Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope the Democrats win veto proof majorities in the House and Senate along with the Presidency. One result would be the RWNJ posts on this forum would be even more bizarre.
I remember the 80s when the Democrats held congress.
...
It's possible the Pubs could win in 2016. That's a long way off in politics. Right now, they keep showing a tendency to go on life support, though.
Oops, brain fart there. I was thinking of the articles I read during Bush the Younger's reign (B. Clinton was still in disgrace, Dems lost the house for the first time in decades, and had long lost the Senate) and somehow I mentally crossed that with Bush the Elder and his mentor. This is about the time the Dems conducted their own rebranding campaign ("liberal" was changed to "progressive", etc.). But anyway, the articles in the late 90's and early 2000's declaring the death of the Democrats were just as wrong as the articles and talking heads saying the same about the Republicans now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
In the last election they lost the presidential race with high unemployment and the economy inconsistently performing. The GOP presented an incoherent, unenthusiastic, and internally divided campaign that made unforced errors.
We agree on this issue. Again, my contention is that Obama didn't win, what happened is that Romney lost. I've voted Republican nationally every time I've voted, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Romney/Ryan. And it's not because he was too socially liberal/moderate; that's actually one of the things I liked about him in the primary, and why I never thought he'd make it to the general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
Their response to these results wasn't to reexamine their belief. Instead they are trying to repackage and resell the same discredited ideas.
Not exactly. The establishment managed to keep Palin out of the 2012 race, and Bachman is out starting next year. The more moderate republicans are slowly starting to regain their voice as the Tea-Publicans start to lose the spotlight. More and more normal people are waking up to the fact that ultra-conservative wing doesn't really represent them. The extremists aren't going quietly by any means, but they are going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
You forgot Christie in here, who IMO probably has much better chances of getting independents than the others you mentioned. I'm a democrat, and even I respect Christie (not all his ideas of course, but the man himself). IMO the biggest problem the republican party has is shaking the religious conservatives off their legs. Most Americans are socially liberal and actually believe in science, yet IMO some of the republicans want to go back 100 years on social issues and science. I don't think Christie would cater to the fringes as much as the others.
No, I didn't forget Christie, just didn't mention him. And lots of people said that Romney was too liberal to get the nomination, and look what happened there. At this point, looking only at the major players, the only R ticket I'd have no hesitation whatsoever in voting for is a Christie/Rice (or Rice/Christie) ticket. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for the other possible R contenders, but I have major problems with most of them. Actually, Christie's gun-control history is a problem with me, but maybe that's just a way to get elected in New Jersey. I like most everything else about him.
Highly unlikely. Virtually impossible. But the GOP will, I suggest, have control of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate by the end of that election cycle.
virtually impossible? I am amazed when I see someone say that with nothing to back it up. Right now, the field on both sides seems to be pretty wide open, we have a lot to work on, in the next 3 years and there isn't a person that is close to being a shoe in. Why do you think it is virtually impossible? I think someone is talking more from their heart than their head?
Whomever wins in 2016 will be a one-term president.
Four two-term presidents in a row? I don't think so.
It's an interesting thing to ponder.
If the voting patterns of the late 20th century still hold true in 2016, you could be correct, Evan.
But 2016 will be the election where the Gen X and those who followed them will be a real wild card. This is a new century, and Gen X voters are just now reaching the age when formerly non-committed voters become committed, and the Millennials have already shown greater commitment than their older brothers and sisters.
I'm not at all sure how much old 20th century history will remain in 2016. Counting the 200 election, 2016 will be the 5th Presidential election of the 21st century, and the concerns that are important to the Baby Boomers are not shared by these kids. I would be sure about anything for the next couple of Presidential elections.
A Democrat will win in 2016. Any Republican who has a shot at winning would either not make it through the primaries or have to shift too far to the right in order to do it and lose the Independent vote in the general election. I just don't see how its possible.
It's an interesting thing to ponder.
If the voting patterns of the late 20th century still hold true in 2016, you could be correct, Evan.
But 2016 will be the election where the Gen X and those who followed them will be a real wild card. This is a new century, and Gen X voters are just now reaching the age when formerly non-committed voters become committed, and the Millennials have already shown greater commitment than their older brothers and sisters.
I'm not at all sure how much old 20th century history will remain in 2016. Counting the 200 election, 2016 will be the 5th Presidential election of the 21st century, and the concerns that are important to the Baby Boomers are not shared by these kids. I would be sure about anything for the next couple of Presidential elections.
Millennials are the biggest problem for the Republican party. They are overwhelmingly liberal and probably always will be and they will soon represent the largest cohort of voters. They will vote for the 'social justice' party which happens to be the Democrats.
Millennials are the biggest problem for the Republican party. They are overwhelmingly liberal and probably always will be and they will soon represent the largest cohort of voters. They will vote for the 'social justice' party which happens to be the Democrats.
Them along with the growing Latino voters of all age, who vote 70%+ for the left as well. The Republicans, if they are to survive, have got to get ahold of the Teabagger crazies, and find a way to move back towards the center. Of course on a personal level I hope they don't, the ride is quite amusing the way it is going.
A Democrat will win in 2016. Any Republican who has a shot at winning would either not make it through the primaries or have to shift too far to the right in order to do it and lose the Independent vote in the general election. I just don't see how its possible.
^ This.
I'm left leaning for sure but I'm not virulently opposed to Republicans. Nor do I envision myself as someone who could never, ever vote for one - although they're making it easier and easier for me not to vote for them. I'm also in my early thirties and I make up part of a large demographic of people who voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last few elections.
The problem with the Republican Party is that they are extremely out of touch with social issues. They are hotly embedded with invoking religion to a ridiculous degree in their politics. Most of the candidates come across as rigid, zero fun men who act more like that strict uncle or zero personality teacher we always hated rather than someone we can connect with. Their views on sex, women and science are abysmal as well and they just can't connect with the young vote or the minority vote. It's almost like they try to go out of their way to appeal ONLY to middle-aged white folks with a median income over $100k/year. That just won't win a national election no matter how hard you try.
The one guy who stands a shot at winning the election for the Republicans is Chris Christie. He's the one guy who can come across to the younger generation who will actually envision their Commander-in-Chief as Tony Soprano. And, hey, who wouldn't want Tony Soprano running the country, right?
But, his party will force him to either turn into some sort of born-again religious zealot who hates gay people and poor minorities or they won't nominate him. They'll nominate another self-centered blowhard who preaches minimal government but wants maximum regulation of social issues that are important to today's young people and minorities. They'll lose the gay vote, the young vote, and the minority vote. They'll keep the midwest and the south and that's it.
The hard part about being the "Conservative" party is that it implies you never change your stance on a litany of issues. When society changes faster than the party, the party cannot catch up. They'll keep the House in large part to their gerrymandering and redistricting but other than that, they'll lose the presidency.
That's the simple truth and it really has nothing to do with my personal politics. The Republican Party has to realize that it can't win on its current platform. Chris Christie is the only one who is from a fairly liberal state, who isn't afraid to call it like it is, and who isn't seen as someone that is "not real." But, they'll destroy him in the primaries and the Republicans will elect Oscar the Grouch to be their candidate. Then they'll wonder why they can't win the election...
something too many are forgetting, and mainly because some here are obviously much younger: the highest % of voters really are in the 30-60 age range, not the under 30s like so many think and as we age, normally we become much more conservative. Yes, the younger voter is more interested in social issues, but if you think, for a second this will not be an issue the Republicans take to heart you might need to re-think this. You are thinking with your heart, not your head and look at the up and coming Republicans versus Democrats, most are in that younger age group. Put this altogether plus remember population wise, there are not as many young people as there are middle age and older. Simply because there is a vast difference in the number of children the baby boomers had. The one thing going, right now, for the Democrats is the large number of Hispanic voters, that in the number one concern for the Republicans or should be. Just like before the 1970s the number one concern was the southern vote. We saw how that finally worked out. Other than Hillary, which I still have my doubts she will run, you put a young Republican (under 55) against a Democrat and you are going to see the election of a Republican Pres. or if nothing else, a very tight race, maybe both. At least that is how I see this shaping up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
