Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Politico: Eve Of Destruction (Republicans Have Reasons To Panic)


SkinsHokieFan

Recommended Posts

I would agree that the younger generation are going to be more liberal than their parents or grand parents generations.

 

 

Just the way the numbers are, the Republicans are poised to do good in 2014; though they could easily botch that up with say a shutdown this fall.

 

 

The GOP is weak.  The Tea Party Jihadists have effective control of the party.  The have basically scared the weisel establishments from trying to do anything for fear those candidates will be primaried.  So they will bow to Tea Party Jihadists.

 

The Republican party needs to die because it is full of Tea Party Jihadists who are too far to the right and full of spineless establishment types who only care about getting reelected and nothing more.

 

 

I think Ted Cruz will be the best candidate for the Republicans in the long run.  No, Ted Cruz will not become President. He is the perfect representation of just how crazy the Tea Party wing is.   The right wing will be in orgasmic state with Ted Cruz as the nominee.  They will say, we have a true conservative and our base will now come out.   Victory in 2016, baby.  Of course, reaility will set in on Election Day; when Ted Cruz gets blown out on Election Day.   If a Dems have a female candidate as their nominee; Hillary or some other woman, they will win in a route.  After a blowout loss with a Tea Party candidate as a nominee; only then will Republicans come to their senses and let that wing fade away or splinter off.

 

 

It's too bad the country has to suffer another 3 years of this crap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/18/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever.html 

 

The article I posted shows how hard it will be for GOP to get 270 in 2016.

 

 

When it comes to elections that involved all the voters either nationwide or statewide; the Tea Party/GOP is going to find it hard to win those races except in areas where likeminded voters are in the majority ie Utah, Texas.

 

There only safe haven will be the house at least for the next 7 years.  By 2022, demographics could tilt things back to the democrats.  Those 2018/2020 elections will be crucial because those elections will be electing the people who be making the next round district redrawing after the 2020 census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think Ted Cruz will be the best candidate for the Republicans in the long run.  No, Ted Cruz will not become President. He is the perfect representation of just how crazy the Tea Party wing is.   The right wing will be in orgasmic state with Ted Cruz as the nominee.  They will say, we have a true conservative and our base will now come out.   Victory in 2016, baby.  Of course, reaility will set in on Election Day; when Ted Cruz gets blown out on Election Day.   If a Dems have a female candidate as their nominee; Hillary or some other woman, they will win in a route.  After a blowout loss with a Tea Party candidate as a nominee; only then will Republicans come to their senses and let that wing fade away or splinter off.

 

 

Or they could say they aren't leaning to the right enough. Isn't that what happened in '12?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Reps will probably win the Senate yet are to panic?

Dem strongholds are disaster areas excepting those held afloat by federal dollars....hell ya'll even drug Connecticut down  :P

 

Cruz is crazy like a fox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The referenced article and this thread are a perfect example of why never to read much less believe the MSM.  Here's some data for you thought-challenged leftists:

 

In 2010, Republicans won around 54 percent of state house and senate seats nationally; the number fell slightly in 2012, to 53 percent of
state senate and 52 percent of state house seats.

 

OOOh so the Republican lost one percent off their huge margins in state elections. I guess somehow they must have cheated to take the US House in 2012.   What's Politico's explanation?  Oh right Gerrymandering (if it's true - which it is not - there's that pesky Republican control of state governments again).  The loss of the US Senate was a self-inflicted head wound. 

 

National elections where leftists are successful are driven by huge money and cults of personalities - see Clinton and Obama and not so much Kerry, Gore or Dukakis. 

 

In addition bifurcating the electorate by playing to the lowest common denominator is also a winning leftist strategy.  Don't believe it?  In 2012 Obama won the vote of those making under $30K by about 9M votes and won overall by about 3.5M votes.  So Romney won the vote of those making over $30K by 5.5M votes. 

 

So definitely the Republicans have one foot in the grave. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: :lol:  :lol: . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The referenced article and this thread are a perfect example of why never to read much less believe the MSM.  Here's some data for you thought-challenged leftists:

 

In 2010, Republicans won around 54 percent of state house and senate seats nationally; the number fell slightly in 2012, to 53 percent of

state senate and 52 percent of state house seats.

 

OOOh so the Republican lost one percent off their huge margins in state elections. I guess somehow they must have cheated to take the US House in 2012.   What's Politico's explanation?  Oh right Gerrymandering (if it's true - which it is not - there's that pesky Republican control of state governments again).  The loss of the US Senate was a self-inflicted head wound. 

 

National elections where leftists are successful are driven by huge money and cults of personalities - see Clinton and Obama and not so much Kerry, Gore or Dukakis. 

 

In addition bifurcating the electorate by playing to the lowest common denominator is also a winning leftist strategy.  Don't believe it?  In 2012 Obama won the vote of those making under $30K by about 9M votes and won overall by about 3.5M votes.  So Romney won the vote of those making over $30K by 5.5M votes. 

 

So definitely the Republicans have one foot in the grave. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: :lol:  :lol: . 

 

1.  I think there is a good chance that the Republicans win the next Presidential election (mostly because I don't think that the Democrats are very competent at winning elections).

 

2.  You seem to suggest that the Democrats are bifurcating the electorate based on income.  Why isn't it the Republicans that are doing it? (and just looking shows that Obama won 57% of the vote for people making between $30-49,999.  If that's personal income and not family income, that's a lot of people and Romney only won the $50,000-100,000 by 53%.  I wonder what happens if you look at $50-$75,000).

 

3.  Looking at state races tells you very little about national elections, and I don't think long term a political party can really survive based on winning state races.  I live in NJ and vote Republican in state and local races regularly.  I don't think that anybody I've voted for (including Christie) can be President running a similar platform as he has in NJ (you'll end up with a Romney where he has to run from many of his previous positions).  And I don't think the guy I'm voting for for the state legislature could win a federal Senate seat even from NJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all, it's been a while since I chimed in on threads like this. A couple of observations:

 

1. I'm probably fooling myself, but it seems obvious to me that a middle of the road candidate who isn't afraid to spout strong, but moderate, opinions could gain a ton of electoral traction. The question is whether that candidate could get nominated by either party.

 

2. Hillary will be tough to beat. Christie might be the only guy who can do it (reference #1).

 

3. Articles like this which draw macro-conclusions (e.g., Republicans are doomed) have a fatal flaw. They ignore the realities of a two-party system. There are just too many moving parts to draw such broad conclusions. Big "micro" issues like ObamaCare, Egypt, food stamps, deficits, unemployment, etc. can sway elections in big ways. I'm not saying they necessarily will. Big name recognition like Hillary's can also sway things. The point is that people who draw huge conclusions based on only part of the picture open themselves up to being completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central premise (for both parties) that they have to "win back" voters (of certain segments) is wrong. Just in this example, what can the Republicans say that can "win over" someone who is gay or someone who is Hispanic? Will they just forget about the decades of being ostracized by that party because a candidate says something.

 

It takes years or big huge legislative advances for people to change their opinion. Even if the GOP house put forth a bill federally recognizing gay marriage, I don't think it would put them over the hump at this point. A move like that, as big as it would be, would just be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central premise (for both parties) that they have to "win back" voters (of certain segments) is wrong. Just in this example, what can the Republicans say that can "win over" someone who is gay or someone who is Hispanic? Will they just forget about the decades of being ostracized by that party because a candidate says something.

 

It takes years or big huge legislative advances for people to change their opinion. Even if the GOP house put forth a bill federally recognizing gay marriage, I don't think it would put them over the hump at this point. A move like that, as big as it would be, would just be a start.

 

True, "winning back" demographics who you've spent decades demonizing, (in some cases, outright legislating discrimination against), is tough. 

 

They could, however, at least stop doing it.  That sure wouldn't hurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central premise (for both parties) that they have to "win back" voters (of certain segments) is wrong. Just in this example, what can the Republicans say that can "win over" someone who is gay or someone who is Hispanic? Will they just forget about the decades of being ostracized by that party because a candidate says something.

 

It takes years or big huge legislative advances for people to change their opinion. Even if the GOP house put forth a bill federally recognizing gay marriage, I don't think it would put them over the hump at this point. A move like that, as big as it would be, would just be a start.

 

One could argue that a guy like Christie or Guiliani could gain traction easier than a guy like Cruz based on their history governing. The issue, of course, is getting those guys nominated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could argue that a guy like Christie or Guiliani could gain traction easier than a guy like Cruz based on their history governing. The issue, of course, is getting those guys nominated.

Huntsman had the best record of governance of anyone running in the last presidential election, as well as extensive foreign policy experience. Romney had the worst record of governance of anyone I can remember running....truly disheartening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huntsman had the best record of governance of anyone running in the last presidential election, as well as extensive foreign policy experience. Romney had the worst record of governance of anyone I can remember running....truly disheartening.

 

It's really hard to rally support when you don't speak with conviction. I wanted to give Huntsman a chance, but he simply didn't perform in public debates.

 

I don't know what % of people disengage between elections, but I'm guessing it's still pretty high. He didnt' give those people anything to latch onto. Throw in the fact that he was poorly organized and lacked funding, and you have the trifecta for a failed candidacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could argue that a guy like Christie or Guiliani could gain traction easier than a guy like Cruz based on their history governing. The issue, of course, is getting those guys nominated.

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/19/20090350-christie-signs-nj-bill-banning-conversion-therapy?lite=

 

I think he's trying, but will have to play it very cagey for the reasons you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central premise (for both parties) that they have to "win back" voters (of certain segments) is wrong. Just in this example, what can the Republicans say that can "win over" someone who is gay or someone who is Hispanic? Will they just forget about the decades of being ostracized by that party because a candidate says something.

 

It takes years or big huge legislative advances for people to change their opinion. Even if the GOP house put forth a bill federally recognizing gay marriage, I don't think it would put them over the hump at this point. A move like that, as big as it would be, would just be a start.

 

Good point. As far as Hispanics.....and they NEED to win that demographic nationally starting ASAP or it won't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the GOP birthers even allow Cruz to be nominated? Unlike Obama, Cruz was actually born in a foreign country (Canada) and unlike McCain, he wasn't born on a US base/territory. 

 

There really aren't very many actual hard core GOP birthers.  The GOP base is perfectly willing to parrot anything cheap and bad that they think might hurt Obama and paint him as an "other," but they haven't actually examined the birther issue.  They will stop saying anything about birth as soon as it isn't useful.  

 

The couple of hundred true birthers will continue to complain and will remain marginalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really aren't very actual hard core GOP birthers.  The GOP base is perfectly willing to parrot anything cheap and bad that they think might hurt Obama and paint him as an "other," but they haven't actually examined the birther issue.  They will stop saying anything about birth as soon as it isn't useful.  

 

The couple of hundred true birthers will continue to complain and will remain marginalized.

 

And you don't expect the non-GOPers to call them on that? Repeatedly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...