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.
For heaven's sake, you can't, nor can I say, with any certainty any state is this or that and will never change. " (quote]
Baloney. Contrary to popular belief, science matters..demographics matter. As a fiscally conservative leaning Republican most of the time,the "stick your head in the sand , ignore all problems" types are why the party cannot compete for POTUS. We MUST stop dismissing stats simply because the storyline is not to our liking. That is ignorant. It is also accepting defeat as unchangeable.
Ceding 19 states with 90% of the required 270, and 2 more due to demographics that pushes the 90% past 95% is a certain losing proposition.The solution rests with winning back some of the 19, and that means a NEW more moderate platform and candidates who actually espouse moderation during the years leading up to elections, as well as election season.
You are totally missing what I am saying: NM has always leaned D, so it really isn't that much in play and VA has flipped back and forth. Neither state is guaranteed to go one way or the other at this time. It is way too early. A lot still depends on the candidates running. How many times in the past has it been predicted the GOP is dead or dying? How did you feel when the south started trending toward the Republican party in the mid 70s? Did you or anyone else predict this to happen? How many people thought RR would win and by the % he did in 1980? How much of this do you remember?
My point, the party is not dead and many things can happen to swing some of these states. The only solid D states are the far left part of the country if you look at a map on the wall and the NE states for the most part, plus a few in the middle part of the country like Il. I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree with this. You are set in thinking your way and I am set in mine: neither of us are going to bend and neither of us has a crystal ball.
If those four cities are the bulk of the voting populace for TX and reliably go blue from now on, TX may as well be a blue state.
That is the major problem with the Dems latest prediction. Texas is not going blue anytime soon. In three of the of the four major cities that went blue in the latest Presidential election, they only did so by one percent or so of the popular vote. They could quite easily revert back to red given a decent GOP candidate. This isn't a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.
It will be tough for any conservative to win again (Bush was a liberal, not a conservative). There are too many idiots and dependent citizens now who will always vote democrat.
It will be tough for any conservative to win again (Bush was a liberal, not a conservative). There are too many idiots and dependent citizens now who will always vote democrat.
And that attitude is exactly why Republicans will keep losing, and then "not get it."
And that attitude is exactly why Republicans will keep losing, and then "not get it."
but you have to admit there is some truth to his statement. There are many, who do depend on the government for assistance that would never vote Republican. Their mommies told them the Democrats were their best friends and would continue to bring them gifts, like food, housing vouchers, medical care and welfare checks. The problem with their thinking, many of them don't bother to vote.
In reality, all the GOP needs to do is get in front of allowing Dems define who they are and what they stand for. Your post is a perfect example. See the bold portion. The GOP may want to reform entitlements, but when or where have you heard a single Republican saying they "hate people that use welfare?" Simply put, you haven't. It is just rhetoric from left to paint the GOP as old, white, anti-everything. What about the large section of the GOP caucus that is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? That is how I identify, and there are many more like me. Why is it that liberals only seem to celebrate diversity and individualism when it applies to their own party/ideology but are convinced that it cannot/does not exist elsewhere?
Anyone, any organization forcefully *must* define themselves, otherwise the opposition will define that person/organization.
You may be technically right that no Republican has stated that s/he "hates" people that are on welfare, however, there are examples like this:
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
-- South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, speaking about
people receiving government assistance S.C. politician blasted for welfare remarks - politics - More politics | NBC News
Who in the the nominate-able pool of GOP contenders are "socially liberal"? My definition of "socially liberal" is someone who supports marriage equality, is pro-choice and for a liveable wage, for example. What's your definition of being "socially liberal" and who in the GOP supports your position? I'm very curious.
Anyone, any organization forcefully *must* define themselves, otherwise the opposition will define that person/organization.
You may be technically right that no Republican has stated that s/he "hates" people that are on welfare, however, there are examples like this:
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
-- South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, speaking about
people receiving government assistance S.C. politician blasted for welfare remarks - politics - More politics | NBC News
Who in the the nominate-able pool of GOP contenders are "socially liberal"? My definition of "socially liberal" is someone who supports marriage equality, is pro-choice and for a liveable wage, for example. What's your definition of being "socially liberal" and who in the GOP supports your position? I'm very curious.
So now one LT Governor, in one state says something stupid and an entire party is saddled with responsibility for the comment? There have been many, many stupid things said by Democrats over the years, but I generally limited credit for individual comments to those making them, not making the quantum leap in logic required to then assume that the comments of one person were intended to be the voice of the party.
The main point here is liberals are always speaking about inclusion, tolerance, and acceptance, yet they are very quick to paint an entire party with remarks from one person.
My definition of socially liberal is limited to my personal views, I do not speak for a party. I am fine with marriage equality, no issues at all. I am conflicted on abortion, and both sides of the argument are pretty repulsive in the lengths they will go in the defense of their respective positions. I am no more supportive of pro-lifers accosting young women outside abortion clinics than I am of the more virulent pro-choice crowd that clouds the issue with reproductive health concerns. Liveable wage is a great sound bite, but what does it really mean, and what are the full ramifications of imposing some poorly defined slogan on the real world? A liveable wage in New York City would be quite different from a liveable wage in Wooster, Ohio. We have minimum wage, and while I will agree that it is less than sufficient to live on, I would contend that it wasn't targeted at career minded adults, but more towards teen aged workers through college age.
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.
