WP: GOP-Leaning Majority Seen Fading in U.S.

[SkinsHokieFan]

As I have stated many times, 50+ year minority status for the Republicans (if they even exist in 50 years)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061301209.html?hpid=topnews

GOP-Leaning Majority Seen Fading in U.S.

By Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, June 14, 2009

There has been much chatter about who now speaks for the Republican Party and whether the GOP has a message or agenda to combat President Obama's popularity. Those questions are important to the party's future, but the most serious problem remains the deeper demographic and political forces at work in the country.

For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the last two decades. From whatever angle of their approach -- age, race, economic status, geography -- they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.

Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse or at least minimize these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.

The American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institute convened a stellar cast on Friday to review what has been learned since last November. The panel included Robert Lang of Virginia Tech, Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress, William Frey of the Brookings Institution, Bill Bishop, a Texas writer and author of "The Big Sort," Scott Keeter of the Pew Research, and Ronald Brownstein of Atlantic Media. They presented a wealth of data about what happened in 2008 and offered a series of conclusions that would alarm any Republican hopeful of a quick turnaround in the party's fortunes.

Democrats have now won the popular vote in four of the last five elections, though in one case (2000) they did not end up in the White House. In years when they have also won the electoral vote, Democrats have wracked up sizeable margins. Obama bested John McCain 365-173 and Bill Clinton's two victories were in the same range. George W. Bush's two electoral college victories were narrow; he won just 271 votes in the disputed election of 2000 and 286 in his 2004 reelection.

What has brought this about? It's not just one thing, it's everything. Start with the Democrats success in the suburbs. Lang's formula is that demography and density have combined to help the Democrats. The Democrats now dominate not just the cities but the urbanized suburbs that contained the largest share of the suburban population in America.

Democratic strength in the counties around Philadelphia, around Detroit and in Northern Virginia have squeezed Republicans dramatically. Increasingly, Republican strength outside the urban areas counts for less. "There's just not enough rural folks and small city people left in America in the key states that determine the electoral college to offset that difference," Lang said. "You're out of people."

That's one geographical reality. The other, which became acute after 2008, is that outside the South, Republicans are in trouble. John McCain won the South last November, but Obama swept the rest of the country by an even bigger margin. The same pattern holds now for House and Senate seats. Republicans may win governorships in Democratic-leaning states, as they have continued to do, but in congressional and presidential elections, the geographic divides are sizeable.

Brownstein reeled off list of statistics that all arrived at the same place: the South now accounts for a greater share of Republican strength than at virtually any time since its founding. That base is too narrow, as even Republicans know.

Demographically, the forces at work have chipped away at what was once a GOP-leaning majority in the country. The most important is the rising share of the vote accounted for by minorities. Whites accounted for just 76 percent of the overall electorate last November, down from 85 percent in 1988.

The last election saw more than two million additional African American voters, about two million more Hispanic voters and about one million more Asian American voters. All are groups where Obama increased the Democratic share of the vote over 2004. Frey estimated that there were nine states where minority voters made the difference in Obama's victory margin.

Republicans can't reverse the demographic trends; their only solution is to increase their share of the minority vote. Opposing Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, because of her pride in being a Latina, won't help solve that problem.

There was much attention paid to Obama's trouble winning the votes of white working class voters. The bad news for Republicans is that these voters represent a declining share of the electorate. Since 1988, the white working class proportion of the national electorate has dropped by 15 percentage points. In Pennsylvania, Teixeira reported, it's declined by 25 percentage points. Teixeira reported that Obama actually won the votes of working class whites between ages 25 and 29, who at this point appear more culturally liberal than their elders.

As the working class vote shrinks, the college-educated vote increase, and Democrats are gaining a greater and greater share of these voters. Democrats lose white college graduates by 20 points in 1988 but by just four points last November. That is another big reason Democrats have gained strength in the suburbs.

Obama's strength among young voters was a staple of coverage throughout his bid for the White House, though as Keeter pointed out, he could have won last November without the votes of anyone under age 30. But his margin was the biggest in several decades and that alone should worry Republicans.

Obama may have special appeal to younger voters, but their shift toward the Democrats pre-dates his candidacy. "This really is not Obama," Keeter said. "Young voters were John Kerry's best age group. They were the Democratic candidates' best age group in the 2006 elections and they were the best age group for other Democratic candidates in 2008."

Younger voters are more diverse demographically than older voters. Only 62 percent in 2008 were white, compared to 74 percent eight years earlier. Projections show young voters will become increasingly diverse. They are also less religious and more culturally liberal, two indicators of Democratic support.

GOP strategist Mike Murphy described this in Time magazine as a coming Republican ice age. Republicans will need a major shift to begin to reverse these trends. That could start if there is a backlash against Obama's governance -- and the president's agenda certainly will test the country's tolerance for a big dose of government. But Republicans will need to retool in other ways to make themselves more appealing to a changing population. That debate has barely begun.

[Teller]

Here's our problem: "Opposing Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, because of her pride in being a Latina, won't help solve that problem."

The woman said, paraphrasing, that BECAUSE she is a Latina, that she would come to a better decision than a white male who hasn't had the same life experience.

That statement is racist. Period. It's not up for debate. Want proof? Turn it around so that the double-standard is no longer in play....

Because I am a white male, I would come to a better decision than a Latina, who hasn't had the same life experience.

It truly pisses me off to NO END that one of those statements is flippantly accepted by the media and the masses. The other, they'd have you believe, constitutes some deep and grave injustice. Horsecrap. If one statement is racist, so is the other. If one statement is socially acceptable, so is the other.

The same goes for illegal immigration. They don't paint us as anti ILLEGAL immigration. They paint us as anti-immigrant. Again, horsecrap. I know it's shocking that people who respect things like faith, traditional moral values, and nuclear families would also have respect for things like...ohhh...our laws, but we do. Still, as long as the dishonest dems and the pandering media can paint us as racists, they will.

It's the same deal with gay marriage. Instead of painting us as people of faith who value the traditional family, they have to pull out the lies again. We're homophobic, bigoted and evil. (Forget the fact that THEY forced Ms. California to be stripped of her crown...simply for freely expressing her opinion. REEEEEEEEEAL TOLERANT!!!!)

So to put it simply, we're not going to get a fair shake. The dems will continue blatantly mischaracterizing our positions, and the media will eat it up. Meanwhile, the grassroots groundswell that our party has needed for a LOOOONG time, is already beginning to grow.

Remember the tea parties? Remember what they were really about? Remember how the media portrayed them? And now the Freedom Concerts? They're selling out so quickly that venues are being abandoned for bigger and/or outdoor arenas.

The best way to motivate the republican base is to piss us off. The best way to piss us off is to lie about us incesantly.

In other words, they're playing into our hands.

[BigMike619]

and welcome back brother...lol

[SkinsHokieFan]

The best way to motivate the republican base is to piss us off. The best way to piss us off is to lie about us incesantly.

In other words, they're playing into our hands.

A few things HH

While I understand your frustrations, in particular with identity politics, that is how the game is played

The GOP has to figure out mighty quick how to play the game with identity politics. Clarence Thomas did back in 1991. The "high tech lynching" comments is how you gotta do it.

When Migeul Estrada was blocked, not a peep. Because the GOP has no clue how to play that game

Along with that, and in part because over 30 years the GOP has "won" many battles (lower taxes and the 2nd amendment come to mind) the GOP needs to come up with real conservative solutions for 21st century problems

What is the GOP stance on healthcare? What is the real solution there?

Why can't any Republican not named Ron Paul or Mark Sanford articulate why the Obama fiscal policy is going to be disaster without using words like "socialism"

Why does Michelle Bachman even get to speak? :whoknows:

Reagan understood the power of words, and how important they were to this movement. He understood the demographic changes taking place, which is why he didn't demonize hispanics during the 1986 amnesty debate.

The GOP forgot his lessons, and instead this decade went for the 50%+1 strategy

I think the Tea parties are a good start, but mind you many of those people are just as pissed off at the GOP as they are President Obama.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Peter Schiff, as always, is dead on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x13VYMLfDw

[Teller]

The fundamental question, IMO, is this.

Do we throw away our values and go after middle-of-the-road dems? (Do this by adding planks to the platform like civil unions, early-term abortions, some sort of amnesty for some illegals.)

Or do we swing HARD right, cater to people like you and I, and hope we can motivate OUR base like we have before, and pray that that will be enough to carry the day?

[Vicious]

drop the religion and suddenly the republicans are booming again, imo.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The fundamental question, IMO, is this.

Do we throw away our values and go after middle-of-the-road dems? (Do this by adding planks to the platform like civil unions, early-term abortions, some sort of amnesty for some illegals.)

Or do we swing HARD right, cater to people like you and I, and hope we can motivate OUR base like we have before, and pray that that will be enough to carry the day?

Here is the thing, you can do BOTH

Many "middle of the road Dems" would be more then willing to LISTEN to conservative ideas IF they are presented in logical, thoughtful and articulate ways and go against what Republicans did this past decade

Schiff says it best

You need Republicans that can run as Republicans BUT also CRITICIZE Republicans that got us in this mess.

Who in the party can actually do that right now? Possibly Ron Paul. And that is become as Schiff says is he voted against EVERYTHING Republicans did under Bush. Thats it

[SkinsHokieFan]

drop the religion and suddenly the republicans are booming again, imo.

Disagree, you'll lose a large core of voters.

You don't have to put religion FIRST. That is the key, change the priority of issues

[SkinsHokieFan]

By the way, I cannot wait for the Schiff-Dodd debates next year, and watch Dodd squirm

[DjTj]

Here's our problem: "Opposing Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, because of her pride in being a Latina, won't help solve that problem."

The woman said, paraphrasing, that BECAUSE she is a Latina, that she would come to a better decision than a white male who hasn't had the same life experience.

That statement is racist. Period. It's not up for debate. Want proof? Turn it around so that the double-standard is no longer in play....

She was talking about racial discrimination cases and the fact that, for generations before Brown v. Board, white male judges ruled against minorities on Equal Protection claims. When you look back on that history, it's difficult not to believe that had there been a few women or a few minorities on the court, that wiser decisions may have been reached.

Of course, her speech goes on to concede that the Brown Court was also composed entirely of white males. But I do think it's an important point to make, and it was the same kind of point that was brought up when Reagan appointed the first woman to the bench.

Judging is not a rote process where you can just take the smartest person in the world and expect them to make the wisest decisions. Alito mentioned his own family's immigrant history during his Senate hearings. Thomas mentioned his life experiences. All these things color a judge's decisions, and that's why it is important to have some diversity at our highest Court.

When you take the statement out of context, of course it looks racist, and you can run with that if you want. But pulling out soundbites and manufacturing outrage is exactly the mistake that SHF is trying to point out. You don't build a majority like this. Sure, you'll be pissed off, but all you will be is a very loud minority.

[mjah]

It truly pisses me off to NO END that one of those statements is flippantly accepted by the media and the masses. The other, they'd have you believe, constitutes some deep and grave injustice. Horsecrap. If one statement is racist, so is the other. If one statement is socially acceptable, so is the other.

The difference lies within the notion of "life experience," a term that is far more than the sum of its parts. Looking at what Sotomayor said from just a word-constructionist point of view with the "turn it around and let a white guy say it" rhetoric doesn't really work: You're just talking about turning the words around.

To really "turn it around" you'd have to turn around the entire historical context of that loaded term, "life experience." And you just can't do that if the speaker is going to be a white guy instead of a Latina. Like it or not, in the US there are about 500 years of history that get baked into this discussion. That's a longer history than even our nation itself can claim, and white guys (justly or unjustly) are on one side of it while minorities are generally on the other. Neither side is completely right or wrong about their different perceptions of this history, but you can't ignore all of this when you listen to a minority talk about "life experience." It's about far more than just the two words. And that's why an old-white-guy politician who immediately calls Sotomayor "racist" ends up looking like a knee-jerk idiot in the eyes of folks who identify with Sotomayor far more than with him.

Someday we'll all have hundreds of years of equal opportunity under our belts and we can call this discussion BS. Personally, I don't think we're there yet. And I'm saying this as a guy who thinks most affirmative action rhetoric is BS today.

The same goes for illegal immigration. They don't paint us as anti ILLEGAL immigration. They paint us as anti-immigrant. Again, horsecrap. I know it's shocking that people who respect things like faith, traditional moral values, and nuclear families would also have respect for things like...ohhh...our laws, but we do.

Hmm. And you're saying that to contrast with which huge group of people, exactly? Who's stereotyping now?

And oh -- the GOP and valuing laws. Let's look at some high-profile examples:

- Valerie Plame.

- Torture.

- Enemy Combatants.

Oops. Never mind. Better close that particular book right now, before we read any further. Much further.

My point here is that there's no ground for the GOP to stand on with claims of being mischaracterized, when their elected representatives engaged in deliberately divisive policies and rhetoric for years and years.

Round and round and round. Point the finger, do-se-do, promenade your Cheney home.

It's the same deal with gay marriage. Instead of painting us as people of faith who value the traditional family, they have to pull out the lies again. We're homophobic, bigoted and evil.

Many of them are "people of faith who value the traditional family," but who also resent government intrusion into private lives. You'd think a lot of conservatives might try to identify with at least some of that.

Oh, wait -- actually, a lot of conservatives do.

Sorry, but after this decade the right really has no leg to stand on with this apparent outrage. There's a reason why you're getting zero sympathy on these things. Politically, you are being judged by the company you keep -- and by the company you have kept in recent memory.

So to put it simply, we're not going to get a fair shake. The dems will continue blatantly mischaracterizing our positions, and the media will eat it up.

Sorry, now you're off the deep end. After all the crap the GOP has flung around the monkey house for the past almost-decade, your anger reads like the temper tantrum of a spoiled child who doesn't want to be treated just like all the other kids on the playground.

This is all kind of ironic, given that you're now living a different flavor of the "turn it around" effect you were advocating earlier. And you don't like it AT ALL. :hysterical:

What was I going to type here... Something about reaping what you sow. I'm not talking about you in particular, but rather about the same overall group you're speaking of.

Let's not pretend that only one side engages in mischaracterization. The GOP loves it as much as Democrats. They certainly have relished the opportunity to practice it as often as possible. I'd start a running list here of GOP smears, but I'm afraid it would never end. Is there a word limit per post?

Remember the tea parties? Remember what they were really about?

I'd venture to guess that most people actually don't remember what they were supposed to be about. And that's a big part of the GOP's problem.

Again: You reap what you sow.

Don't buy any stock in the GOP "grassroots movement" in the coming years. It would require credible GOP leadership that currently doesn't exist; a large group of alienated non-right-wing voters who currently don't exist; the predominant belief that there is a better option than Obama right now, which doesn't exist; and the notion that the GOP who utterly failed the nation is somehow that better option. That last one CERTAINLY doesn't exist.

Before presupposing the existence of all four of those things, the GOP and its remaining tent-denizens would do well to work on nailing down just one of them.

By the way -- you could have said something similar about the Democrats in 2000 or so. They were in a better position then than the Republicans are now, but they certainly lacked leadership, alienated voters to win over, and a credible claim to be a clearly better option than the GOP at that time.

Of course, all those blanks were serviceably filled in over the next several years. Someday the GOP will come back too -- but unlike the Democrats in 2000, the GOP will have to pick up the entire party and move substantially just to have a fighting chance. There's zero chance that the public will come back to a party of "pallin' with terrorists" and "secret Muslim" and "I hope the president fails" and Sarah Palin.

[PeterMP]

Disagree, you'll lose a large core of voters.

You don't have to put religion FIRST. That is the key, change the priority of issues

Doing something about the power of the religious component of the party would help, but that is being split anyway by the "new" evangelical Christians (e.g. Huckabee supporters) and the older wing.

In terms of actually delivering a message that people will believe, the biggest thing have to do is realize that being pro-growth does NOT equal being pro-big business. Being pro-growth doesn't even mean being pro-existing businesses becuase new businesses grow the economy as well.

One of the reasons they are taking a beating on health care is because many small business owners actually want to go to some sort of government sponsored program.

The reason they can't talk intelligently about the issues w/ the bailout is because they can't address the issues that caused the current economic situation (e.g. AIG was in some cases acting as a monopoly. Due to their size, they were able to insure things that others weren't, and they did (and they did it badly), but in doing so they were acting as a monopoly, which should have brought them larger government scruitiny with respect to that aspect of their business (I'm not blaming AIG. It isn't their fault that other companies couldn't do it, but that practically is what happened)).

Of course, I don't expect this to happen because they take in to much money from industry.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Doing something about the power of the religious component of the party would help, but that is being split anyway by the "new" evangelical Christians (e.g. Huckabee supporters) and the older wing.

In terms of actually delivering a message that people will believe, the biggest thing have to do is realize that being pro-growth does NOT equal being pro-big business. Being pro-growth doesn't even mean being pro-existing businesses becuase new businesses grow the economy as well.

One of the reasons they are taking a beating on health care is because many small business owners actually want to go to some sort of government sponsored program.

The reason they can't talk intelligently about the issues w/ the bailout is because they can't address the issues that caused the current economic situation (e.g. AIG was in some cases acting as a monopoly. Due to their size, they were enable to ensure things that others weren't, and they did (and they did it badly), but in doing so they were acting as a monopoly, which should have brought them larger government scruitiny with respect to that aspect of their business (I'm not blaming AIG. It isn't their fault that other companies couldn't do it, but that practically is what happened).

Of course, I don't expect this to happen because they take in to much money from industry.

Agree with you

I have been stating LOUDLY in right wing circles that I circulate in that Republicans need to become the party of small business, and move away from being the corporate party

Right now Republicans ARE THE CORPORATE PARTY which is just as bad as Democrats being the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY

Until THIS fundamental shift occurs, that as in your and LuckyDevil's words "being pro market means sometimes being anti big business" the Republicans do not stand a chance

It will take a truly new group, and probably 50 years for everyone that remembers this decade to die off, before Republicans can mount a credible come back

[JimboDaMan]

Here's our problem: "Opposing Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, because of her pride in being a Latina, won't help solve that problem."

The woman said, paraphrasing, that BECAUSE she is a Latina, that she would come to a better decision than a white male who hasn't had the same life experience.

That statement is racist. Period. It's not up for debate. Want proof? Turn it around so that the double-standard is no longer in play....

If she had said what you claim, I'd agree with you. Since she did not, there's no problem. The sentiments she expressed have been attributed to other justices such as Scalia as well. You don't want to believe that, which is certainly your prerogative. But since I just disputed your contention, by definition this actually is up for debate.

Not trying to yank your chain. You believe what you believe. But in looking at her entire statement rather than one piece, in looking at other statements she's made on similar subjects, as a white male I'm perfectly fine with it. Had she added that her sister, her hairdresser, and the lady down the street all would be superior to a white male because they were all Latinas, you and I would be in agreement. But that doesn't appear to be what she meant, and its indisputably not what she said.

[TheLongshot]

Right now Republicans ARE THE CORPORATE PARTY which is just as bad as Democrats being the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY

Actually, both parties are the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY right now. They just like to grow the government in different ways.

Just like the Democrats needed to change a few years back, so do the Republicans. Problem is, I don't see that guy who is going to make change for them within the next 8 years. I don't even see an Obama-like figure who I could point to and say that s/he's the future of the party.

Now, I hope in the meantime that the Dems don't screw the pooch. I want to see some real change in the GOP.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Actually, both parties are the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY right now. They just like to grow the government in different ways.

Just like the Democrats needed to change a few years back, so do the Republicans. Problem is, I don't see that guy who is going to make change for them within the next 8 years. I don't even see an Obama-like figure who I could point to and say that s/he's the future of the party.

.

Good point. The Republicans are worse, they are big corporation and big government when it suits there needs

In 2001 though there was no Obama figure in the Democrat party. He was a state senator who had just lost a primary to Bobby Rush 2 years earlier

However, the Republicans have very little hope because of the demographic changes sweeping the country. There simply are not enough voters, and will be fewer voters in the future, who want less government

So why vote for the pretend Democrats when you can get the real thing?

It'll take 50 years for the tide to turn

So the point is, even if Democrats do "screw the pooch" it won't help Republicans at all

Schiff says it best in the youtube clip, even if the economy sucks in 2012, Obama will cruise to re-election by saying "hey without me, it would have been much worse." And the guy who runs in 2016 can say "if Republicans were in charge, it would have been much worse" And thats what he will say in 2020, and in 2024, etc etc.

And Congress? Ha, how many R's are in the northeast? 2 Congressional Republicans from New York state up through New England. OLS

[Baculus]

The fundamental question, IMO, is this.

Do we throw away our values and go after middle-of-the-road dems? (Do this by adding planks to the platform like civil unions, early-term abortions, some sort of amnesty for some illegals.)

Or do we swing HARD right, cater to people like you and I, and hope we can motivate OUR base like we have before, and pray that that will be enough to carry the day?

"...throw away your values"?

It probably depends upon what values. I see a lot of preaching, though, by the Republicans, with little adherence to some of these "values." Family values? So you are going to have Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh, both of whom have been been married multiple times, represent the GOP? Small government? When was the last time a Republican president -- heck, any president -- significantly reduce the size government, at home and Washington? Fiscal spending? The GOP love subsidies and pork as much as the Democrats, if not more (since many GOP states are the largest recipients of federal aid...)

I don't think national defense is a winning issue unto itself unless another terrorist attack happens on the scale of 9-11.

Sure, you can fall back on social or religious issues, but this is the exact problem of the Republican party: They CANNOT alone win on this sort of platform. This is why I said in another thread that conservative wins in Europe are worthy of study because it shows how conservatives can win in a moderate region. But the issue is that the platforms of these European conservatives would be rejected by a lot of right-wingers in the party.

Republicans used to be the part of progressives.: Now they mock progressives and have become the party of reactionaries.

The problem is that the power brokers in the GOP will not tolerate moderation. And this, by itself, will ultimately hurt the party. The US is not a reactionary nation in the 21st century, at least at this point in time. That's what the GOP does not understand -- they are clueless in this regard and still stuck in the 21st century.

Going hard right is not a solution. There simply are not enough "hard right" people in this nation to support that sort of direction. It'll simply marginalize the party and make it into a caricature of itself: a party of religious zealots, nationalists, and rural white populists.

You may as well secede, as some Republicans have suggested, if that is the chosen direction of the Republican party.

[Johnny Punani]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

When Reagan was elected in 1980 the media was saying the samething about the Dems.

Personally, I'm glad the GOP screwed up so badly. When the Dems screw up in the next couple of years (and they will), hopefully people will ditch political parties and the partisan douches they attract.

[Baculus]

Here's our problem: "Opposing Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, because of her pride in being a Latina, won't help solve that problem."

The woman said, paraphrasing, that BECAUSE she is a Latina, that she would come to a better decision than a white male who hasn't had the same life experience.

That statement is racist. Period. It's not up for debate. Want proof? Turn it around so that the double-standard is no longer in play....

Because I am a white male, I would come to a better decision than a Latina, who hasn't had the same life experience.

It truly pisses me off to NO END that one of those statements is flippantly accepted by the media and the masses. The other, they'd have you believe, constitutes some deep and grave injustice. Horsecrap. If one statement is racist, so is the other. If one statement is socially acceptable, so is the other.

The same goes for illegal immigration. They don't paint us as anti ILLEGAL immigration. They paint us as anti-immigrant. Again, horsecrap. I know it's shocking that people who respect things like faith, traditional moral values, and nuclear families would also have respect for things like...ohhh...our laws, but we do. Still, as long as the dishonest dems and the pandering media can paint us as racists, they will.

It's the same deal with gay marriage. Instead of painting us as people of faith who value the traditional family, they have to pull out the lies again. We're homophobic, bigoted and evil. (Forget the fact that THEY forced Ms. California to be stripped of her crown...simply for freely expressing her opinion. REEEEEEEEEAL TOLERANT!!!!)

So to put it simply, we're not going to get a fair shake. The dems will continue blatantly mischaracterizing our positions, and the media will eat it up. Meanwhile, the grassroots groundswell that our party has needed for a LOOOONG time, is already beginning to grow.

Remember the tea parties? Remember what they were really about? Remember how the media portrayed them? And now the Freedom Concerts? They're selling out so quickly that venues are being abandoned for bigger and/or outdoor arenas.

The best way to motivate the republican base is to piss us off. The best way to piss us off is to lie about us incesantly.

In other words, they're playing into our hands.

I hate to say it, but Republicans, at times, reap what they sow. With the tone of their attacks on others, they DO come across as anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and homophobic.

The GOP come across as the party of "mean" BECAUSE that is precisely how they behave at times, especially some of their main leaders.

Do you think calling Sotomayor a racist is going to help your cause? Have you even tried to look at the entire context of her words with falling back to GOP attack points? This is the exact sort of issue to which I was referencing in my last post. Latino voters are going to see this response to Sotomayor, as a bunch of "old white guys" are calling her racist, and think, "I would never, ever vote Republican in my life."

Well, I guess the GOP has already accepted that they will not win that demographic. That's strike one for the party.

[Baculus]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

When Reagan was elected in 1980 the media was saying the samething about the Dems.

Personally, I'm glad the GOP screwed up so badly. When the Dems screw up in the next couple of years (and they will), hopefully people will ditch political parties and the partisan douches they attract.

This isn't 1980.

I agree that a third-party alternative is a good idea, if that's what you are suggesting, but I see few third parties which would win a majority vote. And if the GOP aren't strong enough to win votes for conservatives, then I doubt if a conservative third party would win by itself.

You better hope the Democrats screw up badly (hoping for "failure"), otherwise they win expand their Congressional seat count in 2010.

[Madison Redskin]

The GOP is nowhere near irrelevant, but it's in full retreat. If they think moving farther to the right is the answer, they're just going to further delay their return to power. Motivating the base is good, but bases don't swing elections, the center does.

[Johnny Punani]

This isn't 1980.

I agree that a third-party alternative is a good idea, if that's what you are suggesting, but I see few third parties which would win a majority vote. And if the GOP aren't strong enough to win votes for conservatives, then I doubt if a conservative third party would win by itself.

You better hope the Democrats screw up badly (hoping for "failure"), otherwise they win expand their Congressional seat count in 2010.

I'm not talking about a 3rd party. I'm talking about no parties. However, I know short term that isn't going to happen so I guess a 3rd party would be a move in the right direction with a the next step being a multiparty system and further movement to no political parties.

[Baculus]

I'm not talking about a 3rd party. I'm talking about no parties. However, I know short term that isn't going to happen so I guess a 3rd party would be a move in the right direction with a the next step being a multiparty system and further movement to no political parties.

I seriously do not think a party-less system is possible in the US. People will always form political associations of common interests. Either that, or those without a party will become disenfranchised like many of the non-voting, apathetic citizens. That, or we'll end up having one party rule if a political party exploited a party-less situation.

[BigMike619]

I seriously do not think a party-less system is possible in the US. People will always form political associations of common interests. Either that, or those without a party will become disenfranchised like many of the non-voting, apathetic citizens. That, or we'll end up having one party rule if a political party exploited a party-less situation.

I dont think it can happen either just because passions are so high when discussing things like abortion, gay rights, etc that lines are drawn naturally.