Anonymous wrote:IMO, and I hope I am right, both parties will continue to lag and decline with the numbers of Independents growing.

And then what? Independents can have views ranging from democratic socialism to libertarian. It's not like all Independents vote together.

IMO, and I hope I am right, both parties will continue to lag and decline with the numbers of Independents growing.

GOP needs to stay together in order to have relevance on a national level. We don't have a parliamentary system - divided power can't share power.

They'll continue to wield power locally.

Dems really need to work on an anti-gerrymandering amendment. That and campaign finance are the biggest threats to American democracy.

Anonymous wrote:Well, since 2008 it has always been an uncomfortable marriage united under one "value" - to stop Obama is in his tracks. That has resulted in a couple of issues. One, the GOPers in the party who actually know how to get things done are being mariginalized by the loud Tea Party types who don't know or don't like what Congressional deal-making looks like. Two, they are about to lose that common enemy and the Mods realize that the party has to show that it has done more than roadblock him. Deep down I think some mods hate POTUS but also hate to see him go - because now they realize they do not have that excuse anymore. Three, the extreme right's Con members are more concerned with winning their own elections than they are the GOP winning a national election. That's why you see a lot of them pandering to their bases instead of seeking compromises on the national level. The future of this party will be determined in the next 12-13 months. If the various factions can rally, nominate an electable candidate and win the 2016 election, all will be right in the world. But a LOT of internal deals will have be made for that to happen. If the factions remain divided and lose in 2016 to what I think is an underwhelming Dem field, the party will split.

On another note, Ryan is crazy like a fox. Whether folks can agree on the conditions he attached to the speakership will go a long way is determining whether the party can get and stay on the same page prior to the election.

Can you identify any in the Freedom Caucus that have a concern of losing the general election to a Democrat?

You'll never understand that they represent the people that sent them there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey I'm a Democrat but don't count them out. They have control of most of the Statehouses that gerrymander districts so they still have the most Congressional seats. Wishful thinking OP. Sorry to say they will still be around. Hopefully, they won't win the WH, but they will win a lot of Congressional seats.

But that's not what the OP is getting at as I read it. The question as I read it pertains to the philsophical differences within the party and whether those can be repaired.

All GOPers are NOT the same. There are different factions that are flexing their muscle. Why do think JB is resigning? He cannot get everyone on the same page. THAT is the issue. Not whether they can win seats and such. It is about whether the internal divides can be bridged once the common enemy leaves the WH.

Yes, that is what I was getting at.

I'll add that it seems Republicans can agree on opposing certain legislation, but they don't have similar enough views to propose and pass any legislation together. The conservative right wing is not interested in any compromise or working across the aisle, whereas moderate Republicans know compromise is necessary to legislate. The right wing is holding the party hostage to a certain extent and damaging the reputation of the entire party. I wonder if the moderates will distance themselves once Obama is out of office and there is no common enemy (or if they'll find a new common enemy). Republicans can get power in the House thanks to low voter turnout (especially during midterm elections) and gerrymandering, but they can't work together once they are in Congress, so we see gridlock. The Republican Party may keep winning the House majority, but what good is it if they can't reconcile their differences and accomplish something?

Let's ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...

Anonymous wrote:Hey I'm a Democrat but don't count them out. They have control of most of the Statehouses that gerrymander districts so they still have the most Congressional seats. Wishful thinking OP. Sorry to say they will still be around. Hopefully, they won't win the WH, but they will win a lot of Congressional seats.

But that's not what the OP is getting at as I read it. The question as I read it pertains to the philsophical differences within the party and whether those can be repaired.

All GOPers are NOT the same. There are different factions that are flexing their muscle. Why do think JB is resigning? He cannot get everyone on the same page. THAT is the issue. Not whether they can win seats and such. It is about whether the internal divides can be bridged once the common enemy leaves the WH.

Well, since 2008 it has always been an uncomfortable marriage united under one "value" - to stop Obama is in his tracks. That has resulted in a couple of issues. One, the GOPers in the party who actually know how to get things done are being mariginalized by the loud Tea Party types who don't know or don't like what Congressional deal-making looks like. Two, they are about to lose that common enemy and the Mods realize that the party has to show that it has done more than roadblock him. Deep down I think some mods hate POTUS but also hate to see him go - because now they realize they do not have that excuse anymore. Three, the extreme right's Con members are more concerned with winning their own elections than they are the GOP winning a national election. That's why you see a lot of them pandering to their bases instead of seeking compromises on the national level. The future of this party will be determined in the next 12-13 months. If the various factions can rally, nominate an electable candidate and win the 2016 election, all will be right in the world. But a LOT of internal deals will have be made for that to happen. If the factions remain divided and lose in 2016 to what I think is an underwhelming Dem field, the party will split.

On another note, Ryan is crazy like a fox. Whether folks can agree on the conditions he attached to the speakership will go a long way is determining whether the party can get and stay on the same page prior to the election.

Anonymous wrote:Hey I'm a Democrat but don't count them out. They have control of most of the Statehouses that gerrymander districts so they still have the most Congressional seats. Wishful thinking OP. Sorry to say they will still be around. Hopefully, they won't win the WH, but they will win a lot of Congressional seats.

+1

It never ceases to amaze me when people predict the death knell of the Republican party - and I am a liberal.

When Obama became president the Democrats had an almost filibuster proof majority in the senate, a large majority in the House and I think around 30 of the governorships.

By 2010 they had lost seats in the Senate and lost control of the House and a few gubernatorial races. By 2014, the Democrats lost the Senate pretty decisively and the Republicans have the largest majority in the House that they have had in many decades. To top it off they have something like 31 of the governorships. The only significant office the Republicans don't have is the presidency. If the roles had been reversed would Democrats be saying that the party is doomed?

The standard excuse Democrats use is gerrymandering which is true but that applies mainly to the House.

Hey I'm a Democrat but don't count them out. They have control of most of the Statehouses that gerrymander districts so they still have the most Congressional seats. Wishful thinking OP. Sorry to say they will still be around. Hopefully, they won't win the WH, but they will win a lot of Congressional seats.

Anonymous wrote:The two strains of conservatism have never gotten along that well -- the reactionary national-front types and genuine fiscal free-market conservatives.

In other words, the sane ones need their own party.

+1 on the bolded. I am an independent who would rather be a Republican, but not with the likes of Ted Cruz, etc.

The two strains of conservatism have never gotten along that well -- the reactionary national-front types and genuine fiscal free-market conservatives.

In other words, the sane ones need their own party.

Does not look very good. It very old, out of touch, and corrupt. They are selling a bad product and teh peopel who have bought it are getting pissed off.

With the unfettered immigration we have seen in the Obama administration, the Republican Party is toast. Yes, that was by design.

As we all know, there is a growing divide in the Republican party between right wing conservatives and moderate republicans, as well as establishment and anti-establishment candidates. The party climate is so chaotic that you see Boehner resigning and a reluctance for anyone to take his seat. We have people like Jim Webb attempt to run for President as a Democrat, when his views are more in line with the Republican Party 15 years+ ago. Yet he would be considered too liberal now (read: moderate) to win as a Republican.

How can this party sustain itself? I think it's likely we'll see a breakup of the party, depending on who wins the Presidential nomination. Either the tea party type will break away from the Republicans, or they will take over the party and moderate Republicans will break away and start their own party/start running as Independents.

What do you think will happen to the Republican Party?