Good people of Oregon. In the 2016 election do you think Oregon will become a Swing State? (Union: radio, ratings)

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

AM talk radio rots the mind.

Which is why Thom Hartmann should have stayed local.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

AM talk radio rots the mind.

So, you think the RF energy from broadcasting induces heating and loss of synapse activity, or ???

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by jjpop

But don't you think the time of Republicans like Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood has passed nationwide?

I think if you look at a lot of states' Republican Senators and Representatives 20-25 years ago, you would find a lot more moderate thinking than you do with today's Republicans. That brand of Republican would not get support today from their central party apparatus.

Look, let's be serious. "Moderate" is not defined as "simply always go along with Democrats". "Moderate" today means "have no coherent notion of what you're there for", which leads to getting no support from anyone. Democrats don't vote for "moderate" Republicans becuase, they're... well, Republicans. Anyone who'se not a liberal won't vote for them, either, becuase they don't represent the interests of normal people at all.

If Packwood were in either the House or Senate today, you'd be calling him an extremist, radical right wing, whatever. Both political parties have taken giant leaps to the left, leaving the traditional GOP voter faced with either Democrat, or Democrat-Lite, neither of which will get their votes.

Huntsman, for instance, was a total zero, with no appeal to anyone who was going to vote in a GOP primary, simply because he was indistinguishable from, say, Clinton or Reid. If you really wanted someone like that, you'd change affiliations or cross-vote.

People's memories are extremely short, it seems. The Reagan era Democrats would NEVER have voted an Obama into office. They would have been horrified at Obamacare, another amnesty, the wildly insane spending Congress has been on, etc. At least then, they gave lip service to some level of responsibility, in terms of not spending too much. Now, the left side of the aisle operates under the assumption that the more money government spends, the better - most seem to be well in tune with the idea that confiscating most of our GDP to be under Congressional control would be a marvelous idea.

During my lifetime, the political debate has gone from seriously addressing the actual Constitution's meaning and arguing with some rationale what is and isn't to what Speaker Pelosi's response was to someone asking if an idea was Constitutional, which was "Are you serious?" and completely dismissing the idea as unworthy of consideration.

No court in the Reagan era would have dreamed of letting Congress tax you for failing to buy a financial they specified. Robert's decision on Obamacare was "Congress can make you buy anything they want, by makign the taxes so onerous you have no choice, without limits". And one entire party and half of the other one applauds.

It's the radicals in charge now. And other than a few who are radically on the left, there's basically none who are radical toward the right.

[VTHokieFan]

Originally Posted by downnice

Here is my take. In 2016 there will be a lot new swing states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia and possibly Oregon.

Thoughts?

Bush lost by 5000 votes in 2000. Anything's possible in this state.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

People's memories are extremely short, it seems. The Reagan era Democrats would NEVER have voted an Obama into office. They would have been horrified at Obamacare, another amnesty, the wildly insane spending Congress has been on, etc.

Likewise, the Reagan-era Republicans would never have gone for MCCain (well, the McCain of THEN maybe, not the present one), Romney or Palin. Richard Nixon proposed a program right around the scale of Obamacare (although tying it completely to employment).

Saying that there are no politicians who are radical right is sheer blindness. Rubio, Paul, McConnell, Perry, Gohmert, Inhofe - the first six off the top of my head.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

So, you think the RF energy from broadcasting induces heating and loss of synapse activity, or ???

It's the brainless load of crapola that turns the neurons to compost. The programming is designed to prey on the dull and credulous.

[tablemtn]

At the state level, politics are a lot more relaxed than they used to be. Things were a lot more contentious and angry back during the spotted owl/marbled murrelet/logging controversy. I've never really liked the attempts of certain groups to "nationalize" Oregon's politics, and make it so that the "debates" in the state correspond to whatever the biggest activist/advocacy/PAC groups happen to be pushing in DC. That has never really been the state's major concern.

Obviously, national politics intersect with Oregon, but the more we can keep things local, the better things seem to be.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Both political parties have taken giant leaps to the left, leaving the traditional GOP voter faced with either Democrat, or Democrat-Lite, neither of which will get their votes.

Ludicrous.

[WolfBoy914]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

It's the radicals in charge now. And other than a few who are radically on the left, there's basically none who are radical toward the right.

Have you lost your mind? The ACA was a freaking Republican idea in the 1970's.

As to the AM radio mention; he means the outright lies, vitriol and insanity has hit an all time high.

Dude, you gotta be a troll. Go away.

[TXRyan23]

I have family in the Portland area and have considered a move to Oregon myself in the near future, I've always assumed that because they were uber liberal and that the state is almost always blue, that it was a liberal bastion like California, It's good to see that a large portion of the state is red.

To the O.P., Texas will NEVER be a swing state. I often laugh at how the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN talk about Texas becoming a swing state, Obama not only lost votes in Texas in 2012 (as compared to 2008), but he also had a smaller percentage of voters statewide. Texas also just passed a "Real VoterID" law that will eliminate the some odd 1 million plus illegal voters that cast votes in Texas all along the border, that traditionally goes blue.

I think you'd have a better shot at seeing California turn into a swing state than Texas.