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 wouldn't pay a bit of attention to what Rush or O'reilly says. They have an audience to play to and they always have to have something shocking to say, much like some of the posters here. They don't want to be challenged as they know all the answers and most of the questions too.
Some will predict the end of the GOP. Others will merely consign it to minority party status for years because of demographic changes. I know that this will happen because I've seen it before: each time a party has suffered big losses, frustration boils over. It happened after the 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1994 elections. Moderates and ideologues in the losing party always seem to disagree about who was at fault and what steps the bloodied and bruised party needs to take to get back on the winning track. After the 1964 and 1974 elections, some predicted the disappearance of the Republican Party. And reports of the death of the Democratic Party were greatly exaggerated after the 1972, 1994 and 2004 elections. While the near term is not rosy for Republicans, party members will now be able to turn the page, on what was tantamount to a four-year election cycle. Maybe President Bush wasn't responsible entirely for high gasoline prices, a mortgage foreclosure and financial crisis, Republican ethics lapses on Capitol Hill, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a seemingly endless litany of depressing news stories. But the GOP was never going to recover its standing until the Bush years ended. Tuesday night marked the beginning of the end.
Quote:
[SIZE=3]The death of the Republican Party has an exact date: October 3, 2008. The day John McCain lost his bid for President also has an exact date: October 1, 2008.[/SIZE]
The Republican Party’s death doesn’t really threaten anyone, and I puzzle why Democrats and independents who vote Democratic spend words and worry debating the look of the corpse. We few Republicans with long memories wander around the cemetery admiring the tombstones and enjoying the rain. I can hear you doubting that this could truly be the end. The final stage of grief is acceptance.
Perhaps, then, the explanation lies not in the Republicans’ ideas but in the defective marketing of them. This is the line taken by party strategists who think Karl Rove and his team of operatives grew complacent after their victories in 2002 and 2004 and failed to update “the brand” to suit changing demographics in Sunbelt states like Colorado and Nevada, with their socially liberal white professionals and economically liberal blue-collar Hispanics. But this thesis evades a big question: Does the movement have anything to offer such constituencies apart from a plea for their votes?
There are a ton more, but you should get the drift. I chuckle at the adolescent gloating, the curiously angered victory dances (you won, be chill) and the prognostications of the death of party that 65,844,610 people placed their votes for.
A mere glance at history reveals the pendulum swings back and forth because people, in groups, are basically lemmings and look to greener pastures as they grow more restless with whomever is standing behind a presidential shield.
But, I knowing this, will commit the same sin. When the pendulum swings back and the repubs are handed their saggy rears again, I will laugh and laugh and laugh and swing back my Merlot from my urban elite enclave. And then surely plunge into despair eight years later. Have fun while it lasts.
To people such as O'Reilly ... ideologues ... it's not possible to believe not everyone else applies litmus tests on every question. 3/4 of eligible voters did not support Trump. 3/4!
That doesn't mean a thing cause MOST of those 3 quarters of the voters did NOT "vote" in 2016.
He's absolutely correct. Hillary didn't step foot in WI, ignored multiple cries for help in MI, gave up on IA, forgot about the rural vote in NC, took the Latino vote for granted in FL, and failed to whip up the vote in suburban Philadelphia.
Why did she do that? Because she was arrogant enough to think the "social" and "identity politics" platform of the Democratic Party would carry her to victory. She didn't think she needed the white working class because somewhere along the way Democratic ideology commanded that they were irrelevant these days.
That, folks, is a TOTAL collapse of the Democratic Party when the white working-class voter is cast aside in the name of transgenders and Latinos. Look how well that worked out for you.
The answer in a nutshell, right there. The primary platforms the Democrats campaigned on this last election cycle were:
1. The answer to illegal immigration is to just make everybody already here legal, and oh, by the way, anyone who suggests we might want stem the tide of low-skilled workers from Latin America sneaking over the border in the future is a racist and/or xenophobe.
2. Cops are nothing but blood thirsty murderers on the hunt for innocent black men.
3. Trangenders need the legal right to use the bathroom of their choice.
None of that matters to the white, blue-collar worker who's wages have been stagnant (at best) for a decade or more, and who's health insurance costs twice what it used to despite having an out-of-pocket exposure that's exponentially higher. That's the guy who used to be the core of the Democratic Party.
The answer in a nutshell, right there. The primary platforms the Democrats campaigned on this last election cycle were:
1. The answer to illegal immigration is to just make everybody already here legal, and oh, by the way, anyone who suggests we might want stem the tide of low-skilled workers from Latin America sneaking over the border in the future is a racist and/or xenophobe.
2. Cops are nothing but blood thirsty murderers on the hunt for innocent black men.
3. Trangenders need the legal right to use the bathroom of their choice.
None of that matters to the white, blue-collar worker who's wages have been stagnant (at best) for a decade or more, and who's health insurance costs twice what it used to despite having an out-of-pocket exposure that's exponentially higher. That's the guy who used to be the core of the Democratic Party.
There are still people who don't realize the Democrats are collasping around them, even life long liberals are jumping ship. Here is a quote for a CA liberal....
So I was raised a secular liberal. My college professors were secular liberals. During my journalism phase, my newspaper colleagues were secular liberals. My law school professors and peers were – in the vast majority – secular liberals.
"I am tired of their trendiness, jumping on every left-liberal bandwagon that comes along (transgender activism, anyone?) and then acting like anyone not on board is an idiot/hater.
I am tired of watching them raise clueless kids who go off to college and within months are convinced they live in a rapey, racist patriarchy; “Make America Great Again” is hate speech; and Black Lives Matter agitators are their brothers-in-arms against White Privilege. If my kids are like that at nineteen, I’ll feel I’ve seriously failed them as a parent. Yet the general sentiment seems to be these are good, liberal kids who may have gotten a bit carried away.
I am tired of their lack of interest in any form of serious morality or self-betterment.
I am tired of being bored and exasperated by everybody.
He is so right and when you have a leftist like Geraldo agree with you then it is really bad.
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.