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

[Larry]

Supposedly, the GOP may have its eyes set on one of the firefighters involved in the case decided by Sotomayor regarding race discrimination. If the GOP looks to try to make him some sort of poster child, they're in deeper trouble than I thought.

Hey, at least he's probably a licensed firefighter who's legally allowed to fight fires in the place where he claims he's a firefighter.

Although I do observe that maybe what the GOP should be looking for isn't photogenic people who are willing to be sock puppets for people who the GOP is afraid to reveal.

[hkHog]

The republican party is dead because they are not true conservatives. It is time for a new party.

[Jumbo]

The Democrats had no Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Hannitys encouraging their respective mouthbreather wing to further marginalize themselves

That part is a pretty good line.

I think the democrats "have them" (i.e. olberman, mathews, maybe franken--who I am still a fan of comedy-wise though few, if any, on this fourm seem to agree), it's just that their brand of stupid nonsense doesn't seem to be the popular choice ratings-wise.

I have been rather sorry to see, whether on this forum or the national scene, "conservatism" steadily become the new "retard."

[SkinsHokieFan]

It's not chance at all. The country jumps back and forth when one party fails..... Hoover fails we get FDR, Truman...

If Obama screws up like Carter did, the GOP will be back in 2014. It's very very unlikely the GOP will be out of power for 50 years..... If Hoover only took them out of power for 20 years, I'd say Bush is at best only good for 30 years, and that's only if the Democrats are competent.

Other than the other party screwing up, the other best way for the out of office party to break into office is to elect a war hero, as the Republicans did with U.S. Grant, and D.D. Eisenhower.

Here is a big factor that people don't think about

The internet

20 years after Hoover, nobody really had recollections of him because of the technology of the time

30 years from now, you will still be able to see Bush/Katrina/Economic collapse/war meshed together in some slick youtube (or whatever tube) video spread via social networks on the internet

And, as has been proven since the Dan Rather incident in 2004, the left is MUCH better at the internet then right is.

The right uses twitter, but while using it do dumb stuff like announce they are about to flip the VA Senate

The left has slick stuff like Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo and a far more sophisticated internet machine.

So I disagree that Bush is only good for the Dems for 30 years, he is good for the Dems until the voters of this era all die off and people realize again what a failure big government is

It took 40+ years last time (1932 until 1980) for people to start to turn their backs on government.

I suspect it'll take just as long this time. And until then, Republicans will remain irrelevant

[SkinsHokieFan]

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.

Disagree.

The GOP is as irrelevant as you can possibly be. Once Franken is seated, there will be nothing the national GOP can do to 1) stop the President's agenda and 2) change or direct the national dialouge

All the GOP can do, for the foreseeable future is react, and hope to somehow stop 10 percent of the President's agenda, at best.

Other then that, I can't remember a party as irrelevant as today's GOP is (both on the national level and in many states) as today's GOP is

[HailGreen28]

Disagree.

The GOP is as irrelevant as you can possibly be. Once Franken is seated, there will be nothing the national GOP can do to 1) stop the President's agenda and 2) change or direct the national dialouge

All the GOP can do, for the foreseeable future is react, and hope to somehow stop 10 percent of the President's agenda, at best.

Other then that, I can't remember a party as irrelevant as today's GOP is (both on the national level and in many states) as today's GOP is

Try the democrats a few years ago.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Try the democrats a few years ago.

The Democrats controlled the Senate from Memorial Day 2001 until the 2002 midterms.

From 2002 until 2004, the GOP only had a 4 seat majority in the Senate, and thusly the Democrats could fillibuster (why they chose not to is beyond me, on many issues)

In 2004, again the GOP only had 55 Senators and any political capital President Bush had coming out of the 2004 election was gone with the Terry Schiavo affair and Katrina. From Katrina on, he was on the defensive

The Dems will have 60 Senators when Franken is seated and a President polling in the 60s.

[Box76]

This article will be worthless a year from now when the demoncrats are ousted from congress. They have caused more damage and spent more tax payer money in 6 months then Bush did in 8 years. What the hell kind of leadership passes bills they dont read? To top it off our pretender in chief is apologizing to the world for America's sins instead of praising the good and peace our nation has brought at the expense of American lives. We dont need a world leader we need an american president.

The gov't is trying to control health care, the banking industry, the car industry, passing massive amounts of regulation to stifle small business and unfairly taxing goods without representation--see tobacco and the re- invention of the communist CZAR. All of this in 6 frickin months under our new socialist dictatorship. This seems more like a take over than a republic.

Somebody wake me when a christian, who pretends to be muslim, gets elected over a muslim country only to back track and pronounce his christianity once elected. Lies, lies and more lies made believable by your neighborhood friendly press.

[SkinsHokieFan]

This article will be worthless a year from now when the demoncrats are ousted from congress. They have caused more damage and spent more tax payer money in 6 months then Bush did in 8 years. What the hell kind of leadership passes bills they dont read? To top it off our pretender in chief is apologizing to the world for America's sins instead of praising the good and peace our nation has brought at the expense of American lives. We dont need a world leader we need an american president.

The gov't is trying to control health care, the banking industry, the car industry, passing massive amounts of regulation to stifle small business and unfairly taxing goods without representation--see tobacco and the re- invention of the communist CZAR. All of this in 6 frickin months under our new socialist dictatorship. This seems more like a take over than a republic.

Somebody wake me when a christian, who pretends to be muslim, gets elected over a muslim country only to back track and pronounce his christianity once elected. Lies, lies and more lies made believable by your neighborhood friendly press.

Thank you for making my points reality

[Jumbo]

Thank you for making my points reality

:hysterical:

I had one too, playing off my having-a-little-fun remark in my previous post, but you beat me. :cool2:

[Larry]

Disagree.

The GOP is as irrelevant as you can possibly be. Once Franken is seated, there will be nothing the national GOP can do to 1) stop the President's agenda and 2) change or direct the national dialouge

All the GOP can do, for the foreseeable future is react, and hope to somehow stop 10 percent of the President's agenda, at best.

Other then that, I can't remember a party as irrelevant as today's GOP is (both on the national level and in many states) as today's GOP is

Not really responding to SHF, but to all of the folks saying the GOP is completely irrelevent.

Really?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I dunno...I don't think you can determine the population's overall political leanings merely by presidential elections. I tend to chalk up the voting trends since 1992 as being more about the quality of candidate moreso than which way the populace is leaning politically. Not to mention that the Dems LOST congress for the first time in like 40 years under a Democratic president...And kept it until 2 years ago. And the Dem-controlled Congress was getting horrendous approval ratings during their first two years back in power from the same populace which is supposedly now leaning more in their direction...hardly points to the masses abandoning the opposite political philosophy, imo.

George Bush I and Dole as candidates vs. Bill Clinton? Bush Sr. won on the coattails of Regan, and Dole, while competent enough, had all the charisma of a coat hanger compared to Clinton. The better candidate won out both times moreso than a political belief system.

Al Gore and John Kerry vs. Dubya? Al Gore was (unfortunately for him lol) riding the coattails of the Clinton administration. Plus, he came across as an automaton. When he tried to inject some "human" into his candidacy, he came off as arrogant. Kerry? Please lol...forget about the person or the politican, as a candidate he was dull, with a dull face and dull vocal delivery. He stepped on stupid "landmines" left and right as well during debates. Compare both to the more "folksy", likeable Bush Jr...most people forgave his mispronounciations (and just wrong word usage lol) because they've done the same things themselves. Not to mention the reluctance to change leadership in the middle of a war that was still in doubt. The better candidate won more so than a shift in political leanings.

McCain vs. Barack Obama? We really have to go there? lol...McCain, as a candidate, came off as a crotchety old man too many times. Compare that to the ridiculously cool composure of Obama (regardless of whether or not it came from something innate or from a great teleprompter reading ability lol)...as well as he came off as likeable as well (and as smarter than the likeable Bush, which only helped). And with the economic fiasco the country was in, would it surprise ANYONE that a "change" would be demanded from the population at the leadership level? Throw in the whole Sarah Palin pick, and it's obvious the better candidate won out moreso than the country continuing on some 16 year shift in political philosophy.

No idea who originally said it, but I know Limbaugh has echoed the saying in the past that the U.S. population tends to pick the leader that is needed at that moment in time...which would seem to indicate that if we as a people think that in 2012 the Republican candidate best fits what we collectively (and maybe subconsciously) feel is needed at that moment in time, we'll elect him (or her). If that's the case, the "trends" being predicted won't match the realities. Same thing if we determine that the Democratic candidate best fits what we collectively feel is needed (as we believed in this past election).

[Smoot Point Really]

Democrats assume the popularity that Barack Obama enjoys for the moment transfers directly to them, but I haven't seen the poll numbers that support that claim. Has anyone else? When most of the key issues of the day are turning toward the GOP (as of the latest Rasmussen polling), you'd think "wishful-thinking" stories like this would dwindle for now. BTW, most "latinas" are social conservatives, not ivy-league liberals (like Judge Sotomayor). IMO, she thinks mostly like the old white male she is replacing.

[Box76]

Thank you for making my points reality

This 'reality' will be the MAIN reason the GOP becomes relevant again. The demoncrats have too much power now and are abusing it. To balance things a Republican controlled Congress is needed.

[mjah]

mjah man, I said it before and I'll say it again. You can't make statements like that and still keep that sig of yours.

Joke noted.

For the record, two comments:

1) I made a point if using the word "respective," clearly indicating that both sides have their media muppets and mouthbreathers; and

2) Timeframe. In the early 1980s era I was talking about, there truly was no Limbaugh equivalent with 20 million weekly listeners. Neither political party had one. I may be wrong, but the last politically oriented radio host I know of who regularly commanded Limbaugh's audience for years (actually larger than Limbaugh's, in fact) was Father Coughlin. And that was in the 1930s.

So I'll lose no sleep over the sig's accuracy. And as Larry pointed out, these days the biggest bottom-line difference between the sides is simply the sizes of their respective audiences.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Not really responding to SHF, but to all of the folks saying the GOP is completely irrelevent.

Really?

I never said the NRA or various interest groups are not irrelevant

The GOP as a party is

Notice how many Dems came out against any effort for a new AWB

[btfoom]

It is funny how some of you wish the GOP is/will be irrevelant. That is just the type of politics that is used by one side to attempt to marginalize the other side.

The reality is that the majority of the US are fairly mainstream and don't like when either side, Conservative or Liberal, swing too far to one side.

There was a time when the GOP had the President and congress (and there were NO articles in 'noted' papers proclaiming that the Dems were irrevelant). They didn't impress the majority of voters, and got kicked out. I believe that in 2010 the GOP will take back many seats and set the stage for a very difficuly re-election for Obama (I think he'll be a one term President).

The WP is a very left-wing paper (and is suffering due in large part to this) and I'm not surprised that they wrote an article like this.

[hkHog]

Everyone was saying this about the Democrat party 4-5 years ago. The Republican party is set for a major comeback in 2010.

[jpyaks3]

Everyone was saying this about the Democrat party 4-5 years ago. The Republican party is set for a major comeback in 2010.

Based on what exactly? I see no trends that support the Republican party having a resurgence in 2010. Eventually the GOP will rebound but I don't see any way with the current demographic trends that it will happen in 2010.

[luckydevil]

double post

[luckydevil]

Everyone was saying this about the Democrat party 4-5 years ago. The Republican party is set for a major comeback in 2010.

Based on what? The party is going to lose even more seats in 10 and the demographics of this country are working against the party. Something has to change real soon. The collapse of the party can not be understated enough, the party is losing voters of pretty much every demographic of this country ( from rural to educated, white, hispanic, you name it).

[Oldskool]

Based on what? The party is going to lose even more seats in 10 and the demographics of this country are working against the party. Something has to change real soon. The collapse of the party can not be understated enough, the party is losing voters of pretty much every demographic of this country ( from rural to educated, white, hispanic, you name it).

Because things like this are cyclical. Just because you want the party to go the way of the dinosaur, doesn't mean that it will.

The major challenge that it will face (and the basis of why the WP writer thinks that the majority will fade) is that the party needs to be more inclusive to minorities, and shake the tag that the liberals have very cleverly placed and manipulated that the party is anti-immigration.

The wave of immigrants from south of the border that are going to "kill the majority" are an interesting conundrum for both parties; they usually are quite socially conservative and catholic but are used to and as most immigrants are when they come to the US, latch(ing) onto the federal government for assistance and prefer a larger government versus a smaller, streamlined do-things-for-yourself type.

[luckydevil]

Because things like this are cyclical. Just because you want the party to go the way of the dinosaur, doesn't mean that it will.

The major challenge that it will face (and the basis of why the WP writer thinks that the majority will fade) is that the party needs to be more inclusive to minorities, and shake the tag that the liberals have very cleverly placed and manipulated that the party is anti-immigration.

The wave of immigrants from south of the border that are going to "kill the majority" are an interesting conundrum for both parties; they usually are quite socially conservative and catholic but are used to and as most immigrants are when they come to the US, latch(ing) onto the federal government for assistance and prefer a larger government versus a smaller, streamlined do-things-for-yourself type.

The party may not fade away, but being a minority party for decades is very possible.

The party isn't anti-immigration, actually it was one the few issues Bush was good on, however the base is. I don't really see it as a conundrum for the democratic party as long as the republican base/conservatives continues to demonize immigrants.

[Oldskool]

The party may not fade away, but being a minority party for decades is very possible.

Highly speculative, but let's move on.

The party isn't anti-immigration, actually it was one the few issues Bush was good on, however the base is. I don't really see it as a conundrum for the democratic party as long as the republican base/conservatives continues to demonize immigrants.

That's really the crux of the problem both in misconception, propaganda and policy.

The Dems do a very good job of spinning the anti-illegal immigration sentiment that republicans have and turned it into "the base hates immigrants". I personally either associate with or are part of the two biggest conservative, immigrant populations that vote solidly republican, and never had or seen any resentment or demonetization.

Again, once the party finally gets it though their head that the more inclusive they are and are able to get past the misconceptions that minorities have about the party, the better off they will be.

[Seabee1973]

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

Ive always thought the democrats were big government and big corporate party. This admin is proving it to be true