

I fully expect never to see another Republican president again in my lifetime and I strongly suspect those a good deal younger than myself will have to wait for quite a long stretch to see anyone other than a Democrat prevail, another 18 years from the present date at a bare minimum. Probably even longer than that. We are entering a phase where there will be single-party rule by the Democrats of the executive branch, much as the leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated the government of Mexico for most of the 20th century. It will be hopelessly corrupt and inefficient but deeply entrenched thanks to economic populism, identity politics, and the inability of the majority of the American public to look beyond skin color and selfish interests. Nothing will change until such time as they run out other people's money to spend. But that day will come.

You are, as usual, ridiculous. All Republicans have to do is take a big boy approach to the nation's governance and drop the opposition to the entrenched social dogma of the past and the nation's moderate voters will return. If you read Koya's post above about Republican presidential candidates not being able to admit to believing in evolution and think "what's wrong with that?" then this simple argument will indeed pass you by.

The nation's diverse electorate is committed to technological change and social liberality. The next generation of voters will demand political leaders who attack the nation's problems with data, not prayer. Your party should be leading the way to managing change, not fighting it.

Yes. That is why my political party is Anti-KooK. The Republican Party could easily pivot and gather in a lot of libertarian leaning younger voters, I just dont think that they have the current foresight or leadership to do it for a while. Probably another couple election cycles, IMO.

 

[Koya]

Hi. New to the thread.

Cliffnotes?

STIA

 

[TPW]

Maybe you should pray harder. Pray for the strength to overcome your cowardice and defeatism.

I am resurrecting this thread to address this absurd comment which heretofore I missed. I'm not afraid of change. Life is constantly changing in one aspect or another. However, unlike you I am also not foolish enough to think that a society which abandons its traditional moral underpinnings and common culture, debases its currency while accumulating trillions of dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities, and continually imports tens of millions of unassimilated illegal immigrants is one which can be "managed" to a successful end. What we are seeing in places like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland is only a tiny taste of the unrest this country will witness the next time there is a major economic disruption. Increasingly central government is going to be called upon by the Millennials, a state-educated generation who never met a federal program they didn't like, to address these problems by creating even more of the same. That is precisely the opposite of what should be happening.

When I was born, the United Kingdom, while depleted from fighting consecutive world wars, remained one of the most dominant countries on earth and the Soviet Union was a legitimate superpower capable of taking on any opponent. And while they are still both around in some fashion, they are now a shell of their former selves having been split apart by internal disagreement and strife, debt, and economic mismanagement. Don't think it cannot happen here.

You're right about one thing though. I will pray. I will pray that I am completely off base and people such as yourself, as pigheaded as you are, somehow are able through sheer dumb luck to manage the well-being of 300+ million souls from disparate walks off life to a prosperous end. It seems to me though that it is you who are the one placing a greater amount of faith in a very uncertain outcome.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'll be espousing the widespread legalization of prostitution next. Thanks in advance for your participation in those debates.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Update:

The 2015 election tightened the Republican stranglehold on state governmentThe 2015 election is over. (You may not have known it was even happening.) And it proved one thing: Republicans have an absolute stranglehold on governorships and state legislatures all across the country.

Consider:

* With Matt Bevin's win in Kentucky on Tuesday night, Republicans now hold 32 of the nation's governorships — 64 percent of all the governors mansions in the country. (One race, in Louisiana, won't be decided until next month. Democrats believe they have a good chance of winning that race against now-Sen. David Vitter.)

* Democrats' failure to take over the Virginia state Senate means that Republicans still hold total control of 30 of the country's 50 state legislatures (60 percent) and have total or split control of 38 of the 50 (76 percent.)

[GRAPHIC WORTH LOOKING AT, HERE]

That dominance — and what it means to the policy and political calculations and prospects for both parties at the national level — is the single most overlooked and underappreciated story line of President Obama's time in office. Since 2009, Republicans have made massive and unprecedented gains at the state level, gains that played a central role in, among other things, handing control of the U.S. House back to the GOP in the 2010 election.

This chart via GOP lobbyist Bruce Mehlman tells that story in stark terms (although it doesn't include updated results after Tuesday's vote):

[Graphic: Obama Comparative Coattails]

It's hard to overstate how important those GOP gains — and the consolidation of them we've seen in the last few years — are to the relative fates of the two parties. While the story at the national level suggests a Republican Party that is growing increasingly white, old and out of step with the country on social issues, the narrative at the local level is very different. Republicans are prospering at the state level in ways that suggest that the party's messaging is far from broken.

There are other, more pragmatic effects of the GOP dominance in governor's races and state legislatures, too. Aside from giving the party a major leg up in the decennial redrawing of congressional lines, which has led to a Republican House majority not only today but likely through at least 2020, the GOP's dominance gives the party fertile ground to incubate policy that makes its way to the national level and to cultivate the future stars of the national party from the ground up.

While the demographic and electoral challenges that Republicans must confront at the national level are very real, the idea, pushed in some circles, that those struggles are leading indicators of a dying party is absolutely wrong. In fact, at the state and local level the Republican Party is considerably more robust than its Democratic counterpart.

Focus on the presidential race exclusively if you will. But remember that the long-term health of a party is about much more than simply the man or woman at the top of the ticket.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/04/the-2015-election-tightened-the-republican-stranglehold-on-state-government/?postshare=6891446666802840

- Shorthand: Republicans control or split control of over 75% of the nation's state legislatures and 2/3's of the governorships.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'll be espousing the widespread legalization of prostitution next. Thanks in advance for your participation in those debates.

Can we get the weed dealers & hookers to be the same people? I prefer one stop shopping whenever possible.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Red States Outnumber Blue for First Time in Gallup TrackingPRINCETON, N.J. -- Gallup's analysis of political party affiliation at the state level in 2015 finds that 20 states are solidly Republican or leaning Republican, compared with 14 solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic states. The remaining 16 are competitive. This is the first time in Gallup's eight years of tracking partisanship by state that there have been more Republican than Democratic states. It also marks a dramatic shift from 2008, when Democratic strength nationally was its greatest in recent decades.

...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188969/red-states-outnumber-blue-first-time-gallup-tracking.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

 

[cstu]

Red States Outnumber Blue for First Time in Gallup TrackingPRINCETON, N.J. -- Gallup's analysis of political party affiliation at the state level in 2015 finds that 20 states are solidly Republican or leaning Republican, compared with 14 solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic states. The remaining 16 are competitive. This is the first time in Gallup's eight years of tracking partisanship by state that there have been more Republican than Democratic states. It also marks a dramatic shift from 2008, when Democratic strength nationally was its greatest in recent decades.

...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188969/red-states-outnumber-blue-first-time-gallup-tracking.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

I guess people have already forgotten years 2000-2008.