Modern GOP really only a minority opposition party? (1 Viewer)

[Todd Andrews]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

 

[17seconds]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

So for you, relevant US political history starts in 1980? Cool. For me, if people I know were alive, I consider things that happened that year relevant to US history. But we dont have to agree.Why didnt the American people elect a GOP Senate and House to help Reagan govern?

 

[jon_mx]

The Democrats are also a minority party. HTH.

Not when it comes to elected office in this country in the last 70-80 years. TIA.

Which offices would that be? The US House and Senate. But what about the Presidency. The last 30 years, 20 of them we have had Republican presidents. Most states of Republican governors. Most states are controlled by Republican houses and senates. You are cherry-picking by only looking at the US House and Senate. Everything else is GOP. Even 5 of the 9 Supreme Court nominees are somewhat Conservative. So I think your premise is kind of ridiculous.

Oh please. My premise is only ridiculous if you purposefully or ignorantly misunderstand it and make a completely different argument.I am talking about elected office at every level in the US in modern times, which I clearly define as the last 70-80 years. You are only looking at the last election, when the pendulum swung to the right. And your argument is even lame on a micro level because the year before (2009), the House, Senate, Presidency and I believe even a majority of governorships and statehouses were all in Democratic party hands.

But I am actually looking at this historically because any short period is merely a snapshot and has little weight. But over the last 70-80 years, a significant majority of all the elections in this country for governorships, House seats, Senate seats, the Presidency (closest: about 42 Democratic years to 40 GOP over the last 82 years going back to the beginning of Hoover's awesome Presidency), and all state legislative seats have been won by Democrats.

No, you are mainly addressing the House and Senate. You completely ignore Governors. You also cherry pick your years for the President which happen to have a 5-term Democrat. In more recent times, the last 50 years, the GOP has occupied the White House more often than not. The balance of power between the two parties has not been that significant. Both parties have had their hand in screwing up the country or making it better.

Do you live in a fantasy world where when you say something it becomes fact? I didnt cherry pick my years and I dont care if you use 50 or 70 or 80. Go look up which party has won the majority of state legislative chambers, House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency, and you will find that even using your 50 year period, the GOP has--except for maybe a couple years of the Executive branch in your cherry picked period--won far less elections overall at every level, governed for far less time periods at state and federal levels, and generally been only a minority opposition party. I know it makes you sad, but these are simple verifiable facts. You just dont like them and it makes you cry inside. I feel for you.

Let's just look at the Presidency....Last 10 years.....GOP 8, Democrat 2

Last 20 years.....GOP 10, Democrat 10

Last 30 years.....GOP 20, Democrat 10

Last 40 years.....GOP 26, Democrat 14

Last 50 years.....GOP 28, Democrat 22

Last 60 years.....GOP 36, Democrat 24

In the US Senate.....Over the last 30 years, the GOP has controlled 16 vs. 14 for the Democrats.

In the US House.....Over the last 20 years, the GOP has controlled 12 vs. 8 for the Democrats, and currently have power.

I don't have time to go through the states, buy you are smoking weed if you think the Democrats have dominated offices in the states. They might dominate a few big states like California and New York, but the GOP dominates in far more states than the Dems.

Your premise is just wrong.

You are wrong about the statehouses but I will wait for you to go figure that out. I agreed with you that there was a sight edge by the GOP on years in the Executive branch but the sheer volume of Democratic legislative majorities in elections dwarfs that slight edge (if you go back 80 years the GOP even loses its slight Executive branch edge). If you add up the total number of US House and Senate elections going back 70-80 years (start in 1929 with Hoover's election, for example), I believe that you will find that roughly two thirds of all elected House and Senate members were Democrats. That is a staggering advantage. By the way, if you want to go farther back to run up some GOP numbers, go ahead. I would like to hear your arguments for how Republicans controlling the Senate in the early 1900's or post Civil War is relevant now. Your ignorance of reality is fascinating, but really beside the point. I have one simple question I would like you to answer if you feel up to it, because in the face of the facts, you are falsely claiming my premise is flawed: Why has the Republican Party controlled the House, Senate and Presidency only ONCE in the last 55 years? Or only three times in the last 82 years (6 years of GW, 2 years of Ike and 2 years of Hoover)? Simple fact: every Democratic President in the last hundred years was trusted by the American people to govern with Democratic control of both houses of Congress for at least one two year period.

I imagine you will tell me that the American people never put the GOP in charge of the US government because they secretly believed in the Republican agenda and trusted them, but the evil media fooled the people into voting for those rascally Democrats, right? But dont let me put words in your mouth, you explain it yourself. Dont tell me, I am ignoring the GOP dominance in the Roaring Twenties!

By the way, this simple chart might help you understand the sheer volume of modern federal congressional dominance by the Democratic party:

Parties in the US Congress

I now it hurts you that the Republican Party is a minority opposition party, but thats what it has been in modern American politics. I am sorry.

You continue to ignore the fact that you have made statements which are just not factually true. The difference between the amount of power each party has held is minute and is more a function where you arbitrarily draw the lines. I have shown numberous examples which show this, but you ignore it. I am out of here.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Democrats are also a minority party. HTH.

Not when it comes to elected office in this country in the last 70-80 years. TIA.

Which offices would that be? The US House and Senate. But what about the Presidency. The last 30 years, 20 of them we have had Republican presidents. Most states of Republican governors. Most states are controlled by Republican houses and senates. You are cherry-picking by only looking at the US House and Senate. Everything else is GOP. Even 5 of the 9 Supreme Court nominees are somewhat Conservative. So I think your premise is kind of ridiculous.

Oh please. My premise is only ridiculous if you purposefully or ignorantly misunderstand it and make a completely different argument.I am talking about elected office at every level in the US in modern times, which I clearly define as the last 70-80 years. You are only looking at the last election, when the pendulum swung to the right. And your argument is even lame on a micro level because the year before (2009), the House, Senate, Presidency and I believe even a majority of governorships and statehouses were all in Democratic party hands.

But I am actually looking at this historically because any short period is merely a snapshot and has little weight. But over the last 70-80 years, a significant majority of all the elections in this country for governorships, House seats, Senate seats, the Presidency (closest: about 42 Democratic years to 40 GOP over the last 82 years going back to the beginning of Hoover's awesome Presidency), and all state legislative seats have been won by Democrats.

No, you are mainly addressing the House and Senate. You completely ignore Governors. You also cherry pick your years for the President which happen to have a 5-term Democrat. In more recent times, the last 50 years, the GOP has occupied the White House more often than not. The balance of power between the two parties has not been that significant. Both parties have had their hand in screwing up the country or making it better.

Do you live in a fantasy world where when you say something it becomes fact? I didnt cherry pick my years and I dont care if you use 50 or 70 or 80. Go look up which party has won the majority of state legislative chambers, House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency, and you will find that even using your 50 year period, the GOP has--except for maybe a couple years of the Executive branch in your cherry picked period--won far less elections overall at every level, governed for far less time periods at state and federal levels, and generally been only a minority opposition party. I know it makes you sad, but these are simple verifiable facts. You just dont like them and it makes you cry inside. I feel for you.

Let's just look at the Presidency....Last 10 years.....GOP 8, Democrat 2

Last 20 years.....GOP 10, Democrat 10

Last 30 years.....GOP 20, Democrat 10

Last 40 years.....GOP 26, Democrat 14

Last 50 years.....GOP 28, Democrat 22

Last 60 years.....GOP 36, Democrat 24

In the US Senate.....Over the last 30 years, the GOP has controlled 16 vs. 14 for the Democrats.

In the US House.....Over the last 20 years, the GOP has controlled 12 vs. 8 for the Democrats, and currently have power.

I don't have time to go through the states, buy you are smoking weed if you think the Democrats have dominated offices in the states. They might dominate a few big states like California and New York, but the GOP dominates in far more states than the Dems.

Your premise is just wrong.

You are wrong about the statehouses but I will wait for you to go figure that out. I agreed with you that there was a sight edge by the GOP on years in the Executive branch but the sheer volume of Democratic legislative majorities in elections dwarfs that slight edge (if you go back 80 years the GOP even loses its slight Executive branch edge). If you add up the total number of US House and Senate elections going back 70-80 years (start in 1929 with Hoover's election, for example), I believe that you will find that roughly two thirds of all elected House and Senate members were Democrats. That is a staggering advantage. By the way, if you want to go farther back to run up some GOP numbers, go ahead. I would like to hear your arguments for how Republicans controlling the Senate in the early 1900's or post Civil War is relevant now. Your ignorance of reality is fascinating, but really beside the point. I have one simple question I would like you to answer if you feel up to it, because in the face of the facts, you are falsely claiming my premise is flawed: Why has the Republican Party controlled the House, Senate and Presidency only ONCE in the last 55 years? Or only three times in the last 82 years (6 years of GW, 2 years of Ike and 2 years of Hoover)? Simple fact: every Democratic President in the last hundred years was trusted by the American people to govern with Democratic control of both houses of Congress for at least one two year period.

I imagine you will tell me that the American people never put the GOP in charge of the US government because they secretly believed in the Republican agenda and trusted them, but the evil media fooled the people into voting for those rascally Democrats, right? But dont let me put words in your mouth, you explain it yourself. Dont tell me, I am ignoring the GOP dominance in the Roaring Twenties!

By the way, this simple chart might help you understand the sheer volume of modern federal congressional dominance by the Democratic party:

Parties in the US Congress

I now it hurts you that the Republican Party is a minority opposition party, but thats what it has been in modern American politics. I am sorry.

You continue to ignore the fact that you have made statements which are just not factually true. The difference between the amount of power each party has held is minute and is more a function where you arbitrarily draw the lines. I have shown numberous examples which show this, but you ignore it. I am out of here.

Shoo. You havent shown one factual error I made but I graciously accept your surrender and retreat. I know it is hard having it pointed out that your political beliefs are in a minority that the American people doesnt trust to govern the country. But you are a big boy who can face it....or run away and hide.

 

[timschochet]

Actually, the modern day conservative movement really begins in 1989. Between 1948 and 1989, conservatives were united by their opposition to the Soviet Union. That outweighed all other concerns about the economy or social issues, so that even an economic liberal like Richard Nixon could be prominent in the GOP so long as he called for a tough line against the Commies at home and abroad.

Since the Soviet Union fell, the Republicans have been looking for a new issue that would unify them. They may have finally found it in the Tea Party's notion of economic populism: radically shrink the size of government.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Actually, the modern day conservative movement really begins in 1989. Between 1948 and 1989, conservatives were united by their opposition to the Soviet Union. That outweighed all other concerns about the economy or social issues, so that even an economic liberal like Richard Nixon could be prominent in the GOP so long as he called for a tough line against the Commies at home and abroad. Since the Soviet Union fell, the Republicans have been looking for a new issue that would unify them. They may have finally found it in the Tea Party's notion of economic populism: radically shrink the size of government.

I thought they were united against boys kissing...out of the closet.

 

[DrJ]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

So for you, relevant US political history starts in 1980? Cool. For me, if people I know were alive, I consider things that happened that year relevant to US history. But we dont have to agree.Why didnt the American people elect a GOP Senate and House to help Reagan govern?

If you're going to paint this broad stroke, I'm going to have to say if people you know were of voting age. Your 85 year old grandma didn't have a thing to do with electing Roosevelt. So let's at minimum stick to post WWII. And taking Roosevelt out of the equation screws you.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

So for you, relevant US political history starts in 1980? Cool. For me, if people I know were alive, I consider things that happened that year relevant to US history. But we dont have to agree.Why didnt the American people elect a GOP Senate and House to help Reagan govern?

If you're going to paint this broad stroke, I'm going to have to say if people you know were of voting age. Your 85 year old grandma didn't have a thing to do with electing Roosevelt. So let's at minimum stick to post WWII. And taking Roosevelt out of the equation screws you.

I didnt say the old people I know had to influence an election. I just find it amusing that to Republicans, 1979 is the pre-modern period in US electoral history. And taking Roosevelt out changes nothing except a few Executive branch terms. You are obviously missing the main point of this entire thread, which is that the American people dont trust the Republican party to govern or run the country, because they practically refuse to ever elect a GOP House, Senate and President at the same time. That is my premise, how does taking Roosevelt out screw me again?

 

[TexanFan02]

The GOP used to be a smart minority party. Now they've welcomed the new dumb into their ranks(Think the emails your Dad or Mom sends you), and they're pretty much the same as the Democrats.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-taht-o.

Pretty much why we're all screwed.

Really all Nixon's fault. He broke the solid South. Used to be, the Southern Democrats were really more conservative than today's Republicans, so they balanced out the nutjobs in New England and California and provided a fairly balanced Democratic party.

Not so any more.

So both parties are drifting farther away from the center, and they refuse to work with each other at all. This cannot continue.

 

[Jewell]

The Dems will likely never be a minority party because the natural state of humanity is left of center

Are you guys defining "left" in the above statements by central planning philosophy? Economic philosophy? Social philosphy?

The natural state of humanity is cooperative. If i didnt believe that, i'd never make a viewpoint post. This all is a hysteria, selfishness inspired by half the population becoming self-determinent for the 1st time within the last half-century and exacerbated by new media.

People naturally do want to help others. That’s why Conservatives, even though they’re derided as uncaring, give so much to charity. When people give their time, energy, and money to help others, they want to see those recipients also giving their time, energy, and money to better themselves. When the givers-in don’t see that reciprocity they will question the system. They’ll question whether they’re being taken advantage of, and they’ll question whether their giving is serving its intended purpose. The givers may even become resentful toward the takers. Now, just to be real real, people tend to give to people who look like them. For example, do you think black people contribute more to The United Negro College Fund or The United Asian College Fund? That doesn’t make those givers racist or xenophobic. That’s human nature. European socialist welfare states flourished for years with little citizen resistance when the givers-in and takers-out were of the same people. Post mass immigration, many givers-in noticed that the takers-out were increasingly taking advantage of an overly generous and not fine-tuned welfare system. The givers-in also noticed that a disproportionate amount of those recipients were of a different people. Resistance to the welfare state began to grow. We even see this dynamic of preferring to help “my people” (See Holder, Eric) on a larger scale within the EU (“The rich countries of the northern euro zone are bearing the brunt of bailing out their debt-stricken fellow members. Resentment is growing among their populations, helping euroskeptic right-wing populists to win support.”)

People are afraid to admit the above because welfare state proponents are quick to deride them as racist or xenophobic. Some welfare state proponents do this to protect their agenda, and others do it because they question the above human nature argument when it comes from someone who looks like me, but overlook the same sentiment when it comes from someone like Eric Holder. This will be a point of tension in multicultural nations, even if not said publicly, and will continue to drive more people away from what they perceive to be an overly generous and not fine-tuned welfare state.

Never thought i'd use the word "folderol" (see "retired phrases" thread) twice in one day, but i'm getting close. Jewell, you are one of the more sensible & flexible conservatives around here, but i hope you'll reconsider what nitpicking rubbish you just posted. It's not worth response, but it does stimulate my desire to make a point that i dont think i've attempted around here.There is a lot of idiocy in the opinion threads but perhaps the most common & ridiculous of all is the opinion among rightists that everyone who opposes them believes a state solution to any social, moral, economic problem is the optimum one. Except for two ol' NEA activists in my family, i dont know of a single person of my ilk who does.

A half a century ago, more than half the people in the United States of America did not have a reasonable opportunity to determine the course of their lives. The "haves" were mostly OK with this because the resulting isolation made control of populations easier and society operate more "efficiently". But it was wrong and, God help us, America should never be the Land of Wrong, so the freedom of women & non-whites was won.

There is not a doubt in my mind that civil & women's rights are as responsible as any other factor for the dramatic change, if not dimunition, in the family and decline of the sense of decency in this land. Freedom trumps order, though, so it had to be. I have listened to LBJ, Daniel Moynihan, John Mitchell, Betty Friedan, Ralph Reed, Jack Kemp, Lee Atwater, Walter Mondale, Jerry Falwell right on up to the stoogeworthy troikas of ailes/limbaugh/oreilly and olbermann/maddow/gore discuss answers for coordinating necessary freedom with needed order and i aint seen the answer yet. Still dont know if there is one.

The common leftist NEVER believed that govt had the answer for this. The devil's deal was made to set these people free and the federal govt was the only institution with the size & will to attempt the management of opportunity and fairness for them and the world into which they entered. The answer was not sought in government by the left anymore than by the right.

Turns out that representative democracy and liberty for all may not be compatible. And media, the cost it has created in running for office, the mouthpiece for indecent options it has become & the influence it has given the selfishly-motivated over how society is conducted, has exacerbated that difference to a ridiculous extent. It has divided control of our great country between the clueless & the thievish. Simply put, the left has had to defend the rules because the right doesnt want any and the problems of a liberated society are too unwieldy for there not to be mass chaos without them. The reason the right has gained ascendancy over the left is that conservatives are in a position to know exactly what they want when the left cant. To bastardize on old saying about the inequities of marriage "The right's gotta do what the right's gotta do and the left's gotta do everything else.

The left presently has it just as wrong as the right, if not moreso. We are all at fault, however, for the building of bridges to nowhere when one crossing the gulf between us is so badly needed. Do we have to wait for the coming Hoovertowns to restore our sense of community before we lay the first plank?

Sorry, I won't reconsider because I believe what I wrote to be accurate. Not positive, perhaps negative, but accurate based on history and current events...

Second-largest U.S. Indian tribe expels slave descendants

Reuters - Tue, Aug 23, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - The nation's second-largest Indian tribe formally booted from membership thousands of descendants of black slaves who were brought to Oklahoma more than 170 years ago by Native American owners.

The Cherokee nation voted after the Civil War to admit the slave descendants to the tribe.

But on Monday, the Cherokee nation Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 tribal decision to kick the so-called "Freedmen" out of the tribe was proper.

The controversy stems from a footnote in the brutal history of U.S. treatment of Native Americans. When many Indians were forced to move to what later became Oklahoma from the eastern U.S. in 1838, some who had owned plantations in the South brought along their slaves.

Some 4,000 Indians died during the forced march, which became known as the "Trail of Tears."

"And our ancestors carried the baggage," said Marilyn Vann, the Freedman leader who is a plaintiff in the legal battle.

Officially, there are about 2,800 Freedmen, but another 3,500 have tribal membership applications pending, and there could be as many as 25,000 eligible to enter the tribe, according to Vann.

The tribal court decision was announced one day before absentee ballots were to be mailed in the election of the Cherokee Principal Chief.

"This is racism and apartheid in the 21st Century," said Vann, an engineer who lives in Oklahoma City.

Spokesmen for the tribe did not respond when asked to comment.

The move to exclude the Freedmen has rankled some African American members of Congress, which has jurisdiction over all Native American tribes in the country.

A lawsuit challenging the Freedman's removal from the tribe has been pending in federal court in Washington, for about six years.

As a sovereign nation, Cherokee Nation officials maintain that the tribe has the right to amend its constitutional membership requirements.

Removal from the membership rolls means the Freedmen will no longer be eligible for free health care and other benefits such as education concessions.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Wasn't challenging your veracity, gb, just asserting that i thought you to be above this endless, pointless citing of exceptions when any child knows that can be done on both sides of virtually every issue. To save us both the trouble, i'm happy to stipulate that, because conservatives are far more likely than liberals to be part of a church parish, easily the greatest organ of giving (outside of Disco Stu, of course) in this nation, the point can be made for significant charitability on that side of the political spectrum. I have posted at length in this forum on how powerful an engine of change secular parishes would be, just for that reason.

 

[Saints-Man]

Really all Nixon's fault. He broke the solid South. Used to be, the Southern Democrats were really more conservative than today's Republicans, so they balanced out the nutjobs in New England and California and provided a fairly balanced Democratic party.

I was going to say similar-esque. The timeline of the modern Republican Party has to begin with LBJ. Once equal rights was passed, the Dixie-crats bolted out of the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. Since then, the party identification has been more or less stable other than shifts in demographics or shifts in national mood. So to have a consistent dataset, you really can't call the Dixiecrats Democrats.

But it had nothing to do with Nixon.

History does not support your statement. Even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was still the dominant party of the South. As one measure, by 1986 the senators from the 11 states of the confederacy still had more Democratic senators than Republican senators. That is twenty-two years later.And, the Dixiecrats were in fact Democrats. From wikipedia,

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections, but not in presidential elections.

For years to come, the South would be solidly Democratic, just not for presidential elections. Until 2000, the south was either split or just followed whoever won. Did you realize that Jimmy Carter in 1976 carried every southern state except Virginia? Reagan had landslides in 1980& 1984, so did Bush41 in 1988. Clinton and Bush41 split the south in 1992, as did Clinton and Dole in 1996.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Really all Nixon's fault. He broke the solid South. Used to be, the Southern Democrats were really more conservative than today's Republicans, so they balanced out the nutjobs in New England and California and provided a fairly balanced Democratic party.

I was going to say similar-esque. The timeline of the modern Republican Party has to begin with LBJ. Once equal rights was passed, the Dixie-crats bolted out of the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. Since then, the party identification has been more or less stable other than shifts in demographics or shifts in national mood. So to have a consistent dataset, you really can't call the Dixiecrats Democrats.

But it had nothing to do with Nixon.

History does not support your statement. Even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was still the dominant party of the South. As one measure, by 1986 the senators from the 11 states of the confederacy still had more Democratic senators than Republican senators. That is twenty-two years later.And, the Dixiecrats were in fact Democrats. From wikipedia,

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections, but not in presidential elections.

For years to come, the South would be solidly Democratic, just not for presidential elections. Until 2000, the south was either split or just followed whoever won. Did you realize that Jimmy Carter in 1976 carried every southern state except Virginia? Reagan had landslides in 1980& 1984, so did Bush41 in 1988. Clinton and Bush41 split the south in 1992, as did Clinton and Dole in 1996.

That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

 

[jon_mx]

wow, I did not think this thread could get much worse, but it did.

 

[Todd Andrews]

wow, I did not think this thread could get much worse, but it did.

This thread is a work of art.Savor it.

 

[Insomniac]

History does not support your statement. Even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was still the dominant party of the South. As one measure, by 1986 the senators from the 11 states of the confederacy still had more Democratic senators than Republican senators. That is twenty-two years later.

That isn't the type of thing that changes overnight. The GOP wasn't a factor in the South from the end of Reconstruction until the Nixon Administration. Twenty-two years isn't long enough to see the full effect of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to attract the "Wallace voters" to the GOP. Most established voters aren't going to formally change party but they might start voting that way. By the late 1970's early 80's it was fairly common to see on election night "<GOP CANDIDATE> is the first Republican to be elected <SENATOR|GOVERNOR> from <CSA STATE> since <RECONSTRUCTION>". A few of the Dixiecrat types like Strom Thurmond joined the GOP but most of them, like George Wallace, remained Democrats. Now only 40 years later the GOP dominates the South.

 

[Saints-Man]

History does not support your statement. Even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic party was still the dominant party of the South. As one measure, by 1986 the senators from the 11 states of the confederacy still had more Democratic senators than Republican senators. That is twenty-two years later.

That isn't the type of thing that changes overnight. The GOP wasn't a factor in the South from the end of Reconstruction until the Nixon Administration. Twenty-two years isn't long enough to see the full effect of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to attract the "Wallace voters" to the GOP. Most established voters aren't going to formally change party but they might start voting that way. By the late 1970's early 80's it was fairly common to see on election night "<GOP CANDIDATE> is the first Republican to be elected <SENATOR|GOVERNOR> from <CSA STATE> since <RECONSTRUCTION>". A few of the Dixiecrat types like Strom Thurmond joined the GOP but most of them, like George Wallace, remained Democrats. Now only 40 years later the GOP dominates the South.

I am not sure why you responded to my post. It was another poster who claimed it was very quick and effectively, overnight. The quote was:

Once equal rights was passed, the Dixie-crats bolted out of the Democratic Party

So, I think you should have responded to their claim since their post inferred a more immediate impact.

 

[Saints-Man]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Pretty simple, really. Conservatism is founded in reality, whereas liberalism is founded in idealism. Being conservatively based, the GOP (or what the GOP used to be, rather than the Dem-lite it turned into during the Clinton years and has remained since until the recent Tea Party upheavals) simply can not do what the Dems can - promise people alls sorts of perks and benefits and worry about paying for it later. Dems rely on the very consistent selfish nature of people to rope them in.

 

[Todd Andrews]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

 

[Bronco Billy]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

You mean like the ones who consider minorities a permanently inferior class of humans due solely to the color of their skin, and therefore can only possibly succeed with a crutch of constant outside interference that forces equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?

 

[Todd Andrews]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

You mean like the ones who consider minorities a permanently inferior class of humans due solely to the color of their skin, and therefore can only possibly succeed with a crutch of constant outside interference that forces equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?

Did you suggest the GOP is interested in equality of opportunity for minorities? Comedy gold.

 

[timschochet]

Conservatism is founded in reality

Yeah, this is quite clear to me. When I listen to Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann talk, I can tell they're qrounded.

 

[cr8f]

This may help. Right wing trolls needed (Craigs List ad) to post of social media, write comments in newspapers, etc

 

[Jim11]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

You mean like the ones who consider minorities a permanently inferior class of humans due solely to the color of their skin, and therefore can only possibly succeed with a crutch of constant outside interference that forces equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?

Did you suggest the GOP is interested in equality of opportunity for minorities? Comedy gold.

As much as the Dems are. Both want to win elections.

 

[Bronco Billy]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

You mean like the ones who consider minorities a permanently inferior class of humans due solely to the color of their skin, and therefore can only possibly succeed with a crutch of constant outside interference that forces equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?

Did you suggest the GOP is interested in equality of opportunity for minorities? Comedy gold.

Ironic, coming from you and the load of tripe you're spewing in this thread.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Conservatism is founded in reality

Yeah, this is quite clear to me. When I listen to Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann talk, I can tell they're qrounded.

As unhinged as your Pelosi, Reid, Rangle, Boxer, et al?

 

[Todd Andrews]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

You mean like the ones who consider minorities a permanently inferior class of humans due solely to the color of their skin, and therefore can only possibly succeed with a crutch of constant outside interference that forces equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?

Did you suggest the GOP is interested in equality of opportunity for minorities? Comedy gold.

Ironic, coming from you and the load of tripe you're spewing in this thread.

You Mark Foley Republicans are a tough bunch.

 

[Fensalk]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

Reagan certainly ushered in new changes. The democrat party saw the bulk of its decline in popularity during Reagan's two terms, and its never recovered from that. But the country has shifted quite a bit since Reagan. I think we see more polarization in political views. States like California and New York seem unwinnnable by the GOP in modern times. If you look at the Carter 1976 electoral map, Carter carried the entire Deep South, while Ford won most of the Northeast states and out west. That map looks completely foreign today.The first modern electoral map is from 1992. Clinton wins the pacific coast and the entire northeast, plus the Minnesota area. Clinton also picks off a few moderate states like Ohio and even 1-2 southern states. You could argue that the alignment made some trace appearances in the 1988 election.That map has been surprisingly stable for 5-6 presidential election cycles now.Georgia is an interesting case in just how long it takes to switch parties. In 1976, Carter won all of the deep south. About 10 years ago, the democrats still clung to a majority in GA congress and were just able to gerrymander the state before losing power. Only now, in 2011, can the republicans finally run the post-census redistricting in Georgia. So the republicans can finally project their power in the state. So finally, after 30 years, the transformation is complete, and I don't see democrats having the ability to affect Georgia politics much in the future.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The first word in the title of this thread is modern. Why are you trying to throw in stuff from 1929 or even 1959 for that matter? 1979 isn't even modern.

Hmmm...1979 isnt even modern? Fascinating.

WRT the GOP it isn't.Post-Reagan is the modern GOP.

Reagan certainly ushered in new changes. The democrat party saw the bulk of its decline in popularity during Reagan's two terms, and its never recovered from that. But the country has shifted quite a bit since Reagan. I think we see more polarization in political views. States like California and New York seem unwinnnable by the GOP in modern times. If you look at the Carter 1976 electoral map, Carter carried the entire Deep South, while Ford won most of the Northeast states and out west. That map looks completely foreign today.The first modern electoral map is from 1992. Clinton wins the pacific coast and the entire northeast, plus the Minnesota area. Clinton also picks off a few moderate states like Ohio and even 1-2 southern states. You could argue that the alignment made some trace appearances in the 1988 election.That map has been surprisingly stable for 5-6 presidential election cycles now.Georgia is an interesting case in just how long it takes to switch parties. In 1976, Carter won all of the deep south. About 10 years ago, the democrats still clung to a majority in GA congress and were just able to gerrymander the state before losing power. Only now, in 2011, can the republicans finally run the post-census redistricting in Georgia. So the republicans can finally project their power in the state. So finally, after 30 years, the transformation is complete, and I don't see democrats having the ability to affect Georgia politics much in the future.

Yeah, but isnt Georgia a penal colony or something? Its a given that the politics there would be koO Koo.

 

[Saints-Man]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

In this case, it is the appropriate response. Besides not understanding the actual facts of history as demonstrated by your posts, you are inferring that the Republicans are the party of racists. While there are most assuredly racists who are Republicans, they certainly do not have the monopoly on that as you are inferring. But, again, since you can't even get simple facts of history straight it is an important reminder. It is a shame that racism only upsets you when it occurs in the political party you dislike.

 

[Todd Andrews]

...That is interesting info. I assumed all of the racists had become Republicans far earlier. Clearly, it took a lot longer than I thought for all of the racists to become Republicans.

I know you are , but the Republican party has no monopoly on racism in this country. I heard the 'n' word an awful lot during my brief stays in South Boston and South Philly from people wearing pro-union paraphernalia. It was a safe bet that the vast majority of these people were Democrats.

Nice response: Well, there are other racists, too!

In this case, it is the appropriate response. Besides not understanding the actual facts of history as demonstrated by your posts, you are inferring that the Republicans are the party of racists. While there are most assuredly racists who are Republicans, they certainly do not have the monopoly on that as you are inferring. But, again, since you can't even get simple facts of history straight it is an important reminder. It is a shame that racism only upsets you when it occurs in the political party you dislike.

Cool. I am glad you admit to Republican racism, even though you point to the racism of others to somehow mitigate it. Good luck with that.

 

[Saints-Man]

...Cool. I am glad you admit to Republican racism, even though you point to the racism of others to somehow mitigate it. Good luck with that.

Too bad you ignore the fact of Democratic racism. I never posted, nor inferred, that Democratic racism mitigates Republican racism. Good luck with that.

 

[Todd Andrews]

...Cool. I am glad you admit to Republican racism, even though you point to the racism of others to somehow mitigate it. Good luck with that.

Too bad you ignore the fact of Democratic racism. I never posted, nor inferred, that Democratic racism mitigates Republican racism. Good luck with that.

I know it is tough to be part of the GOP when they constantly divide people based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation. It must be tough to be in a political party that runs on fear of other Americans and makes who is more patriotic or "American" a major part of its platform. Shoot, you have to fight a Kenyan Muslim Indonesian Anti-Colonial Manchurian Candidate Marxist Socialist Black President every day for the very soul of your country. You should be a bit sensitive. You are forgiven for hanging with the racists. Just dont think that because someone else does something bad, it makes it ok for you. That is childlike reasoning.

 

[Jewell]

Louisiana Democrats field no major candidates for statewide office

Jonathan Tilove, The Times-Picayune, 09/09/2011

The stroke of 5 p.m. Thursday marked a dark moment in the history of the Louisiana Democratic Party. For the first time in modern memory, the party did not field a single major candidate for statewide office.

"When the qualifying closed yesterday, I think we moved into a new era," said Baton Rouge pollster Bernie Pinsonat, who works for both Republican and Democratic candidates. "It's not surprising, we've been moving that way for the last 12 to 15 years.

"Then along came Barack Obama, with policies that alienated even more Louisianians, and of course, shutting down oil drilling."

Just as in the days of Democratic dominance, Pinsonat said, "the new reality is Republicans vs. Republicans."

It's been a stunning slide for Louisiana Democrats, who resisted the Republican tide longer than their counterparts in other Deep South states.

"If you had described the landscape today in Louisiana to me when I was a freshman state representative, when Edwin Edwards was governor, I would have thought you were smoking something, that you were absolutely crazy. I couldn't have imagined that level of Republican growth," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who has become a key figure in his party's rise.

As recently as 2005, when he was playing a lead role in creating the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority, with their stated objective to win majorities in the state House and Senate, Vitter said even allies in Baton Rouge "scoffed at the idea."

Vitter said he believes that Republican ascendance is both a matter of ideology and, in Louisiana, the party's ability to claim the mantle of reform in a state long encrusted with "the corruption and cronyism" of the Democratic "courthouse crowd."

In its broadest strokes, though, what has happened in Louisiana is what has happened across the South and especially the Deep South. Emory University's Merle Black, a leading scholar of Southern politics, notes that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La, the only remaining statewide-elected Democrat in Louisiana, is also the last Democrat in the Senate from a Deep South state, which now sends but a single white Democrat -- Rep. John Barrow of Georgia -- to the House.

The cause, Black said, is Democrats' loss first of white conservatives and now, with a big assist from President Obama, white moderates.

"There are not that many white liberals in the South," Black said. The result is "the number of whites who identify as Democrats in the Deep South is now in the 16 to 17 percent range."

What began as white defection from the Democratic Party in national elections, has in the past decade percolated down to the state and local level.

It was only this summer that Democratic registration in Louisiana dropped below 50 percent. But, said John Diez, executive director of the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority, that number itself is largely a vestige of bygone era and older voters.

The Democrats best hope for a well-known, well-financed candidate running statewide this year evaporated with the decision of Caroline Fayard not to run for secretary of state.

"When I made my decision not to seek office this year, it was because my heart didn't lead me there," Fayard said Friday. She said it was not about the party's standing, or party at all, which she said is irrelevant to most voters, who she said, are not as rigidly ideological or partisan as the Republican rise might suggest.

Landrieu struck a similar theme

Louisiana's Republican realignment came later than in other Southern states, and the senator said the state mindset is still leavened by a populism and belief there are times when a "muscular, bold and supportive" government is essential, that government "should build roads and levees, particularly levees that don't break."

Landrieu, who raised money for Democratic legislative candidates over the summer, said they have successfully denied Gov. Bobby Jindal a veto-proof majority, putting the kibosh on some of his more "half-baked" ideas.

"It's discouraging," Landrieu said of the party's failure to field a notable candidate statewide, "but I'm not discouraged."

But, LSU political scientist Kirby Goidel said "There's no possible positive Democratic spin you can put on this."

 

[djmich]

Valuable thread

 

[Jewell]

The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts. Domestically, the current version of TNR supports a largely "left-of-center" stance on fiscal and social issues. Recently departed editor Franklin Foer describes the magazine overall as such, stating that TNR "invented the modern usage of the term liberal, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for."

Left Behind: How Democrats Are Losing the Political Center

The New Republic, Sept. 24, 2011

If you don’t think ideological perceptions matter in American politics, you need read no further. If you do and you’re a Democrat, there’s something to worry about. Even as the terms of the political debate in Washington, in the eyes of many Democrats, have moved steadily to the right, the electorate is increasingly likely to see itself as ideologically closer to the Republican Party than to Democrats. Unless Obama and Democrats can find a solution to this riddle—and find one fast—they will be contesting the 2012 election on forbidding terrain.

In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.

In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.

There’s another difference as well. In 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of their own parties dovetailed with the perceptions of the electorate as a whole. Today, while voters as a whole agree with Republicans’ evaluation of their party as conservative, they disagree with Democrats, who on average see their party as moderate rather than liberal. So when Independents, who see themselves as modestly right of center, say that Democrats are too liberal, average Democrats can’t imagine what they’re talking about.

Compounding the problem, the American people are gradually polarizing. According to Gallup, twenty years ago, as Bill Clinton began his presidential campaign, self-described moderates formed the plurality of the electorate—43 percent; conservatives were 36 percent, liberals 17 percent. By the summer of 2011, the conservative share had risen to 41 percent and liberals to 21 percent, while moderates declined to 36 percent, surrendering their plurality status to conservatives. Because nearly all conservatives now vote for Republicans and liberals for Democrats, the share of the shrinking pool of moderates that Democrats need to build a majority is now larger than ever.

Another Gallup finding that should alert Democrats is the ongoing collapse of public confidence in government. A survey released earlier this week found that Americans now believe that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, the highest estimate ever recorded. Twenty-five years ago, that figure stood at only 38 cents. While estimates of waste at the state and local level remain lower than for the federal level, they have also risen by double digits in recent decades.

Overall, it’s hard to avoid concluding that the ideological playing-field heading into 2012 is tilted against Democrats. This reality only deepens the strategic dilemma the White House now confronts. The conventional strategy for an incumbent is to secure the base before the general public gets fully engaged and then reach out to the swing voters whose decisions spell the difference between victory and defeat. By contrast, the Obama team spent most of 2011 in what turned out to be a failed effort to win over the Independent voters who deserted Democrats in droves last November, in the process alienating substantial portions of the base. To rekindle the allegiance and enthusiasm of core supporters, the president now finds himself having to draw sharp ideological lines, risking further erosion among Independents and even moderate Democrats. Tellingly, a number of at-risk Democratic senators up for reelection in 2012 have already refused to go along with key elements of the president’s recent proposals.

Granted, ideology isn’t everything. Political scientists have long observed that Americans are more liberal on particulars than they are in general—ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. (Surveys have shown majority support for most individual elements of the president’s jobs and budget packages.) And the Republicans could undermine their chances by nominating a presidential candidate who is simply too hard-edged conservative for moderates and Independents to stomach.

In the face of widespread skepticism and disillusion, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats to persuade key voting blocks that government can really make their lives better. But if they fail, the public will continue to equate public spending with waste, the anti-government message will continue to resonate, and Democrats will be in dire straits when heading into what is shaping up as a pivotal election.

William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic.

 

[bueno]

Some thoughts on politics (only mine and worth exactly what you paid for them):Historically, the modern Republican party has mostly only been a minority opposition party, and not a majority governing political party. For example, the American people have only trusted the GOP with both houses of Congress and the Executive branch at the same time in the modern era (say 1937 or so until now--if you go back to the 20s the GOP had control in that decade before the Crash and Great Depression) a couple of times: Eisenhower had both houses from 53-55 and GW Bush did from 2000 - 2006. In contrast, there are long stretches where the Democratic party has controlled both houses and the Presidency (FDR, Truman, JFK/LBJ, Carter, first two years of Clinton and Obama) Similarly, for most of the past century, the Democratic party traditionally controlled most governorships and statehouses with less periods of Republican control. Typically, the GOP controls the Executive branch more frequently than it controls the House and/or Senate, and it appears that the GOP is granted control of the Executive branch, House and/or Senate as a counterbalance to existing Democratic controls of other parts of the government (legislative or executive branches). Thus, it appears that the Democratic party is generally trusted by the American people as the governing party, while the Republican party is trusted as a vocal minority opposition party intended to balance and counter the power of the Democrats. But generally, the American people dont appear to trust the GOP with both legislative houses and the Presidency all at the same time--I can only assume because they do not want them controlling the entire government (my opinion). The above makes sense when trying to figure out where the Tea Party fits into the political spectrum. I view the Tea Party as a pretty clever and successful rebranding effort by the GOP following some pretty disastrous Republican governance in the early mid-2000s. A large number of Tea Party candidates were elected in 2010 and all just happen to be Republicans.....hmmmmm.... Obviously, the American people were exhibiting a delayed reaction to almost a decade of pretty uncontrolled spending. My personal belief is that US politics are always trending in a more "liberal" or "left" fashion, which makes sense for a free society (think the Athens model versus the Sparta model). Of course, there are periods where the collective thinking swings to a more "conservative" perspective. If we use the somewhat silly "left"/"right" labels, I kind of think of it as a train heading forward on a slightly inexorable leftward track with a large pendulum on one of the cars which swings always to the left and right, but always ultimately ends up slightly to the left as the train moves forward. The current duopoly of Democrats and Republicans appears unbreakable to me absent public funding of federal elections, so I dont think any third party could possibly win the Presidency or more than a few seats in the House or Senate any time soon.Using the above as my framework (and I admit it is pretty simplistic and I welcome criticism), I predict that the GOP keeps the House and might even take the Senate in 2012, but that Obama wins re-election much like Bush did in 2004--grudgingly. Tell me why I am wrong, please.

Where you are wrong is that neither party is what they were 80 years ago.

 

[bueno]

...Cool. I am glad you admit to Republican racism, even though you point to the racism of others to somehow mitigate it. Good luck with that.

Too bad you ignore the fact of Democratic racism. I never posted, nor inferred, that Democratic racism mitigates Republican racism. Good luck with that.

I know it is tough to be part of the GOP when they constantly divide people based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation. It must be tough to be in a political party that runs on fear of other Americans and makes who is more patriotic or "American" a major part of its platform. Shoot, you have to fight a Kenyan Muslim Indonesian Anti-Colonial Manchurian Candidate Marxist Socialist Black President every day for the very soul of your country. You should be a bit sensitive. You are forgiven for hanging with the racists. Just dont think that because someone else does something bad, it makes it ok for you. That is childlike reasoning.

Added to your childlike name calling.

 

[cstu]

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.

 

[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.

 

[cstu]

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.

 

[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.

 

[cstu]

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.

Those are both good proposals that will help the country in the long run by having a better educated workforce.

There are three places I would start with budget cuts - defense, raising the social security age, and phase out farm subsidies. That's $100-$200 billion right there that provide no long term benefit to the U.S.

 

[boots11234]

I am a Republican.

What I have learned is both parties like to spend our money. Just that the Democrats are more honest about it.

 

[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.

Those are both good proposals that will help the country in the long run by having a better educated workforce.

Community college is the worst place to allocate resources for upper level education. And studies have shown pretty conclusively that pre-kindergarden programs like what he proposed don't increase education levels. You really need to get into primary school for these kinds of things to pay off.

 

[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.

 

[cstu]

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.

Those are both good proposals that will help the country in the long run by having a better educated workforce.

Community college is the worst place to allocate resources for upper level education.

And studies have shown pretty conclusively that pre-kindergarden programs like what he proposed don't increase education levels. You really need to get into primary school for these kinds of things to pay off.

http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read/does_head_start_do_any_lasting_good_.pdf

Garces, Thomas and Currie report that non-Hispanic white children who were in Head Start are about 22 percentage points more likely to complete high school than their siblings who were in some other form of preschool, and about 19 percentage points more likely to attend some college. These impact estimates are equal to around one-quarter (high school) and one-half (college) of the “control mean.”

For African-Americans the estimated Head Start impact on schooling attainment is small and not statistically significant, but for this group Head Start relative to other preschool experience is estimated to reduce the chances of being arrested and charged with a crime by around 12 percentage points, which is a very large effect.

 

[Clifford]

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