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.
The GOP took the House by appealing to a narrow band of extremist in local elections. That's a decent strategy when only the diehard ideologues are paying attention. How did that work in the national election?
Liberals have excuses for everything. Bottom line, when the American voter elects a conservative, liberals are always quick to point out why it was a fluke, a one off, a mistake. However, it keeps happening despite liberal claims to the contrary. Liberals continue to blame the electorate as a collection of rubes when it does happen, and then wonder why the electorate bristles at them. Case in point would be using terms like "extremists". Liberals love to use terms like "code words" to accuse conservatives of things like racism/classicism when no overt examples are to be found yet are ever so willing to do what they accuse conservatives of. Liberals have been trying to paint the Tea Party groups as anti-government/racist/violent/uneducated/extreme since they appeared on the political land scape. Pelosi labeled them AstroTurf since surely, no such thing as a grass roots movement could occur spontaneously on the right. It all had to be down to the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. The real reason the left keeps attacking the Tea Party groups is fear. They know they were behind some of the successes in the 2010 reversal in the House, so now the left continues to do whatever they can to smear and marginalize the Tea Party.
Romney lost for a number of reasons. A lot of the attacks hurled at him stuck because he responded poorly or chose not respond at all. The race to define Romney's campaign was won by Obama's team early on, and never returned to Romney's camp except for the brief period following the initial debate where Obama floundered so badly. These are things that I would chalk up more to failures of Romney's campaign advisers and less to the sentiment or attitude of the American public.
The Tea Party "revolution" of 2010 has faltered so quickly that it's going to be regarded as a blip in American history in a few years. Look at how quickly John Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership have distanced themselves from those types.
How many times has the Republican candidate for president won the popular vote in the last 21 years?
My short answer is 'yes,' i think they can in the right political environment, but not in 2016 IMO. There are ways in which the Republicans can win big even with the demographic shift, but the public has to be REALLY p*ssed off for it to happen.
I think the Republicans are better off with the old Southern Democrat strategy of yesteryear; nevermind having the White House and make the Congress your power base. I'll admit that there's nothing like having executive power but with our system being what it is in its present state (constant obfuscating on the part of both parties when they have power), the Republicans really have something good in their grasp. Why not use it to your advantage?
They don't need to be obsessed with the presidency with their advantage in the House and potentially in the Senate. Of course, this goes in cycles but i think the 'Pubs are poised to hold both houses for a good while. At the point in which they don't effectively hold Congress anymore, then they can worry about winning the presidency on a perpetual basis like they once did. In other words, go with the flow.
Liberals have excuses for everything. Bottom line, when the American voter elects a conservative, liberals are always quick to point out why it was a fluke, a one off, a mistake. However, it keeps happening despite liberal claims to the contrary. Liberals continue to blame the electorate as a collection of rubes when it does happen, and then wonder why the electorate bristles at them. Case in point would be using terms like "extremists". Liberals love to use terms like "code words" to accuse conservatives of things like racism/classicism when no overt examples are to be found yet are ever so willing to do what they accuse conservatives of. Liberals have been trying to paint the Tea Party groups as anti-government/racist/violent/uneducated/extreme since they appeared on the political land scape. Pelosi labeled them AstroTurf since surely, no such thing as a grass roots movement could occur spontaneously on the right. It all had to be down to the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. The real reason the left keeps attacking the Tea Party groups is fear. They know they were behind some of the successes in the 2010 reversal in the House, so now the left continues to do whatever they can to smear and marginalize the Tea Party.
Romney lost for a number of reasons. A lot of the attacks hurled at him stuck because he responded poorly or chose not respond at all. The race to define Romney's campaign was won by Obama's team early on, and never returned to Romney's camp except for the brief period following the initial debate where Obama floundered so badly. These are things that I would chalk up more to failures of Romney's campaign advisers and less to the sentiment or attitude of the American public.
The problem with all of that ^^^ is that West Cobb is right.....you can't compare winning the House to winning the presidency. One is an actual national election and the other is a group of localized elections. Time and time again, those elections defy one another.
The Tea Party "revolution" of 2010 has faltered so quickly that it's going to be regarded as a blip in American history in a few years. Look at how quickly John Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership have distanced themselves from those types.
How many times has the Republican candidate for president won the popular vote in the last 21 years?
Exactly what I have been saying, no shortage of liberals predicting the end of the GOP, but nothing they've predicted has yet materialized.
Quote:
With the Repubs in Senate lining up with their brother Conservatives in the MB to cut aid to Egypt, probably not going to help the GOP chances.
There goes Bob, right of the ideological cliff. So now conservatives in the U.S. are somehow akin to the Muslim Brotherhood? Guess liberals are not content to limit their rhetoric to just the Tea Party folks anymore?
Republicans have a good chance to get to 270 votes in the Electoral College if the way in which Electors are selected is changed.
Right now, Electors are selected by a winner-take-all popular vote system in nearly all of the states. Only Maine and Nebraska currently choose their electors by Congressional District.
In the 2012 elections, states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voted in state-wide votes for Democrats but voted in majorities in the U.S. House due to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts. According to the Constitution, the states reserve the right to use their own methods in choosing their electors to the Electoral College. There's currently nothing stopping Republican-dominated state governments from using a Congressional District method combined with gerrymandering to change the political calculus and legislate their way to a 270 vote majority in 2016 or 2020.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
Liberals have excuses for everything. Bottom line, when the American voter elects a conservative, liberals are always quick to point out why it was a fluke, a one off, a mistake. However, it keeps happening despite liberal claims to the contrary. Liberals continue to blame the electorate as a collection of rubes when it does happen, and then wonder why the electorate bristles at them. Case in point would be using terms like "extremists". Liberals love to use terms like "code words" to accuse conservatives of things like racism/classicism when no overt examples are to be found yet are ever so willing to do what they accuse conservatives of. Liberals have been trying to paint the Tea Party groups as anti-government/racist/violent/uneducated/extreme since they appeared on the political land scape. Pelosi labeled them AstroTurf since surely, no such thing as a grass roots movement could occur spontaneously on the right. It all had to be down to the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. The real reason the left keeps attacking the Tea Party groups is fear. They know they were behind some of the successes in the 2010 reversal in the House, so now the left continues to do whatever they can to smear and marginalize the Tea Party.
Romney lost for a number of reasons. A lot of the attacks hurled at him stuck because he responded poorly or chose not respond at all. The race to define Romney's campaign was won by Obama's team early on, and never returned to Romney's camp except for the brief period following the initial debate where Obama floundered so badly. These are things that I would chalk up more to failures of Romney's campaign advisers and less to the sentiment or attitude of the American public.
Oh My god, you are serious arent you ?
You live in your own little world where conservatives have never called people stupid for voting for Democrats and where Republicans have never used the word extreme.
I also love that last paragraph, you said liberals always make up excuses and there you are making excuses for a Democrat winning.
The problem with all of that ^^^ is that West Cobb is right.....you can't compare winning the House to winning the presidency. One is an actual national election and the other is a group of localized elections. Time and time again, those elections defy one another.
Fully understand the complete list of differences between local House/Senate elections and a national, Presidential election. Understand the fact they can run counter to each other. See Presidential election of 2008 and following mid-terms in 2010 for a recent example. I was drawing attention to the fact that the far left has been prematurely predicting the demise of the GOP as a viable party for decades now. The 2010 midterms were a recent example of where liberals were predicting not only maintaining, but possibly increasing their majority in Congress. We all know how that went.
It is perfectly plausible that the right GOP candidate could easily net 270 electoral votes. Bush carried 286 in 2004. The problem with the way Presidential politics get spun is the false time scale that tends to be applied. One question posed earlier was "How many times in the last 20 years has a Republican won the popular vote?" That statistic, and the time scale really don't mean anything significant. It provides the opportunity for the far left crowd the reopen the case of the 2000 election they still haven't conceded yet, and that is about it. Bush won the popular vote in '04, and Obama won the election in '08 and '12, so it is statistically pointless.
Fully understand the complete list of differences between local House/Senate elections and a national, Presidential election. Understand the fact they can run counter to each other. See Presidential election of 2008 and following mid-terms in 2010 for a recent example. I was drawing attention to the fact that the far left has been prematurely predicting the demise of the GOP as a viable party for decades now. The 2010 midterms were a recent example of where liberals were predicting not only maintaining, but possibly increasing their majority in Congress. We all know how that went.
It is perfectly plausible that the right GOP candidate could easily net 270 electoral votes. Bush carried 286 in 2004. The problem with the way Presidential politics get spun is the false time scale that tends to be applied. One question posed earlier was "How many times in the last 20 years has a Republican won the popular vote?" That statistic, and the time scale really don't mean anything significant. It provides the opportunity for the far left crowd the reopen the case of the 2000 election they still haven't conceded yet, and that is about it. Bush won the popular vote in '04, and Obama won the election in '08 and '12, so it is statistically pointless.
Well, if you read my earlier post, i make it pretty clear that i don't predict the demise of the Republican Party anytime soon. I just don't believe that the shifts favor them anymore for the WH.
I think the shifts DO favor them to control the Congress for a long time to come.
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.
