"The GOP is dead!" - say what????

[Prison Bitch]

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/2012/1...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/...ough-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_U...tates_Congress

2) The GOP has 30 Governorships now, their highest total since 34 during the 1920s:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politi...ces/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.ph...f_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.ph..._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_Un...tates_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.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

What was that noise?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Go Chiefs.

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

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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?

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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/2012/1...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/...ough-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_U...tates_Congress

2) The GOP has 30 Governorships now, their highest total since 34 during the 1920s:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politi...ces/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.ph...f_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.ph..._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_Un...tates_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 ****. 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]

Facts are not stupid. Even if they anger you.

[whoman69]

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]

Originally Posted by whoman69

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]

Originally Posted by Brock

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]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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?

[blaise]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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 **** 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.