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 have pretty much made peace with the fact that the Democrats will likely sweep the board in November, the real question is how bad will the defeat be. At this point I think it's likely the Democrats will keep the White House and retake the Senate, the House is 50/50 ... it was more or less a given that we would lose about a dozen seats regardless of who the nominee was but if it's Trump or Cruz there is the potential that things could go into the mid-high twenty's and endanger the House majority.
I think that going forward the party needs to become more of a center-right party rather than a right wing party. We should focus more on economics and less on social conservatism, we need to make peace with the nation's changing demographics and social values. We need to accept that the 62% non-Hispanic White United States of today is not the 88% non-Hispanic White United States that elected Reagan.
I'm man enough to admit that I screwed up in making my election predictions. This is not a good excuse, but I believed all the MSM analysis about Trump being doomed because of "demographics," the "blue wall," and Hillary's supposedly vaunted ground game. (In my defense, I never bought the liberal spin that the GOP would be forever shut out of the White House. In fact, I figured that the Democrats would become way too overconfident after winning three in a row, and that such an attitude would cost them the presidency in 2020.) What I fail to understand is how so many liberals can't admit that they screwed up in their electoral analyses. Instead, they give us constant excuses about Comey, Putin, and fake news cost Hillary the election.
I'm willing to give Trump a chance to prove that he will be a good president, as many other NeverTrumpers are. (There are a few NeverTrumpers--Charlie Sykes and Evan McMullin come to mind--who seem to reflexively oppose any thing Trump has done. It's regrettable that they are doing this, as it seems they are acting this way in hopes of getting an MSNBC gig.) So far, he has done some things that I like, as well as some things that I disapprove of.
First off, I want to say that I am no fan of LZ Granderson, because of his far-left views and because he often sees America as a place that "persecutes" blacks and gays. Yet I do agree with assessment that the GOP should give up on 2016 & focus on winning the WH in 2020:
Let's be honest: the 2016 race is hopeless for the GOP (unless the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Sanders). In the most likely scenario, Trump wins the nomination & gets crushed in the general election. Yet if somehow Trump is denied the nomination, the GOP still loses because (1) Trump's voters will be very p*ssed and (2) the Democrats will still "tie at the hip" the GOP nominee to the unpopular comments that Trump has made.
I believe that GOP's better option (at this point) is to nominate Trump, because doing otherwise would make it very hard to repair the party in time for 2020. Apart from this advice, I think that the only thing that the GOP should focus on (for 2016) is retaining the House (because sadly, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will cost them the House). While the Senate is a lost cause (I am guessing that the GOP will lose seven or eight seats), the GOP has an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2018 (because if you look at the seats that are up in 2018, there are many vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states that Romney won). Most importantly, the GOP should nominate a strong candidate in 2020--somebody such as Nikki Haley or John Kasich--who will come across to swing-voters as the "anti-Trump."
I'm man enough to admit that I screwed up in making my election predictions. This is not a good excuse, but I believed all the MSM analysis about Trump being doomed because of "demographics," the "blue wall," and Hillary's supposedly vaunted ground game. (In my defense, I never bought the liberal spin that the GOP would be forever shut out of the White House. In fact, I figured that the Democrats would become way too overconfident after winning three in a row, and that such an attitude would cost them the presidency in 2020.) What I fail to understand is how so many liberals can't admit that they screwed up in their electoral analyses. Instead, they give us constant excuses about Comey, Putin, and fake news cost Hillary the election.
I'm willing to give Trump a chance to prove that he will be a good president, as many other NeverTrumpers are. (There are a few NeverTrumpers--Charlie Sykes and Evan McMullin come to mind--who seem to reflexively oppose any thing Trump has done. It's regrettable that they are doing this, as it seems they are acting this way in hopes of getting an MSNBC gig.) So far, he has done some things that I like, as well as some things that I disapprove of.
First off, I want to say that I am no fan of LZ Granderson, because of his far-left views and because he often sees America as a place that "persecutes" blacks and gays. Yet I do agree with assessment that the GOP should give up on 2016 & focus on winning the WH in 2020:
Let's be honest: the 2016 race is hopeless for the GOP (unless the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Sanders). In the most likely scenario, Trump wins the nomination & gets crushed in the general election. Yet if somehow Trump is denied the nomination, the GOP still loses because (1) Trump's voters will be very p*ssed and (2) the Democrats will still "tie at the hip" the GOP nominee to the unpopular comments that Trump has made.
I believe that GOP's better option (at this point) is to nominate Trump, because doing otherwise would make it very hard to repair the party in time for 2020. Apart from this advice, I think that the only thing that the GOP should focus on (for 2016) is retaining the House (because sadly, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will cost them the House). While the Senate is a lost cause (I am guessing that the GOP will lose seven or eight seats), the GOP has an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2018 (because if you look at the seats that are up in 2018, there are many vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states that Romney won). Most importantly, the GOP should nominate a strong candidate in 2020--somebody such as Nikki Haley or John Kasich--who will come across to swing-voters as the "anti-Trump."
Have you chocked on your words yet? Never assume anything. Look who we are going to call President in just a few days? Many of us, a year ago never thought we would see this, but we kept an open mind about it. Certainly he wasn't my choice: he was probably 15th on the list of 16.
just read your last post: OK you accept your misthinking; many of us had it wrong.
First off, I want to say that I am no fan of LZ Granderson, because of his far-left views and because he often sees America as a place that "persecutes" blacks and gays. Yet I do agree with assessment that the GOP should give up on 2016 & focus on winning the WH in 2020:
Let's be honest: the 2016 race is hopeless for the GOP (unless the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Sanders). In the most likely scenario, Trump wins the nomination & gets crushed in the general election. Yet if somehow Trump is denied the nomination, the GOP still loses because (1) Trump's voters will be very p*ssed and (2) the Democrats will still "tie at the hip" the GOP nominee to the unpopular comments that Trump has made.
I believe that GOP's better option (at this point) is to nominate Trump, because doing otherwise would make it very hard to repair the party in time for 2020. Apart from this advice, I think that the only thing that the GOP should focus on (for 2016) is retaining the House (because sadly, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will cost them the House). While the Senate is a lost cause (I am guessing that the GOP will lose seven or eight seats), the GOP has an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2018 (because if you look at the seats that are up in 2018, there are many vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states that Romney won). Most importantly, the GOP should nominate a strong candidate in 2020--somebody such as Nikki Haley or John Kasich--who will come across to swing-voters as the "anti-Trump."
Granderson didn't figure in the hacking by Russia!
Granderson should stick to sport or gay stuff....even in sport topics he is wrong.
Well most of the sports media get it wrong once in awhile, but LZ has more knowledge then many.
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.
