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.
Considering that you have wingnuts on here saying that the government is trying to take control of their lives all the time, can you blame them on being insane, paranoid, and disconnected from reality? Obama is a centrist, that's it. But when you are so far gone to the right, anyone that is to the left of Milton Friedman is a commie
Clinton wasn't even a centrist. He was a republican that helped cripple fed banking regulations and partnered with the Reps to pass NAFTA.
I'm not sure whom to be more appalled by, the wingnuts that knee-jerk whine about everything dem or the loyalists that keep crawling back for another beating and then blame the outcome on the other party.
Don't worry though, thank god you got rid of Bush so the high gas prices and oil company profits went away. And just look at all the wallstreeters in jail for the financial collapse....oh and the crackdown on all the job outsourcing let by GE's Jeff Immelt no less! Bravo! Bravo!
Clinton wasn't even a centrist. He was a republican that helped cripple fed banking regulations and partnered with the Reps to pass NAFTA.
I'm not sure whom to be more appalled by, the wingnuts that knee-jerk whine about everything dem or the loyalists that keep crawling back for another beating and then blame the outcome on the other party.
Don't worry though, thank god you got rid of Bush so the high gas prices and oil company profits went away. And just look at all the wallstreeters in jail for the financial collapse....oh and the crackdown on all the job outsourcing let by GE's Jeff Immelt no less! Bravo! Bravo!
As Rush Limbaugh said, "You can't compete with Santa Claus". As long as the Democrats keep making empty promises to steal from the few and give to the masses, the majority will vote for them. It's sad, but I've accepted it.
Really-LOL-please explain than why the blue since 1988 states includes the vast majority of the ones with the highest per capita incomes, paying more Federal Income Tax. How is the 2 mill per year Hedge Fund guru looking for Santa Claus from DC?
There are pros and cons to using a 6 election historic timeframe.
The pro is it reflects more current voter make-ups.
The con is that it includes just 2 charismatic and popular democratic presidents and one kinda meh republican one.
I would point to the republicans controlling the house as somewhat calling into question your limited selection of 6 data points to draw conclusions from.
P.S. This is the same conundrum faced by insurance companies when trying to reflect hurricane etc. risks. 6 elections is woefully thin but going back and including elections from 50 years ago would also be inappropriate.
The House-LOL-the gerrymandered house, where in 2012, the Dems total vote exceeded the GOP total vote by about a million.
POTUS cannot be gerrymandered.
GOP will add Senate seats this year, lose many in 2016. It is strictly a factor of who has the most open tossup seats as only a third run in any cycle.
Demographics have changed greatly-going back beyond 6 is nonsensical. Charisma did run up the score, but even the dull Kerry took those 19 blue states, even he could not lose Va or NM now, with NOVA the growth force, and the Hispanic vote driving NM.
The idiots ruining the GOP need to realize the winning TD (POTUS) requires taking back a few of the 19 blue since 1988. That means the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast.
Yes, and I hope to see more environmental regulations, an end to corporate person-hood, a more progressive tax system with higher taxes on people making 1,000,000< a year, more systems to keep jobs from being simply sent to china, and military spending cuts along with us pulling out of stupid wars, and funding for High speed rail instead of highways. On social issues I would hope to see gays having the exact same rights as their straight counterparts, marijuana legalized, acceptance of (legal) immigrants (an easier path to citizenship), gun control on at least assault weapons, and for state and house of worship completely separate.
With their current platform of being anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minorities, anti-immigrant, anti-poor people, pro -military and most importantly pro-obstructionist , the party of "no", the party of "do nothing"---- I don't think the GOP has a chance to regain the White House until they make some major changes.
Better check your handout, you missed a few items.
And the republicans wish to isolate all the aforementioned groups why?
Obama's divide and conquer strategy is working just as it has for centuries by despots requiring useful idiots to further their agenda.!
What's hilarious is the sheer number of people in this thread that don't recognize the fact that BOTH parties are equally horrible.
In a perfect world, we'd spend the next 10 years completely dismantling the two-party platform.
This thread is really just about a math question. Now I agree with your points, but the 2 party system isn't going anywhere, and it would be far improved if two things happened:
(a) Gerrymandering by both parties stopped. The way to get there would be Federal legislation greatly reducing state funding if district maps were not geometrically as consistent as possible. Computer programs could do that with ease.
(b) GOP changed their ways to become competitive in some of the 19 blue since 1988 states that guarantee their POTUS defeat repeatedly.
Right now, the 2 parties have an oligopoly with a split factions of each want to keep:
(a) GOP controls most statehouses, and will keep the House Of representatives, at least until next census remapping.
(b) Dems will keep POTUS long-term, and the Senate the vast majority of the next few decades.
All oligopolies are horrible, and a few decades ago, (a) and (b) were not true long-term.
nationally Republicans don't stand a chance. The only areas they win are those that are less diverse and those areas that are resistant to change and do not like to adapt. THe world is changing and at a far quicker pace than ever before because of our connectivity to a world beyond our borders with the internet. Republicans are slow to adapt and change and are being left behind. The crux of the party clings to religion, which historically is slow to adapt to new changes (look how long it took the Catholic Church to approve birth control - and even today they don't fully embrace it).
Libertarians - they feel fiscally that both parties are the same. INdeed, neither is truly fiscally conservative.. it's just a matter of spending priorities. Dems would prefer the money is spent on social programs, building our infrastructure and supporting innovation into a new age. Republicans would rather spend money on military might and subsidizing large private corporation through corporate welfare. They do not care and even deny the need for green technology believing that private business will do it. However, they fail to realize that private business cares only about profits, and right now that lies with the old way of producing energy and that it's way too costly to develop "cleaner" technology . That stuff will take years to adapt to a point where it is profitable, which is why government funding is important and required. Republicans don't see that.. nor do they seem to care.
And, they still don't want to treat everyone equally.. they resist that as well.
The House-LOL-the gerrymandered house, where in 2012, the Dems total vote exceeded the GOP total vote by about a million.
POTUS cannot be gerrymandered.
GOP will add Senate seats this year, lose many in 2016. It is strictly a factor of who has the most open tossup seats as only a third run in any cycle.
Demographics have changed greatly-going back beyond 6 is nonsensical. Charisma did run up the score, but even the dull Kerry took those 19 blue states, even he could not lose Va or NM now, with NOVA the growth force, and the Hispanic vote driving NM.
The idiots ruining the GOP need to realize the winning TD (POTUS) requires taking back a few of the 19 blue since 1988. That means the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast.
Fail to do that-Reagan II would lose as a Repub.
.
Gerrymandering is currently a overblown crying point. It's been around a long time and you cannot explain the swing from 2008 to 2010 on "gerrymandering".
In another thread we pointed out how Reagan dominated the presidential election at a time when the democrats dominated the house....I guess that was Gerrymandering as well? Wierd how with Gerrymandering around for ages how the dems once massively controlled the house....but once Reps got control it was due to Gerrymandering. Absolute logic fail.
Personally, I wish all states had independent pannels that set the boundaries like some states do. I also wish there was some sort of voter ID check but oh well, I expect neither will change anytime soon.
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.
And just look at all the wallstreeters in jail for the financial collapse....oh and the crackdown on all the job outsourcing let by GE's Jeff Immelt no less! Bravo! Bravo! 
