PDA

View Full Version : General Politics "The GOP is dead!" - say what????


Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 05:11 PM
I'm curious to know why this keeps getting thrown out there. Obviously, the leftwing media is pushing the meme as hard as they can. That's the main culprit. But I'm wondering why all these GOP folks are bashing the party (Christie, Jindal, Powell, etc) and saying it "has to change".


Fact: the Presidential election was won by the incumbent. Like it nearly always is. Like nearly all elections are and have been. But many people seem shocked by it. If we look at the Conressional elections for the House, the vote was essentially even at 53 million per Party. How is that a landslide in terms of voter preference?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html


Fact: In 2014, Democrats hold 9 of the top 10 Senate seats projected to have the highest likelihood of switching. You can probably add Iowa to that list now with Harkin leaving:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-democrats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/



Here's the current tally of US Leadership:

1) The GOP has a 230-200 lead in the House with a 54-46% lead in reps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress

2) The GOP has 30 Governorships now, their highest total since 34 during the 1920s:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politics/governor-races/index.html

3) The GOP has a 31-17 advantage in State Houses, with a 55-44% lead in State Reps:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses

4) The GOP has a 28-19 advantage in State Senates, with 52-44% lead in total Senators:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Partisan_composition_of_state_senates



Net: If you want to talk about a bad time for the GOP, the 1930s and the 1960s (look at the carnage here after the 1964 elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress). Those were terrible times. Totally shut out of power at every level of Federal & State government. But that is hardly the case today. The gnashing of teeth may stop at any moment.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 05:13 PM
The GOP governs much more land, partly due to gerrymandering. But they're losing the population battle, and slipping further all the time.

LiveSteam
01-27-2013, 05:14 PM
Christie, Jindal, Powell, are all rino's
You know? republican in name only.

I hate that fat fucking slob of a loud mouth Christie.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 05:15 PM
The GOP governs much more land, partly due to gerrymandering. But they're losing the population battle, and slipping further all the time.


Did you bother to read the stats on actual vote counts? A split of the House vote nationwide has nothing to do with "gerrymandering".

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 05:15 PM
As Clinton would say............. It's Demographics stupid.

If Latinos stay at a 70/30 for the D's the R's are toast. Texas will turn purple in 2020, maybe in 2016. And if the R's lost Texas, they are finished in the executive branch.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 05:17 PM
Did you bother to read the stats on actual vote counts? A split of the House vote nationwide has nothing to do with "gerrymandering".BS, Dems got a 1,000,000+ more votes than R's in the house votes. It was gerrymandering.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 05:18 PM
Did you bother to read the stats on actual vote counts? A split of the House vote nationwide has nothing to do with "gerrymandering".

Can you try to make your point in English?

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 05:19 PM
As Clinton would say............. It's Demographics stupid.

If Latinos stay at a 70/30 for the D's the R's are toast. Texas will turn purple in 2020, maybe in 2016. And if the R's lost Texas, they are finished in the executive branch.

50% of eligible Latino voters in the USA live in Texas currently, and that state wasn't remotely competitive at any level this year. Now, if you are talking about the national map changing as states like Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado change demographically, then I would partly agree.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 05:20 PM
Can you try to make your point in English?

I'm afraid I won't be able to help you. I pointed out actual vote counts, and you countered with "land mass". So I can only respond to people who address the actual points I made rather than wandering off-point.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 05:26 PM
50% of eligible Latino voters in the USA live in Texas currently, and that state wasn't remotely competitive at any level this year. You are wrong. Keep your head in the sand. Or maybe you should listen to one of your Texas tea party heroes......



Less than a week after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/ted-cruz-election-results-2012_n_2049790.html) was candid about the GOP's troubles courting Latino voters.


In an interview with The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2C1aF6SDS), Cruz opened up about concerns in some of the nation's largest states, headed by Texas.
“If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community, in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state," he said.


Cruz added that losing a state like Texas, which carried 38 electoral votes (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/texas) in 2012, would hold national implications.


“If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House," he said. "New York and California are for the foreseeable future unalterably Democrat. If Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like the Whig Party."


Cruz' words paralleled those of Mitt Romney adviser Carlos Gutierrez (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/carlos-gutierrez-mitt-romney-latinos_n_2113622.html), who said on Sunday that Latinos were "scared of the Republican party." The former Commerce Secretary attributed that fear to the presidential primary process, which he said forces candidates "to say outrageous things."


President Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/latino-voters-election-2012_n_2085922.html) was reelected last Tuesday with the help of near-record levels of Latino support. Various polls found the incumbent Democrat securing more than 70 percent (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/mitt-romney-latino-loss-republican_n_2104966.html) of that voting bloc.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 05:28 PM
I'm afraid I won't be able to help you. I pointed out actual vote counts, and you countered with "land mass". So I can only respond to people who address the actual points I made rather than wandering off-point.

A) I said "partly due to gerrymandering".

B) it's becoming obvious you have no idea what gerrymandering is or how it works. Hint: the key is to give your opponent a few gigantic wins, and give yourself a bunch of 55/45 splits. In this way you can win more districts, which are based around physical landmasses, while still losing the popular vote.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 05:30 PM
50% of eligible Latino voters in the USA live in Texas currently, and that state wasn't remotely competitive at any level this year. Now, if you are talking about the national map changing as states like Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado change demographically, then I would partly agree.

Were you a big fan of the Unskewed Polls guy before the election? I have a feeling you were. Even most Republicans who pay attention agree that Texas could become purple in a decade or so.

|Zach|
01-27-2013, 05:31 PM
Is not dead.

It is just spineless with no direction.

mlyonsd
01-27-2013, 05:38 PM
The entire equation changes completely when federal money dries up as it inevitably will.

Direckshun
01-27-2013, 05:41 PM
As long as there's a two party system, the GOP cannot die.

It is systematically sustained by a system rigged to allow only two parties to survive.

Unless the entire party goes full retard for something like a full decade, the GOP will always live on.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 05:48 PM
As long as there's a two party system, the GOP cannot die.

It is systematically sustained by a system rigged to allow only two parties to survive.

Unless the entire party goes full retard for something like a full decade, the GOP will always live on.yep, they will just lose the chance at the executive branch.

WilliamTheIrish
01-27-2013, 05:57 PM
It's not just a "left wing media meme".

The exact same media said the democrats were dead after the 04 election. And in 4 years they took back the presidency. The Republican party isn't dead. It just hasn't been forward thinking enough in my opinion. Still pushing the agendas of abortion, drug war, and failing to be the party of small government.

In 4 years the pendulum could very well swing back if the R's can find a candidate to appeal to a wide spectrum. And even if the pendulum doesn't swing back, the system is set up for two parties. They aren't going to just give up that power.

RedNeckRaider
01-27-2013, 06:08 PM
It's not just a "left wing media meme".

The exact same media said the democrats were dead after the 04 election. And in 4 years they took back the presidency. The Republican party isn't dead. It just hasn't been forward thinking enough in my opinion. Still pushing the agendas of abortion, drug war, and failing to be the party of small government.

In 4 years the pendulum could very well swing back if the R's can find a candidate to appeal to a wide spectrum. And even if the pendulum doesn't swing back, the system is set up for two parties. They aren't going to just give up that power.

Pretty much, both parties have been written off at different times through out the years. It is amusing to read the clowns chime in so proud of themselves claiming this as fact LMAO

Brock
01-27-2013, 06:10 PM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.

|Zach|
01-27-2013, 06:15 PM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.

This is well said.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 06:53 PM
The GOP governs much more land, partly due to gerrymandering. But they're losing the population battle, and slipping further all the time.
Governorships and state legislatures is not due to gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, the power to,
stems from election wins. You make it sound like it's all sinister and not based on how people voted.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 06:54 PM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.

I agree with this part. Just not for the grassroots just the politicians.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 06:57 PM
I'm curious to know why this keeps getting thrown out there. Obviously, the leftwing media is pushing the meme as hard as they can. That's the main culprit. But I'm wondering why all these GOP folks are bashing the party (Christie, Jindal, Powell, etc) and saying it "has to change".



Well, we know Powell and Christie are Establishment which is BIG government. I didn't think Jindal was but perhaps he wants to run so he has to wash the feet of the Establishment. The Establishment does not want less govt, but more power, more hegemony and more empire. So I suspect, since they essentially are supported by the big guns of the media, this is an attempt to drive out the Tea Party types...this means they're concerned...because despite not hearing about it on big media it continues to grow.

listopencil
01-27-2013, 07:04 PM
Is not dead.

It is just spineless with no direction.

^

Rain Man
01-27-2013, 07:04 PM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.

I agree completely.

The Republican party may not be dead, but it's got a terminal illness. Every single demographic is working against it in the long run. Republicans are older, more rural, and more white. The Democrats are getting more voters every day among minorities and urban populations while the Republicans bury their seniors. When you combine that with the fact that the Republican social policies are firmly imbedded in the 1950s, you have a party that's dying.

listopencil
01-27-2013, 07:12 PM
I agree completely.

The Republican party may not be dead, but it's got a terminal illness. Every single demographic is working against it in the long run. Republicans are older, more rural, and more white. The Democrats are getting more voters every day among minorities and urban populations while the Republicans bury their seniors. When you combine that with the fact that the Republican social policies are firmly imbedded in the 1950s, you have a party that's dying.

I thought that they would reexamine themselves, and try to evolve, when they lost with McCain doing his best Bush Junior impersonation. Then they rolled Romney out there...

mlyonsd
01-27-2013, 07:28 PM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.

What exactly would that be?

Brock
01-27-2013, 07:31 PM
What exactly would that be?

I'm sure if you noodle it through, you'll figure out what i'm talking about. Other people seem to be able to grasp it.

mlyonsd
01-27-2013, 07:33 PM
I'm sure if you noodle it through, you'll figure out what i'm talking about. Other people seem to be able to grasp it.
I'd like to know what you think the most important issues are facing the country. Say like the top 5.

Brock
01-27-2013, 07:39 PM
I'd like to know what you think the most important issues are facing the country. Say like the top 5.

economy, energy, the breeding poor, corporatist politicians, downward pressure on wages. Just off the top of my head.

mlyonsd
01-27-2013, 07:48 PM
economy, energy, the breeding poor, corporatist politicians, downward pressure on wages. Just off the top of my head.

Fair enough.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 07:55 PM
A) I said "partly due to gerrymandering".

B) it's becoming obvious you have no idea what gerrymandering is or how it works. Hint: the key is to give your opponent a few gigantic wins, and give yourself a bunch of 55/45 splits. In this way you can win more districts, which are based around physical landmasses, while still losing the popular vote.

So gerrymandering caused the 50-50 House vote this year? Interesting theory.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 07:58 PM
Were you a big fan of the Unskewed Polls guy before the election? I have a feeling you were. Even most Republicans who pay attention agree that Texas could become purple in a decade or so.


Cyclical. Nobody would've predicted the South completely flipping at the House and individual State level when Clinton (a southerner) won in 1992. That year the 10 former confederate states had all 20 branches of their state legislatures in Democrat control. Today, they hold zero.


Anything is possible. Except maybe Accurately predicting the US electorate is not possible.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 08:52 PM
So gerrymandering caused the 50-50 House vote this year? Interesting theory.

Again, what in the hell are you talking about? Which House?

donkhater
01-27-2013, 08:53 PM
BS, Dems got a 1,000,000+ more votes than R's in the house votes. It was gerrymandering.

So Dems got a million more votes, but fewer seats. Which means that the districts in which they were elected the democratic majority was huge. THAT smacks of gerrymandering.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 08:53 PM
Cyclical. Nobody would've predicted the South completely flipping at the House and individual State level when Clinton (a southerner) won in 1992. That year the 10 former confederate states had all 20 branches of their state legislatures in Democrat control. Today, they hold zero.


Anything is possible. Except maybe Accurately predicting the US electorate is not possible.

Nate Silver did a pretty good job of it. Got 50 out of 50 states two elections in a row I think. And almost every house and senate race.

Or you could just stick with Dick Morris. ROFL

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 08:55 PM
I thought that they would reexamine themselves, and try to evolve, when they lost with McCain doing his best Bush Junior impersonation. Then they rolled Romney out there...But they won in 2010 and thought the tea party was its saviour. reexamine went out the window.

They are not going to reexamine this time either. Just pretend to. They are not going to change their views, just don't talk about the unpopular ones. Bite the bullet on immigration. Pass the Dream act. Shut down the government over spending and the squester but don't fight over the debt ceiling. Samrt move on their part in all areas.

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 09:01 PM
So Dems got a million more votes, but fewer seats. Which means that the districts in which they were elected the democratic majority was huge. THAT smacks of gerrymandering.They gained one seat. But, yeah the R's went way overboard with gerrymandering in 2010. Worst partisan gerrymandering evah.

The Dems are just as guilty of the practice. But much like the filibuster use was escalated to new heights, the partisan gerrymandering was ramped up also.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 09:10 PM
But they won in 2010 and thought the tea party was its saviour. reexamine went out the window.

They are not going to reexamine this time either. Just pretend to. They are not going to change their views, just don't talk about the unpopular ones. Bite the bullet on immigration. Pass the Dream act. Shut down the government over spending and the squester but don't fight over the debt ceiling. Samrt move on their part in all areas.

The problem with Republicans right now is that right wing media drives the base, which elects politicians. The tail is wagging the dog right now. And outlets like Fox and talk radio have zero incentive to turn down the rhetoric even if their party loses elections. That may even give them better ratings as people get more and more terrified of the coming moocher takeover.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 09:11 PM
But they won in 2010 and thought the tea party was its saviour. reexamine went out the window.

They are not going to reexamine this time either. Just pretend to. They are not going to change their views, just don't talk about the unpopular ones. Bite the bullet on immigration. Pass the Dream act. Shut down the government over spending and the squester but don't fight over the debt ceiling. Samrt move on their part in all areas.

As Hillary said, "What difference does it make?"

Seriously abortion is a settled issue, until technology brings a new case, gay marriage is a state issue and so should smoking pot. The BIG issues will be acted on the same way by either party. Less freedom, less prosperity and less jobs. More globalism. Meanwhile, people who live in DC area are enjoying more wealth.

FP has been a bi-partisan game by both parties for half a century. Any differences are cosmetic.
Now it's close to the same on other issues:

• Promised a new era in govt transparency while regulating business under unprecedented secrecy
• Obama's healthcare scheme was done in league with the pharmaceutical and insurance industries
• Obama shoveled money to corporate America, banks and car manufacturers
• Obama championed bailouts for the same Wall Street firms that his partisans blamed Bush for the financial collapse
• Obama picked the CEO of GE for the unemployment problem
• Obama appointed corporate state regulators for every major role in financial central planning

So long as the left gets it's Bread and Circuses, they'll support him no matter how much more of a corporatist Obama is than Bush.
So long as they hear—tax the wealthy there's more of them and less of us! When it's becoming that way because of more govt while markets get the blame.

LOL! Is anyone awake?

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 09:59 PM
So Dems got a million more votes, but fewer seats. Which means that the districts in which they were elected the democratic majority was huge. THAT smacks of gerrymandering.

Not a million. Half that. Which is half a point difference. Which is my point, it was essentially a tie. Thanks.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:00 PM
The problem with Republicans right now is that right wing media drives the base, which elects politicians. The tail is wagging the dog right now. And outlets like Fox and talk radio have zero incentive to turn down the rhetoric even if their party loses elections. That may even give them better ratings as people get more and more terrified of the coming moocher takeover.

They're not losing a bunch of elections though. See the first post. They're winning plenty of elections, you just don't want to hear it.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:03 PM
They gained one seat. But, yeah the R's went way overboard with gerrymandering in 2010. Worst partisan gerrymandering evah.

The Dems are just as guilty of the practice. But much like the filibuster use was escalated to new heights, the partisan gerrymandering was ramped up also.

So it was the worst gerrymandering "evah". But the Dems are just as guilty. Interesting. Those are contrasting points, you are aware right?

BigRedChief
01-27-2013, 10:13 PM
So it was the worst gerrymandering "evah". But the Dems are just as guilty. Interesting. Those are contrasting points, you are aware right?both do it. This last time was the worst evah.

They are not one of the same. But you either know that and are trolling or just lack basic comprehension.

Maybe the latter since you haven't even responded to my post of Cruz telling the Republicans they are on a path to oblivion.

Prison Bitch
01-27-2013, 10:16 PM
both do it. This last time was the worst evah.

They are not one of the same. But you either know that and are trolling or just lack basic comprehension.

Maybe the latter since you haven't even responded to my post of Cruz telling the Republicans they are on a path to oblivion.

The Dems were just as bad in CA and Il. Indisputable. Maybe te Dems shouldn't have been cleaned out so badly in 2010 everywhere.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2013, 10:31 PM
The Dems were just as bad in CA and Il. Indisputable. Maybe te Dems shouldn't have been cleaned out so badly in 2010 everywhere.

Precisely! Advantages of incumbency which Obama had too. Like covering up Benghazi and not talking guns.

Direckshun
01-27-2013, 10:32 PM
If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing

the breeding poor

Go Chiefs.

suzzer99
01-27-2013, 10:48 PM
Not a million. Half that. Which is half a point difference. Which is my point, it was essentially a tie. Thanks.

You may be the most obtuse person on the DC forum, which is really saying something.

stevieray
01-27-2013, 10:56 PM
it deserves to die...this country isn't conservative.

couple it with white gulit, and it's a slam dunk.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:22 AM
They're not losing a bunch of elections though. See the first post. They're winning plenty of elections, you just don't want to hear it.

Let them gloat and choke on hubris. We hear this every time they win. Then things change again.

Pitt Gorilla
01-28-2013, 12:36 AM
Not dead. Just stuck in the past. If they'd drop the idiotic, backward, irrelevant moralizing, and just stick with a message based in financial logic (which I don't think they truly believe in, demonstrably), I'd be more or less on board with them.This.

Prison Bitch
01-28-2013, 12:41 AM
it deserves to die...this country isn't conservative.

couple it with white gulit, and it's a slam dunk.

According to Gallup, conservatives more than double liberals and have for eons of polling data. Something like 42 percent claim to be conservative and 35 or so moderate. The issue for the GOP is that they didn't drive out these folks while Obama did his. In 2012 he narrowed the gap to only 10 points and won moderates. The GOP shot themselves in the ass when they failed as a party I. The W years.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 09:18 AM
According to Gallup, conservatives more than double liberals and have for eons of polling data. Something like 42 percent claim to be conservative and 35 or so moderate. The issue for the GOP is that they didn't drive out these folks while Obama did his. In 2012 he narrowed the gap to only 10 points and won moderates. The GOP shot themselves in the ass when they failed as a party I. The W years.

Obama didn't win as many moderates as he did in 2008 though. Did you see the poll on being disappointed in the choices and how things never change but things go on the same?* Pretty indicting. Most of them were on the right-leaning side too. Then you have to figure that there WAS fraud. So it had to really be a very close election—not the comfortable margin Obama received.

Let them gloat though. That's a good thing to think they're comfortable. Although, I have read Bill Clinton warned the Democrats to not talk down to America's gun culture or they'll pay for it.

* I forget where I saw that but it was in a major news source. Think it may have been CNN but I'd have to search my history to confirm and don't have time today. I am just finishing up my morning coffee.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 09:21 AM
This.

Why are you a member then? I think your views, when a few manage to creep out from the peanut gallery, are more fitting for membership in the Democratic party.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 01:16 PM
Obama didn't win as many moderates as he did in 2008 though. Did you see the poll on being disappointed in the choices and how things never change but things go on the same?* Pretty indicting. Most of them were on the right-leaning side too. Then you have to figure that there WAS fraud. So it had to really be a very close election—not the comfortable margin Obama received.


You keep saying this but will never back it up. You're full of shit, and clearly a freaking nut since you continue to make assertions that you can't support.

Still waiting...

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 02:09 PM
You keep saying this but will never back it up. You're full of shit, and clearly a freaking nut since you continue to make assertions that you can't support.

Still waiting...

So, BEP--you got anything?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 02:15 PM
Did you say something? You're on ignore...except where I decide to look to follow something I want to.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:18 PM
Did you say something? You're on ignore...except where I decide to look to follow something I want to.



English....you're not doing it right.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 02:19 PM
I never claimed I wrote well...but the opposite. You understood it though.

Somehow, all my ignores fell out. You were on it for a long time too.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:06 PM
Did you say something? You're on ignore...except where I decide to look to follow something I want to.

LMAO You're such a freaking loon.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:09 PM
I never claimed I wrote well...but the opposite. You understood it though.

Somehow, all my ignores fell out. You were on it for a long time too.

You seem to have common sense, logic, and any sense of shame on ignore.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 03:34 PM
What was that noise?

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:38 PM
What was that noise?

Maybe it's your conscience telling you to at least try to back up the crazy nonsense you spew. And/or to stop making shit up.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:41 PM
What was that noise?

It's always kind of funny to see BEP change from Constitution and economics expert into middle-school brat within a few posts.

Brock
01-28-2013, 05:09 PM
Go Chiefs.

There's nothing inconsistent in what I said, dummy.

Prison Bitch
01-28-2013, 06:04 PM
Let them gloat and choke on hubris. We hear this every time they win. Then things change again.

I still haven't figured out how the Murdock race pitted a crazy, Neanderthal woman hater against some moderate given that the Dem candidate Joe Donnelly was also pro life.


So he also favored dragging women by their hair back into the 1950s cave by denying them their rights to abortion. Yet the Dems voted for him anyway despite this. Very odd to me. Weren't both of them women haters?

Ace Gunner
01-28-2013, 06:16 PM
I'm curious to know why this keeps getting thrown out there. Obviously, the leftwing media is pushing the meme as hard as they can. That's the main culprit. But I'm wondering why all these GOP folks are bashing the party (Christie, Jindal, Powell, etc) and saying it "has to change".


Fact: the Presidential election was won by the incumbent. Like it nearly always is. Like nearly all elections are and have been. But many people seem shocked by it. If we look at the Conressional elections for the House, the vote was essentially even at 53 million per Party. How is that a landslide in terms of voter preference?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html


Fact: In 2014, Democrats hold 9 of the top 10 Senate seats projected to have the highest likelihood of switching. You can probably add Iowa to that list now with Harkin leaving:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-democrats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/



Here's the current tally of US Leadership:

1) The GOP has a 230-200 lead in the House with a 54-46% lead in reps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress

2) The GOP has 30 Governorships now, their highest total since 34 during the 1920s:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politics/governor-races/index.html

3) The GOP has a 31-17 advantage in State Houses, with a 55-44% lead in State Reps:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses

4) The GOP has a 28-19 advantage in State Senates, with 52-44% lead in total Senators:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Partisan_composition_of_state_senates



Net: If you want to talk about a bad time for the GOP, the 1930s and the 1960s (look at the carnage here after the 1964 elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress). Those were terrible times. Totally shut out of power at every level of Federal & State government. But that is hardly the case today. The gnashing of teeth may stop at any moment.

You are a stupid fuck. But, I'll throw this pitiful thread a bone-

the american system is no longer divided into two different functions. americans are either "part A" or "part B" of a united governing system.

It is hilarious to watch folks bicker over insignificances.

Prison Bitch
01-28-2013, 06:42 PM
Facts are not stupid. Even if they anger you.

whoman69
01-28-2013, 08:14 PM
If Braley runs the Harkin seat will stay Democratic. Republicans better be afraid if Grassley retires in 2016 and tries to hand it off to his grandson.

Pitt Gorilla
01-28-2013, 11:02 PM
If Braley runs the Harkin seat will stay Democratic. Republicans better be afraid if Grassley retires in 2016 and tries to hand it off to his grandson.I hope Harkin's seat remains D and Grassley remains R. Iowa has really benefitted from having Senators from each side of the aisle.

Direckshun
01-28-2013, 11:34 PM
There's nothing inconsistent in what I said, dummy.

Brock in the first post: The GOP needs to get away from it's archaic, draconian thinking on policy.

Brock in the second post: Clearly the problem is that the poor are having children.

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 06:03 AM
Brock in the first post: The GOP needs to get away from it's archaic, draconian thinking on policy.

Brock in the second post: Clearly the problem is that the poor are having children.
Doesn't seem to jive?:shake:

blaise
01-29-2013, 08:34 AM
Why is there a problem with Brock's statement? Isn't that the claim of Democrats for the last 20 years? That there's so many poor people these days? What, it's only ok to admit it's a problem if the solution involves throwing more money at it?

Prison Bitch
01-29-2013, 10:05 AM
Obv Dems have a problem with the breedin poor, that's one reason they support abortion. Don't want all those uncared for kids

Brock
01-29-2013, 08:54 PM
Brock in the first post: The GOP needs to get away from it's archaic, draconian thinking on policy.

Brock in the second post: Clearly the problem is that the poor are having children.

Apparently you're too stupid to understand what's being said.

I'm referring to the republicans and their usual stances on gay people and on abortion. Which, by the way, I'm all in favor of.

And poor people can fuck all the live-long day as far as I'm concerned. Just please stop producing kids you can neither afford to support, nor have anything significant to teach to, other than getting signed up for free lunches at school.

Brock
01-29-2013, 08:56 PM
Obv Dems have a problem with the breedin poor, that's one reason they support abortion. Don't want all those uncared for kids

That's right. Fucking get rid of them. I'm tired of more and more people riding in the cart the rest of us are pulling.

Brock
01-29-2013, 08:57 PM
Doesn't seem to jive?:shake:

That's because you're retarded and people are usually talking above your pay grade.

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 09:09 PM
That's because you're retarded and people are usually talking above your pay grade.https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_4pMH5h9N487OB1b-i7liTxUgT8ldQcY7DZeYIPIdtyVnxAdS

Brock
01-29-2013, 09:10 PM
Nah. You didn't understand what I said. You're pretty fucking dumb.

Prison Bitch
01-30-2013, 11:13 AM
Half or so of abortions are black babies but I wonder how many Dems know that?

BigRedChief
01-30-2013, 04:27 PM
Half or so of abortions are black babies but I wonder how many Dems know that?
If your fact is indeed a fact. And I'm not saying its a fact..... So what?

suzzer99
01-30-2013, 04:46 PM
I don't believe any facts that aren't preceded with "FACT: ...".

Prison Bitch
01-30-2013, 06:03 PM
If your fact is indeed a fact. And I'm not saying its a fact..... So what?


We were talking about aborting low income people, no?

BigRedChief
01-30-2013, 06:18 PM
We were talking about aborting low income people, no?
http://www.forumspile.com/Chill-Hobbes.gif

stevieray
01-30-2013, 06:28 PM
So what?

it is a fact.

Brock
01-30-2013, 06:41 PM
If it's abortion that's sticking in your craw, how about incentivized sterilization? Say 500 for a vasectomy, 1000 for a tubal, 1500 for a hysto. If you work for a living, you're going to come out money ahead. Way ahead.

Prison Bitch
11-07-2014, 09:43 AM
Update to this thread: The GOP now has 30 states where they control both houses of the legislature. The Democrats have 8.


They also picked up 335 more seats in state houses across the nation.

Cochise
11-07-2014, 10:50 AM
Update to this thread: The GOP now has 30 states where they control both houses of the legislature. The Democrats have 8.


They also picked up 335 more seats in state houses across the nation.

Boy, if it got much worse the white house might admit this was a setback.

Just Passin' By
11-07-2014, 10:53 AM
Imagine how bad the carnage might have been for the Dems if the GOP was still alive

Prison Bitch
11-07-2014, 10:59 AM
Boy, if it got much worse the white house might admit this was a setback.

They're losing across the country to a party that isn't even liked. Think about that

WilliamTheIrish
11-07-2014, 11:40 AM
It's not just a "left wing media meme".

The exact same media said the democrats were dead after the 04 election. And in 4 years they took back the presidency. The Republican party isn't dead. It just hasn't been forward thinking enough in my opinion. Still pushing the agendas of abortion, drug war, and failing to be the party of small government.

In 4 years the pendulum could very well swing back if the R's can find a candidate to appeal to a wide spectrum. And even if the pendulum doesn't swing back, the system is set up for two parties. They aren't going to just give up that power.

And sometimes you don't even have to find a candidate. Just let the other guys flame out.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-07-2014, 11:44 AM
They're losing across the country to a party that isn't even liked. Think about that

That's spot on. Let's see, we want higher minimum wages, and legal pot, so let's vote for the GOP! Yeah, it's a testament to just how poorly the Democrats have done in a relatively short period of time.

LiveSteam
11-07-2014, 12:19 PM
hard core red state like Nebraska are leading the way on minimum wage. Pot is low on the scale of what worries America

Sully
11-07-2014, 12:59 PM
Let them gloat and choke on hubris. We hear this every time they win. Then things change again.
This is an interesting quote.

Prison Bitch
11-07-2014, 01:15 PM
Democrats aren't dead at all either. It's a two party system and it'll always be that way. The left wing media forgot that in 2012 and those of us on the right would be fools to follow their lead. The map looks great for them in 2016.

That said, rest assured: if the Dems do well in 2016 the media will totally forget this and will declare the "permanent majority" nonsense again. They cannot help themselves

Detoxing
11-07-2014, 01:17 PM
Democrats aren't dead at all either. It's a two party system and it'll always be that way. The left wing media forgot that in 2012 and those of us on the right would be fools to follow their lead. The map looks great for them in 2016.

That said, rest assured: if the Dems do well in 2016 the media will totally forget this and will declare the "permanent majority" nonsense again. They cannot help themselves

Makes sense.

Prison Bitch
11-08-2014, 12:53 AM
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1101090518_400.jpg

petegz28
11-08-2014, 04:21 PM
The problem for the Dems this time around, imo, was that they offer no solutions to anything save superficial, unpopular solutions such as amnesty. Other than that you have to look at what they have done and then you cannot be shocked as to why they got their ass kicked. Finger pointing only goes so far, race baiting, fear mongering and the spreading of hate as well. People are tired of it.

The Dems have labeled the Repubs for the last 14 years as haters of blacks, women, old people, young people, clean air, clean water, etc. Now people are finally like, "yeah, heard that already. What the fuck are you doing about the economy, high gas prices, high food prices, high energy prices, no pay increases, people sneaking into our country, ISIS, IRS, Benghazi?"

Prison Bitch
11-08-2014, 07:03 PM
The Dems now control the fewest state legislatures since...1860. The year Honest Abe sorta burst onto the scene. Hey Time!!! Speaking of "endangered species"

GloryDayz
11-08-2014, 07:38 PM
http://www.naturopath.co.nz/site/naturopaths/images/SEMINARS/Beating_Heart_animation.gif

suzzer99
11-10-2014, 07:17 AM
Update to this thread: The GOP now has 30 states where they control both houses of the legislature. The Democrats have 8.


They also picked up 335 more seats in state houses across the nation.

Well let's hope they all work out as well as Kansas!

blaise
11-10-2014, 07:27 AM
Well let's hope they all work out as well as Kansas!

All the cities with decades of Democrat leadership are thriving.

suzzer99
11-10-2014, 07:40 AM
http://i.imgur.com/SaKzKcn.png

OMG 6 blaise posts in a row? So much content all at once. I'm going to set aside some time tomorrow to really take in and digest all the heartfelt analysis and cogent posts.

blaise
11-10-2014, 08:03 AM
http://i.imgur.com/SaKzKcn.png

OMG 6 blaise posts in a row? So much content all at once. I'm going to set aside some time tomorrow to really take in and digest all the heartfelt analysis and cogent posts.

I should post more analysis like crying about no one calling out a lynching photo even though I didn't do it either. Or maybe try and show how leadership under one party has resulted in economic downturn, but then cry when someone responds in kind.
You mean like that?

WhiteWhale
11-10-2014, 09:43 AM
Well let's hope they all work out as well as Kansas!

Stop bringing up Kansas. Brownback is an exceptional retard who wins based on the fact that he's a fundie nutjob and he appeals to the large fundie nutjob population of this stupid state, not the standard bearer of republicans.

Aries Walker
11-10-2014, 03:10 PM
According to Gallup, conservatives more than double liberals and have for eons of polling data. Something like 42 percent claim to be conservative and 35 or so moderate. The issue for the GOP is that they didn't drive out these folks while Obama did his. In 2012 he narrowed the gap to only 10 points and won moderates. The GOP shot themselves in the ass when they failed as a party I. The W years.
For posterity.

2013: 38% identify as conservative, 34% moderate, and 23% liberal. (Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx))

2014: 33% affiliate themselves with the Republican party, 35% Independent, and 29% Democratic. (Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx))

Aries Walker
11-10-2014, 03:29 PM
By the way, here's a convenient Wikipedia article about current party strength. It mostly supports PB's numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

President: Democratic, 332-206 electoral votes.
US Senate: Republican, 54-46.
US House: Republican, 247-189.
Governors: Republican, 31-18-1.
State Senates: Republican, 35-15.
State Houses: Republican, 33-16.

Bear in mind, though, that the geography and political boundaries of our country give us a lot of large central states with relatively low populations, meaning that more people in the country are in fact governed by Democratic governors (who govern high-population states on average) than by Republican ones (236-200 electoral votes' worth, by my count).

Also, we are still in the wake of a mid-term election with a really low turnout, especially among the young, which makes everything appear to skew red. I, for one, don't expect the Republican domination to last beyond 2016.