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.
+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.
Anonymous wrote:The GOP is fine as a presidential contender. So no danger of a fascistic right wing nut being elected. Potential danger of a left wing Chavez-like person being elected within the next 20 years, though. The center is gone, folks.
Anonymous wrote:The GOP is fine as a presidential contender. So no danger of a fascistic right wing nut being elected. Potential danger of a left wing Chavez-like person being elected within the next 20 years, though. The center is gone, folks.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:[/b]But the social agenda is where the "useful idiots" come into play. These are the people who are motivated to come out and vote against their own economic interests.[b]
No one votes specifically because they Big Corporate Inc. or war. Those are GOP Establishment elite priorities. In fact, most GOP voters are against any future war with Iran (or even isolationist) and most believe that corporations already have too much influence at the expense of labor and small businesses.
Anonymous wrote:The party has a war to win. The war is to jettison the social agenda and return to a party of limited government. The convenient overlap between social conservatism, limited government, and interventionist foreign policy has ended. Of the three, the social conservatism is the one which loses them the most long term voters.