Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (5 Viewers)

[tommyGunZ]

I'm very moderate to liberal on many social issue. I'm pro-choice, support gay marriage, support some efforts at gun control, agree with legalizing marijuana (at least at the state level). I know it's too much to expect the Republican candidates to align with these views so I don't mind if they don't agree with me since I put social issues way down on the scale of important issues. But which of these candidates are not likely to push their agenda when it comes to them? I'd rather our President focus on the economy and foreign affairs.

I'm kind of in the Rubio camp right now but he seems like someone who might emphasize the federal governments role over the states rights.

I'm always surprised when folks suggest things like equal rights are "way down on the scale of important issues".

 

[General Tso]

I'm very moderate to liberal on many social issue. I'm pro-choice, support gay marriage, support some efforts at gun control, agree with legalizing marijuana (at least at the state level). I know it's too much to expect the Republican candidates to align with these views so I don't mind if they don't agree with me since I put social issues way down on the scale of important issues. But which of these candidates are not likely to push their agenda when it comes to them? I'd rather our President focus on the economy and foreign affairs.

I'm kind of in the Rubio camp right now but he seems like someone who might emphasize the federal governments role over the states rights.

I'm always surprised when folks suggest things like equal rights are "way down on the scale of important issues".

I can't speak for him, but with the SC ruling on same sex marriage (which I supported) what are the remaining expectations for the Federal Government's role in securing equal rights? I voted for Obama the last two elections because I thought it would do race relations good to have a black President, but he horribly disappointed in that area. And when you see how the traditional Liberal solutions have failed miserably in cities like Baltimore where Democratic rule has gone unchallenged for generations, I can't say I blame anyone for being disillusioned at the idea of achieving social justice through Governmental programs in general, or Democratic principles in particular.

 

[Fennis]

If Trump hangs onto his 20-25% it has the potential to really gum things up. I don't think he will, but it's not impossible.

The guys with no money will be forced out of the race pretty quickly no matter what happens. But what do you do if you've got enough money for a longer campaign and the not-Trump vote is split differently in each state -- with different guys finishing 2nd and 3rd depending on the state?

No one's going to want to drop until Trump is out and the situation clears up -- they'll all be hoping Trump's voters will come to them once he quits. But as long as no one quits Trump's 20-25% could keep winning primaries or finishing high enough to keep Donald in the race.

The one thing that would drive Trump out for sure would be Republicans rallying behind Bush, Walker, Rubio, etc. But as long as Trump is in the race it's less likely to actually happen.

The RNC, in their infinite wisdom, tried to address the long drawn out campaign in 2012 and compress the cycle for 2016. This means if Trump can maintain his ~25% he is in it to win it.

The first four primaries (by rule Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada) are all in Feb. There are then 13 more primaries between March 1 and March 15, all of which are proportionally awarded (or they lose a large number of delegates). This means with a large fractured field, many, many candidates will have enough delegates to keep it close. If people are dropping at this point, the field will still be large, and the folks dropping will have little support to throw to anyone. "Thanks for your 0% Lindsey. " "Oh your 1% went primarily to 3 different candidates Carly."

After March 15, states can move to winner take all. If there is still a large field, 25%, starts winning states and the lead grows and in elections momentum is everything.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Ohio moved back their primary a week to make it winner take all specifically to help favorite-son Kasich.

With the expanded field and lack of clear frontrunners (in terms of % - 25% is not massive) the polling challenge is incredible. The hidden part of the campaign- the ground game- is gonna lead to some surprise results, especially in places like Iowa.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

I'm a bit of a junkie on this stuff but I'm not too well versed on the Republican rules. As far as I understand it, the candidates have to present a slate of delegates to be on their ticket. Now I'm sure that there is some sort of provision for filling these afterwards for a candidate who wins delegates but doesn't have the people slots filled - but I'm not sure who controls that process. I also don't know the commitment rules for pledged delegates. Do they have to vote for their candidate no matter what on the first ballot can they technically change their support when it comes convention time. Are they released starting with the 2nd ballot automatically.

If Paul were doing much better than he is he'd be the candidate whose support would most likely be able to exploit the rules to their candidate's benefit - but you need at least some level of support before that can meaningfully happen.

I also think it's the end of the process where Trump would most likely get destroyed. Especially if he is driving away the likes of Stone.

Normally this sort of thing doesn't matter as after a while based on the results the nominee becomes pretty clear. But in a year like this - this sort of trench warfare is going to matter. My guess - without really having taken the time to look at who is working within the campaigns - is that Bush would have an edge here as the establishment candidate. Huckabee is a guy who probably also has people with a better understanding of these mechanics. I just hope it all goes to a brokered convention - it'll be way too fascinating.

As far as the Gary Johnson contention I have a few thoughts:

If Johnson would want to derail Trump (i.e. if that's his purpose in making this pronouncement) why would he do this now? This is the sort of thing that you surprise as late as possible in the process - so that Trump is essentially screwed. I think it's more a turf-protection thing that Johnson is trying to pull. The funny thing is, if what he is saying is true then he's probably increased the chances of Trump running 3rd party. We're still months away from these primary elections and caucuses actually taking place. Ya gotta figure that the deadlines to take your name off the ballot is still very far away as well (hell the filing to be on the ballot is probably months away as well).

I'd be curious as to any precedent there is for what Johnson is claiming - people who ran in a primary and who later appeared on a 3rd-party ballot and whether those people were prevented from appearing on the general election ballot. I'm guessing this is probably a matter of state law in most instances - however - this seems tailor made for a federal court challenge to really clarify things.

There is precedent for candidates being part of one party and then breaking off and running in the general - though it is from a long time ago. One prominent example is 1912 Republican convention - where Taft was nominated over Roosevelt and Roosevelt forming the Bull Moose Party afterwards.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Sorry the Johnson stuff I referred to was brought up in the Trump thread. Sounds like only 4 or 5 states have a law prohibiting running as an independent after being in a party primary - though I'm not sure if the number isn't higher depending on when independent filing takes place.

For example in NJ the deadline for filing petitions to run as an independent is the same day as the party primaries. Basically these would seem to preclude such a switch after the primary.

Anyway sorry for any confusion.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Probably good idea to bump this site again - really useful even if the format screams 1996.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Digging around more it's interesting to note how different the methods for delegate allocation are between the parties.

Since this is the R thread, here's my quick summary of what's on the Green Papers site:

Each state gets 10 at large delegates. Each gets 3 delegates per congressional district.

Bonuses of 1 delegate basically for each US Senator, Governor, House Chamber, and if 50%+ of Congressional Delegation is R

Bonus for states that went Romney of 4.5 + (60% times number of electoral votes). Fractions rounded up. So Texas gets 28 bonus delegates this way, Alaska gets 7. Ohio gets 0.

Territories essentially get preset amounts. Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas each get 6 delegates, DC gets 16, Puerto Rico gets 20.

In addition to the above, each state and territory gets 3 party leader delegate spots.

Fun to note that Puerto Rico gets as many delegates as New Hampshire when all is said and done

Feel free to dig around that site and post interesting nuggets.

-QG

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Digging around more it's interesting to note how different the methods for delegate allocation are between the parties.

Since this is the R thread, here's my quick summary of what's on the Green Papers site:

Each state gets 10 at large delegates. Each gets 3 delegates per congressional district.

Bonuses of 1 delegate basically for each US Senator, Governor, House Chamber, and if 50%+ of Congressional Delegation is R

Bonus for states that went Romney of 4.5 + (60% times number of electoral votes). Fractions rounded up. So Texas gets 28 bonus delegates this way, Alaska gets 7. Ohio gets 0.

Territories essentially get preset amounts. Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas each get 6 delegates, DC gets 16, Puerto Rico gets 20.

In addition to the above, each state and territory gets 3 party leader delegate spots.

Fun to note that Puerto Rico gets as many delegates as New Hampshire when all is said and done

Feel free to dig around that site and post interesting nuggets.

-QG

i think you should put together a Quiz guy

 

[Ilov80s]

Trump says he will be on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week. None of the shows list him as guests. The advertised guests are: This Week will also feature Perry, Kasich and the Huckster. Rubio will be on MTP and FTN has the Dr.

 

[Ilov80s]

Trump handled himself well with George S. As did Kasich. Kasich is a straight shooter (without being brash or ride). He's positive, caring and is like able.

 

[General Tso]

Trump handled himself well with George S. As did Kasich. Kasich is a straight shooter (without being brash or ride). He's positive, caring and is like able.

Yes he did. I actually believe Trump as to his intent when he issued that statement about blood. Neither here nor there, because he absolutely has NOT earned the benefit of the doubt on anything.

 

[General Tso]

LOL at George Stephanopolis being indignant about Trump flip-flopping on a flat tax - from 1999! Trump reminded George that at one point in Reagan's career he was a liberal Democrat.

 

[Ilov80s]

LOL at George Stephanopolis being indignant about Trump flip-flopping on a flat tax - from 1999! Trump reminded George that at one point in Reagan's career he was a liberal Democrat.

It's fair to question someone on their past political statements especially someone that has no political record to reflect on. All you can is judge their statements. By the time RR ran for governor as a R, he had spent more than 15 years strongly and openly supporting Rs in presidential elections and had been regularly speaking across the country on R issues. He also certainly had spent plenty of time explaining his shift in parties.

 

[timschochet]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

 

[3C's]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

 

[skol asylum]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Sounds like a liberal to me:

https://youtu.be/e3O-szw3Tx4

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

 

[General Tso]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

 

[tommyGunZ]

No, the Democratic Party hasn't left anyone Saints.

This need to suggest both parties are equally bad is so stale.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Trump handled himself well with George S. As did Kasich. Kasich is a straight shooter (without being brash or ride). He's positive, caring and is like able.

Yes he did. I actually believe Trump as to his intent when he issued that statement about blood. Neither here nor there, because he absolutely has NOT earned the benefit of the doubt on anything.

Everybody knows what he was talking about. To say she was bleeding from her nose makes no sense.

 

[Fennis]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

Clinton leads in the polls by over 35 points.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, the Democratic Party hasn't left anyone Saints.

This need to suggest both parties are equally bad is so stale.

It's old news? Yeah ok.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

Clinton leads in the polls by over 35 points.

Actually I do believe Sanders has overtaken Hillary in favorability.

 

[Fennis]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

Clinton leads in the polls by over 35 points.

Actually I do believe Sanders has overtaken Hillary in favorability.

In the latest national poll Clinton as 52, Sanders has 16.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

Clinton leads in the polls by over 35 points.

Actually I do believe Sanders has overtaken Hillary in favorability.

In the latest national poll Clinton as 52, Sanders has 16.

I realize the difference of course. But it might be worse that the two people leading in the "polls" of the two parties are the two candidates who also have the highest unfavorable numbers and the lowest level of trust/honesty numbers. How crazy are we as a country right now?

 

[jon_mx]

Trump's statement that Mexico is going to pay for our border wall is laughable, but how much more laughable is it than Fiorina saying that she will negotiate a new deal with Iran in which the Iranians will allow us to inspect them anytime anywhere? But as silly as this answer was, it was the ONLY specific alternative that was offered to the current deal. The rest of them simply condemned it.

Yeah, Obama pretty much pissed away the opportunity to negotiate a real deal with Iran.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hilary Clinton is a moderate, centrist Democrat Saints, and she's cruising in the polls and a virtual lock for the nomination. Meanwhile, Trump the Clown is leading Republican polls and getting more popular with the base as he makes an ### out of himself.

But keep playing the equate the two parties games, since it makes you feel better as a conservative.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Trump's statement that Mexico is going to pay for our border wall is laughable, but how much more laughable is it than Fiorina saying that she will negotiate a new deal with Iran in which the Iranians will allow us to inspect them anytime anywhere? But as silly as this answer was, it was the ONLY specific alternative that was offered to the current deal. The rest of them simply condemned it.

Yeah, Obama pretty much pissed away the opportunity to negotiate a real deal with Iran.

Obama and all the other leaders of world powers who signed onto the deal, right?

Everyone is so stupid, except for the conservative Hawks in the Republican Party, who have been so awesome in foreign policy the last 50 years.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hilary Clinton is a moderate, centrist Democrat Saints, and she's cruising in the polls and a virtual lock for the nomination. Meanwhile, Trump the Clown is leading Republican polls and getting more popular with the base as he makes an ### out of himself.

But keep playing the equate the two parties games, since it makes you feel better as a conservative.

I said two things: right now the leaders in both parties' polling also have the two highest unfavorable numbers, whole and net, in the race, and they have the highest distrust/untrustworthy numbers. And I asked what does that mean about us as a country. That's it.

 

[Fennis]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

It's summed up by one fact. Right now the two leaders in the polls are a Socialist and - Trump - whatever he is.

Clinton leads in the polls by over 35 points.

Actually I do believe Sanders has overtaken Hillary in favorability.

In the latest national poll Clinton as 52, Sanders has 16.

I realize the difference of course. But it might be worse that the two people leading in the "polls" of the two parties are the two candidates who also have the highest unfavorable numbers and the lowest level of trust/honesty numbers. How crazy are we as a country right now?

I blame the information age we live in. We have 24x7 newstainment with little real analysis. People watch FOX or MSNBC non stop and then move to talk radio when they leave the house. Those channels frequently don't differ from pornography, only more harmful. We are barraged with non stop information about the candidates, beyond their policy stands or watching how they interact with the public.

Take whoever your favorite politician was (Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, whoever) and I think we would view them much differently under today's microscope. And it will only get worse.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

Yet the Republican Party did much better than the Democrats in the 2014 elections.

 

[Amused to Death]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

Yet the Republican Party did much better than the Democrats in the 2014 elections.

And sadly they've done nothing with it.

 

[rockaction]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

I still wonder how the Republican parties have legendarily high representations at the local, state, and federal representational level, yet are off the rails.

Perhaps the chase of the executive branch is not conducive to their positions, but the brand sells better when up for grabs than the Democrats.

However this works is up for experts to weigh in on -- what is not up for debate is the bolded.

 

[Amused to Death]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

I still wonder how the Republican parties have legendarily high representations at the local, state, and federal representational level, yet are off the rails.

Perhaps the chase of the executive branch is not conducive to their positions, but the brand sells better when up for grabs than the Democrats.

However this works is up for experts to weigh in on -- what is not up for debate is the bolded.

They need to win the presidency. Those others can't appoint SC justices.

 

[Hilts]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't gerrymandering played a non insignificant role in the congressional elections?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

I still wonder how the Republican parties have legendarily high representations at the local, state, and federal representational level, yet are off the rails.

Perhaps the chase of the executive branch is not conducive to their positions, but the brand sells better when up for grabs than the Democrats.

However this works is up for experts to weigh in on -- what is not up for debate is the bolded.

Surprised you are still wondering about Republcian gains on local and state levels, when it's been written about ad nauseam for several years now. Perhaps a Google search will help you out.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Poor, TGunz. Grasping so hard for those straws.

 

[rockaction]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

I still wonder how the Republican parties have legendarily high representations at the local, state, and federal representational level, yet are off the rails.

Perhaps the chase of the executive branch is not conducive to their positions, but the brand sells better when up for grabs than the Democrats.

However this works is up for experts to weigh in on -- what is not up for debate is the bolded.

Surprised you are still wondering about Republcian gains on local and state levels, when it's been written about ad nauseam for several years now. Perhaps a Google search will help you out.

Wow, that's anger. Sorry that it's historic, friend.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

I still wonder how the Republican parties have legendarily high representations at the local, state, and federal representational level, yet are off the rails.

Perhaps the chase of the executive branch is not conducive to their positions, but the brand sells better when up for grabs than the Democrats.

However this works is up for experts to weigh in on -- what is not up for debate is the bolded.

Surprised you are still wondering about Republcian gains on local and state levels, when it's been written about ad nauseam for several years now. Perhaps a Google search will help you out.

Wow, that's anger. Sorry that it's historic, friend.

Trump isn't currently leading my Party, he's your Huckleberry.

 

[timschochet]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

 

[jon_mx]

Trump's statement that Mexico is going to pay for our border wall is laughable, but how much more laughable is it than Fiorina saying that she will negotiate a new deal with Iran in which the Iranians will allow us to inspect them anytime anywhere? But as silly as this answer was, it was the ONLY specific alternative that was offered to the current deal. The rest of them simply condemned it.

Yeah, Obama pretty much pissed away the opportunity to negotiate a real deal with Iran.

Obama and all the other leaders of world powers who signed onto the deal, right?Everyone is so stupid, except for the conservative Hawks in the Republican Party, who have been so awesome in foreign policy the last 50 years.

All other leaders?

There were six parties to this agreement, three of which could give a rats ### if Israel was blown off the map. All?

 

[Hilts]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

Or the Republicans start having to fight for public support without rigging the system through gerrymandering as they start losing seats thanks to the slow rise of independent panels drawing districts.

 

[rockaction]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

Or the Republicans start having to fight for public support without rigging the system through gerrymandering as they start losing seats thanks to the slow rise of independent panels drawing districts.

I think gerrymandering works differently than simply benefitting Republicans.

It's a wild guess. There are two parties in the political process; I know my own hometown got swept up in a gerrymandering deal that came at the expense of R's. That's anecdotal, but the line in CT -- for our Congressional district -- doesn't even go by traditional representation and splits up what has traditionally been known as the "Farmington Valley." Nancy Johnson and John Rowland, both Republicans, now disgraced, were behind it, IIRC. She was a moderate R who wanted assurances her seat would be safe, so she partitioned a part of the Valley into Hartford County, which is insane both politically and socially. Here's a map of the districts. USGovE1.jpg

You'll note how ludicrous it is by sight. This benefitted Democrats.

Should we start a thread about gerrymandering?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

Or the Republicans start having to fight for public support without rigging the system through gerrymandering as they start losing seats thanks to the slow rise of independent panels drawing districts.

Okay, this is horse-#### right here. Look at Illinois and tell me republicans are rigging the system. Democrats have been gerrymandering as much if not more, so let's stop with the drama-queen accusations that it's just republicans.

Each side tries to manipulate the system in their favor - this is nothing new.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

Or the Republicans start having to fight for public support without rigging the system through gerrymandering as they start losing seats thanks to the slow rise of independent panels drawing districts.

I think gerrymandering works differently than simply benefitting Republicans.

It's a wild guess. There are two parties in the political process; I know my own hometown got swept up in a gerrymandering deal that came at the expense of R's. That's anecdotal, but the line in CT -- for our Congressional district -- doesn't even go by traditional representation and splits up what has traditionally been known as the "Farmington Valley." Nancy Johnson and John Rowland, both Republicans, now disgraced, were behind it, IIRC. She was a moderate R who wanted assurances her seat would be safe, so she partitioned a part of the Valley into Hartford County, which is insane both politically and socially. Here's a map of the districts. USGovE1.jpg

You'll note how ludicrous it is by sight. This benefitted Democrats.

Should we start a thread about gerrymandering?

The Democrats have greatly assisted in this setup and are really partner in it by creating racially cohesive or homogenous districts. What's left are districts largely devoid of sizeable minority populations or demographics and naturally as the Democrats pursue this racial divide as part of their national strategy this also leaves these remaining districts of substantial Democratic votes. This has been a hand in hand situation. There has been a movement afoot to take party partisanship out of districting, which sounds great, but ask a Democrat if that should include excluding race as a factor for forming districts or maybe taking party affiliation off of ballots and the answer is a quick negative. So it's self-defeating.

Also it needs to be said that Obama himself has caused a great deal of evisceration of the gains his party had mad in 2006-08 and that's ongoing as Obama even now threatens Chuck Schumer with political repercussions over opposing him on the Iran deal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also Reagan was never a "liberal" Democrat; he was a Truman Democrat, a centrist and anti-Communist. As Reagan put it, the Democratic Party left him, not the other way around.

Kind of like how the Republican party has left many of us these days.

Both parties have left everybody. I'm afraid the Democrats learned from the Republicans. - The Democratic Party, as a party, ie an entity, is just as geared towards social issues and wedging the American people into various demos. The thing is that the GOP chose maybe 2-3 groups (evangelicals, white men, Southerners, suburbanites...) and Democrats have taken several of the others and cobbled them into a remainder "coalition". That's not a controversial statement, that's the gameplan right now for Hillary to follow in 2016 what Obama did in 2008 & 2012.

Do people really want this? No, most of us are politicized and told to pick a side. Nearly every thing is politicized today.

This is the post where you are making excuses for the GOP and essentially equating he Democratic Party. Why not just admit that while neither Party is perfect, we are currently going through a period where the Republican Party is way way off the rails.

Tommy, do you see the OP in this subthread? That's the subject I was responding to. If you want my views on Trump look elsewhere in this thread. I think I commented on the OP and the reply. If you want to talk about Trump go ahead and pick another of my posts.

 

[rockaction]

I think both of you are right- tGunZ in pointing out that a significant part of the Republican Party has gone off the rails, and BeaverCleaver and rockaction pointing out that the GOP won big in 2014 and are pretty dominant in governorships and state legislatures.

What this suggests, IMO, is that for the foreseeable future we are going to see mostly Democrat Presidents being blocked by mostly Republican Congresses who are going to be more recalcitrant than ever, and red states which will be contemptuous of the federal government, leading to a state of affairs even more dysfunctional than we have now. I can't imagine either progressives or conservatives are going to be too happy about this. I can live with it though I'd prefer more moderation on the Republican side.

Or the Republicans start having to fight for public support without rigging the system through gerrymandering as they start losing seats thanks to the slow rise of independent panels drawing districts.

I think gerrymandering works differently than simply benefitting Republicans.

It's a wild guess. There are two parties in the political process; I know my own hometown got swept up in a gerrymandering deal that came at the expense of R's. That's anecdotal, but the line in CT -- for our Congressional district -- doesn't even go by traditional representation and splits up what has traditionally been known as the "Farmington Valley." Nancy Johnson and John Rowland, both Republicans, now disgraced, were behind it, IIRC. She was a moderate R who wanted assurances her seat would be safe, so she partitioned a part of the Valley into Hartford County, which is insane both politically and socially. Here's a map of the districts. USGovE1.jpg

You'll note how ludicrous it is by sight. This benefitted Democrats.

Should we start a thread about gerrymandering?

The Democrats have greatly assisted in this setup and are really partner in it by creating racially cohesive or homogenous districts. What's left are districts largely devoid of sizeable minority populations or demographics and naturally as the Democrats pursue this racial divide as part of their national strategy this also leaves these remaining districts of substantial Democratic votes. This has been a hand in hand situation. There has been a movement afoot to take party partisanship out of districting, which soudns great, but ask a Democrat if that should include excluding race as a factor for forming districts or maybe taking party affiliation off of ballots and the answer is a quick negative. So it's self-defeating.

Also it needs to be said that Obama himself has caused a great deal of evisceration of the gains his party had mad in 2006-08 and that's ongoing as Obama even now threatens Chuck Schumer with political repercussions over opposing him on the Iran deal.

Oh, hell yes. My sarc projector (not reception meter) was off. I think that pointing out that R's were responsible for cutting a deal with the absurdly large Democratic legislature in CT was my point about both parties cutting deals about gerrymandering. I'd be stunned if this was a Republican thing within any margin of error. I need to write more clearly and precisely on a message board and not assume people have knowledge of local politics on a national message board.

Both parties are at fault; I'd be mildly surprised to find out that local control of state legislatures is formed by any sort of gerrymandering vs. the impulse towards majoritarianism. In a way, this is why the Republicans are now Anti-Federliasists.

 

[Fennis]

Republicans are only 'anti-federalist' when there is an election or when Dems hold power.