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.
IIRC JFK won with 303 electoral votes. He could have lost the state of Illinois and still won outright. Even if he did not win outright Nixon would have needed another 50 electoral votes to prevent the election from being decided by LBJ's friend, mentor, colleague, and fellow Texan Sam Rayburn.
In other words Chicago could have gone 100% Republican and it would not have changed anything.
Have you ever heard the phrase "tongue in cheek" Of course I am very much aware of how many electoral votes he got. I also remember the campaign very well. Too bad you weren't even alive then or you would better understand.
If Rand Paul proposes legalizing weed nationwide, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders, you don't think he could get some crossover votes? Yes, he may lose some old "conservatives," but it would mix up the electorate a lot. Remember that weed got more votes than Obama in both Washington and Colorado. This would put those states into play.
People who say he's far right don't realize he'd run to the left of the D on about half the issues.
If Rand Paul proposes legalizing weed nationwide, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders, you don't think he could get some crossover votes? Yes, he may lose some old "conservatives," but it would mix up the electorate a lot. Remember that weed got more votes than Obama in both Washington and Colorado. This would put those states into play.
People who say he's far right don't realize he'd run to the left of the D on about half the issues.
He might get some older voters to cross over as well. When someone says the GOP has nothing to offer the young, what has Obama done for the young except let these kids stay on mommy and daddy's insurance for an extra few years?
Don't be so down on the Democrat Party. Besides their one idea of tax and spend ad infinitum, the Democrats added gay "marriage" to their list of ideas over the past decade.
...and by 2016, gays will be able to marry anywhere. This should have been a conservative idea all along, but once more, a few boneheads screwed it up and the party caved in to them.
Democrats had to push nothing! All they had to do is stand back and let the Republicans screw up again!
Conservatives are dependable that way. They've had nothing to offer anyone but their base forever now, and that base just keeps shrinking away with every passing election. Keep your purity please, Trace... it will assuage your grief when we drink your milkshake once again. We may not be pure, but we win.
...and by 2016, gays will be able to marry anywhere. This should have been a conservative idea all along, but once more, a few boneheads screwed it up and the party caved in to them.
Democrats had to push nothing! All they had to do is stand back and let the Republicans screw up again!
Conservatives are dependable that way. They've had nothing to offer anyone but their base forever now, and that base just keeps shrinking away with every passing election. Keep your purity please, Trace... it will assuage your grief when we drink your milkshake once again. We may not be pure, but we win.
Keep thinking that. Immigration could change the landscape BIG TIME for one. Funny how many of you on the left tend to forget alot of those wishing to be citizens tend to be more on the conservative side socially speaking.
As for the topic at hand. NONE of the above. The GOP needs a fresh new unknown sorta like Obama. To win they can have NO TIES to Bush and more importantly NO TIES to the NEOCONSERVATIVE branch ( aka the people who make the GOP look like the biggest hypocrites ever to roam the earth where spending, small government, and personal freedoms are concerned and thus see Pro Patriot act etc ) of the the party. A younger version of say Hunstman but without all that money. One who wont fear totally going full bore with Clinton or whoever the dem is. One who will take the whole dem party to task in dem strong holds ( aka city's ) where they have been failing miserably for decades in some cases.
...and by 2016, gays will be able to marry anywhere. This should have been a conservative idea all along, but once more, a few boneheads screwed it up and the party caved in to them.
Democrats had to push nothing! All they had to do is stand back and let the Republicans screw up again!
Conservatives are dependable that way. They've had nothing to offer anyone but their base forever now, and that base just keeps shrinking away with every passing election. Keep your purity please, Trace... it will assuage your grief when we drink your milkshake once again. We may not be pure, but we win.
If you win so much, why do 30 states have GOP governors?
I doubt tht is a smart move with population aging and the per centage of young voters who actually vote. Its always the base that every party starts with and of course each party is representative who decides the platform. Hardly those that are young really whish is apparent from the priories actually given issues.
If Rand Paul proposes legalizing weed nationwide, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders, you don't think he could get some crossover votes? Yes, he may lose some old "conservatives," but it would mix up the electorate a lot. Remember that weed got more votes than Obama in both Washington and Colorado. This would put those states into play.
As soon as the private prison industry cuts Rand a nice enough check, any bit of flirtation he had with legalization will go straight out the window.
What if the GOP has a young ticket in 2016? They'll still lose ... the party is defunct. They *may* be viable by 2020, but with the shifting demographics of America even that's unlikely.
If Rand Paul proposes legalizing weed nationwide, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders, you don't think he could get some crossover votes? Yes, he may lose some old "conservatives," but it would mix up the electorate a lot. Remember that weed got more votes than Obama in both Washington and Colorado. This would put those states into play.
People who say he's far right don't realize he'd run to the left of the D on about half the issues.
Rand will never get the Republican nomination espousing those beliefs, and if he comes out with them after getting the nomination his own party in Congress and the Senate will never support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryBTL
Keep thinking that. Immigration could change the landscape BIG TIME for one. Funny how many of you on the left tend to forget alot of those wishing to be citizens tend to be more on the conservative side socially speaking.
The biggest influx of immigration is Latino, and they vote 70% hispanic. That is why states like New Mexico and Nevada have allready pretty much moved from swing states to Democratic states, and more will see the same change given time. The changing demographics in the country through immigration and birth rates, coupled with the views of the younger generation regarding things like gay rights, women's rights and many other issues make the GOP a slowly devolving and dieing out breed.
Quote:
As for the topic at hand. NONE of the above. The GOP needs a fresh new unknown sorta like Obama. To win they can have NO TIES to Bush and more importantly NO TIES to the NEOCONSERVATIVE branch ( aka the people who make the GOP look like the biggest hypocrites ever to roam the earth where spending, small government, and personal freedoms are concerned and thus see Pro Patriot act etc ) of the the party. A younger version of say Hunstman but without all that money. One who wont fear totally going full bore with Clinton or whoever the dem is. One who will take the whole dem party to task in dem strong holds ( aka city's ) where they have been failing miserably for decades in some cases.
You paint the picture of the best case scenario for a Republican candidate who could potential pose a threat. However no such person will be emerging. The candidate will be one of those on the list allready known - Christie, Jeb, Rubio or Paul most likely. Of that lot Christie would have the best chance, but none of them is really going to get it done. Especially since I think that Rand Paul is most likely to get the nomination and I think he will do exceptionally poorly in the actual election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
What if the GOP has a young ticket in 2016? They'll still lose ... the party is defunct. They *may* be viable by 2020, but with the shifting demographics of America even that's unlikely.
Yep. 2014 will see more Republican loses, although the Republican gerrymandering in 2010 will probably ensure that they maintain at least a slight edge in numbers in Congress. 2016 will see Clinton elected and probably more loses in Congress. I think at that point the Republican party will either FINALLY look itself in the mirror and reform itself somewhat; or possibly that at that point those who try to do that will **** off the conservative base (and in particular the religious fundies) and the party could even splinter at that point.
Either way it is going to take major work before they are able to see a non-democrat sitting in the White House again. 2016 will simply make it 6 of 7 elections with a Democratic popular vote winner.
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.
