mjah Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I hope you're joking, BornASkinsFan83. People have notoriously short memories. How else would you explain the baffling resurgency of these ridiculous things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caps_skins Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Om, exactly my opinion. Everything moves in cycles. Which is a good thing, as both parties have good (and bad) to bring to the table. None of them will vanish. (Maybe replaced, although unlikely, but with a similar constellation.) The minute that there isn't political controversy or debate, that's when I'm worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Shoot the messenger because he may or may not be a -gasp- liberal. Don't debate the points of what he says. Shouldn't this strategy be part of why the Regressive Party will collapse? Fine. Now lets talk about the real demise happening to the liberals TODAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by BornASkinsFan83 Bush winning the election is the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party. How you ask? Well after four more years of Bush, no one is going to vote republican ever again. Yeah, they said that in 2000 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Republicans have many more children to than Democrats (historically), they also tend to keep those families together more(I heard this somewhere, but can't proove it), and they raise those children in more conservative (family values thing) ways that result in more future republicans. If anything, the Dems will run out of folks long before the republicans!!! Seriously though, The cycles of political power and even agendas changes so regularly that you can't even compare today's republican to republicans decades from now. It is more liberal/conservative comparisons than party affiliations imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Yeah, they said that in 2000 too. The Democratic Party is stupid. There is no way they should have lost the election. But almost every step they made was stupid, especially making Kerry their candidate. But I think they will learn from their mistakes. Imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket. You think that's going to lose to Gingrich or another Bush? No. The only way I could see the Republicans taking it again in 2008 is if McCain runs. If that happens I might even vote Republican. But McCain isn't getting any younger so, in my mind at least, its doubtful he will run in 08. Also, as more and more people go to Iraq more and more civilians are going to be affected by the war and nothing good is going to come out of that for the Republicans. It's my opinion. If you don't like it God Bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 You are absolutely delusional if you think Hillary Clinton can win a National Election. The Dems have a chance if they choose Mark Warner. But if they go left again (Hillary, Edwards, Kerry again, Dean) they'll lose again. It wont matter who the GOP throws on the ticket. But the Dems should fear Jeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bucaro Dave, if you think Global Warming is a scare tactic you might need to go back to school. It may be used as such in this case but to deny its imminent threat is a bit myopic Read State of Fear, it's fiction but has an interesting premise that the hard left is screetching about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Yeah, they said that in 2000 too. Actually what "they" said was that, if Bush won in 2000, then the Dems were guaranteed to win in '04. Yet more proof: Bush didn't win the election in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Larry Actually what "they" said was that, if Bush won in 2000, then the Dems were guaranteed to win in '04. Yet more proof: Bush didn't win the election in 2000. I still think you're cool, Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 A third party will happen when the following happens. A social Liberal with Hawkish foreign policy views and a conservative fiscal plan tells both parties he's on his own. Perot set the 3rd party movement back a few steps. Any decent candidate would have created a real 3rd party. But that nutjob scared the hell out of everyone. Guiliani is the closest guy out there right now. Lieberman is close, but a bit too liberal on issues outside of the Social realm. Arnold would fit the bill to a T. But a National 3rd party will have to start at the top. Local 3rd party candidates are a whole different matter. but to create a 3rd party you would need enough people from both parties to say: " I dont care if this kills my party for 8 years, it's the right thing to do". Wont happen. If one of the parties crashes because of a major scandal or it goes way too the extreme of it's side, then maybe it happens; the odds are pretty slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 You are absolutely delusional if you think Hillary Clinton can win a National Election. The Dems have a chance if they choose Mark Warner. But if they go left again (Hillary, Edwards, Kerry again, Dean) they'll lose again. It wont matter who the GOP throws on the ticket. But the Dems should fear Jeb. Warner is being groomed for 08. Jeb will not run; he's not as conservative as his brother and, unfortunatly, his wife will turn off a lot of the extreme right. And those nasty rumors that he was banging his secretary wont help. If I was going to rank them in probability for 08... Dems: 1. Mark Warner 2. Even Bayh 3. Bill Nelson 3a. Roy Barnes(if he wins back the Georgia governorship) Reps: 1. Bill Frist 2. Haley Barbour 3. Mark Sanford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Republicans have many more children to than Democrats (historically), they also tend to keep those families together more(I heard this somewhere, but can't proove it), and they raise those children in more conservative (family values thing) ways that result in more future republicans. If anything, the Dems will run out of folks long before the republicans!!! Wow, that explains why the Democrats held the House for 60 years. That only works if children follow what they're parents teach them....... LOLOLOLOLL There was a study done in the 1960s using Demographics and they reached the conclusion that the GOP would win more than the Dems from 1972-2006 because of the aging of the Baby Boomer. Some people updated the study and they reached the conclusion that the Dems will have this advantage from 2008-2030, because of the dying off of the Baby Boomers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Not a chance any of those GOPers win the primary. I might be convinced to vote for Mark Warner if the GOP does something stupid like nominate Frist. My money is on Jeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Akhhorus Wow, that explains why the Democrats held the House for 60 years. That only works if children follow what they're parents teach them....... LOLOLOLOLL There was a study done in the 1960s using Demographics and they reached the conclusion that the GOP would win more than the Dems from 1972-2006 because of the aging of the Baby Boomer. Some people updated the study and they reached the conclusion that the Dems will have this advantage from 2008-2030, because of the dying off of the Baby Boomers. Ummm, you selectively left out the remainder of my post that started with the phrase... "but seriously" Maybe the context would then be interpreted the right way. In other words, IT WAS A JOKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 A third party will never work here because in an election were both candidates were not liked a third party was no where to be found to pick up the pieces. The Dems and Rebs are find and will always be fine. They have the power and won't let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhhorus Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Not a chance any of those GOPers win the primary. I might be convinced to vote for Mark Warner if the GOP does something stupid like nominate Frist. My money is on Jeb. Frist willl have Rove working for him. With one of Rove's ex-aides now running the GOP, whomever Rove goes to has the inside track. Jeb will be out of a job after 06, granted Warner will too, but the Dems are moving Warner to head the DLC soon. Jeb needs a prominent national post. He was thinking of challenging Bill Nelson for his Senate Seat, but thats not a bright idea. Nelson is really popular. Thats the moderate wing of the Dem party. The problem the GOP has is that BUsh could have asked Cheney to step aside and replace him with the heir apparent, but since Cheney is there, there is no heir apparent. Is Jeb out, no; but it's more likely not than likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I don't see the Republican party just fading away. For one reason, they are much more solidified than the Democratic Party which is made up of many different factions. I do see some of the smarter Republicans becoming Libertarians, but I don't seen any giant schisms any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Akhhorus Warner is being groomed for 08. Warner is being groomed? I don't remember seeing Warner being sent halfway around the world for a taxpayer-funded photo op, I mean, fact-finding mission, so he could milk somebody else's tragedy for "foreign policy experience", I mean, advise people who'd been doing disaster relief for a week on how they should be doing things. Not that I think there was something crass like politics involved, or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 You all are forgetting George Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I never liked George Allen (although he did at least 'create' The Rivalry). I'd rather vote for Joe Gibbs. (But only if he can keep his current job, too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Jeb would annihilate Bill Nelson if he wanted to run. His ratings are so far ahead it wouldnt be close. Kathernine Harris will run against Nelson, and my bet is she'll lose. But it will be pretty close. I wasnt aware of the Rove connection with Frist. I simply assumed that he'd stay with the first family. George Allen is intriguing, but I think he'll be shooting for 2nd chair this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Conerning the article, it has always been my opinion that you cannot have a party that is either to far right or to far left. That party will eventually fail. If the Republicans continue to drift right they will eventually lose their hold on Congress and the Presidency. This will take time, however. Concerning what the author points out, I disagree with some of the points the author makes. He should have titled the article "What I dont' like about what the Republicans are doing". The Republicans will not be hurt by many of the items the author pointed out. However, I do agree with many of the points he makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.