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 don't know. They might have the numbers but they don't have the ideas or solutions and may actually have an edge in creating problems over the republicans. So when things continue to go from bad to worse, the best they have to hope for is a continuing lowered expectation from the people and a growing disinterested voting bloc.
Of course both parties are working towards the same goal, the end of the middle class, an economy under their control and larger government running every aspect of our lives as it serves them. The republicans just have to pay lip service against that because any pretext otherwise would lead to a third party replacing them. The democrats are also vulnerable to being replaced by a third party but not nearly as much.
Massive continued election fraud should keep things from getting too unstable, barring a major upheaval in the political landscape.
It's all about gay marriage. If Republicans can fully support gay marriage and silence the homophobes, they might have a shot at winning again.
With voters in the 18-29 bracket, this is the defining issue. Take heed, GOP.
No matter how many times reality hits you, gay marriage is NOT, never was, and never will be the defining, make or break issue for 18-29 year olds. GOP comes out tomorrow and says part of their party platform that they will give a student loan amnesty, you can kiss the gay marriage issue goodbye for decades. When push comes tp shove, economic issues ALWAYS trump social wedge issues designed to turn out the base
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.
I think the environmental regulations have to make sense. For example, more efficient fuel economy standards make sense, but banning flat-screen TVs to cut down on carbon emissions is quite stupid.
Flat taxes seem more fair to me than anything else. Even better would be a federal sales tax replacing the federal income tax. Clothing, medicine and groceries would be exempt, but everything else would be taxable.
The United States has the second-highest corporate income taxes in the world, so cutting them is absolutely necessary. With that said, there should be no loopholes at all, period. That way, even GE pays taxes.
Regarding infrastructure, both rail and highways need to be invested in. New rail lines ought to be built, especially in the eastern United States, and existing highways need to be rebuilt. Do not neglect one or the other.
The whole gay marriage debate started because of the same-sex benefits debate. Remove all personal tax incentives; that way nobody can complain about favoritism in the tax code. Let the religious institutions define marriage on their own accord.
Legalize all drugs. It'd neuter the cartels, which have taken on a paramilitary quality, and it'd cull the herd a bit. Those who can't control themselves would remove themselves from the population. Increase health insurance premiums on known drug users.
Immigration reform should be tied to tax reform. This is another way a federal sales tax would work better. If you're in the United States and you buy something, then you're paying taxes, and it's unavoidable.
Committing a crime with a gun, or a felony of any kind, results in permanent forfeiture of your gun rights. Being institutionalized requires you to keep your nose clean for 30 years after you're released. Gun licenses must be renewed every two years with gun-handling courses.
Separation of church and state works both ways. Keep the church out of the state; keep the state out of the church. The government has no business dictation religious matters, and the definition of marriage is one of these things.
Going back to the start of Abraham Lincoln's presidency, which is when the two-party system we know today first started, there have been two extended periods of Republican dominance in the White House, and one period of Democrat dominance.
For 72 years from 1861 to 1933, the United States had 52 years of Republican presidency, and only 20 years of Democrat presidency between three presidents (Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson). The end of this era came with the ouster of Herbert Hoover.
For 36 years from 1933 to 1969, the United States had 28 years of Democrat presidency, and Dwight Eisenhower had the only eight years of Republican presidency during this time. This era ended when Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run for reelection.
More recently, for 40 years from 1969 to 2009, the Republicans had the upper hand again, with 28 years of the presidency to only 12 years for the Democrats (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). It appears to me that this era has ended with George W. Bush's second term.
Right now, I believe that we've entered a second period of Democrat dominance. Why? Because Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush were all highly unpopular when they left office. Hoover was unpopular because of an economic calamity. Johnson was unpopular because of a controversial war. Bush was unpopular because of an economic calamity and a controversial war.
It took the Republicans a generation to recover from Hoover's bad reputation, and it took the Democrats a generation to recover from Johnson's bad reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Bush has a bad reputation, and I wonder if it'll take a generation for the Republicans to recover from it.
With that said, it's worth noting that the less popular political party has put at least one president into the White House for two terms during the dominance of the opposite party. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both two-term Democrats during a long era of Republican dominance. Dwight Eisenhower was a two-term Republican when the Democrats had the upper hand, and Bill Clinton was a two-term Democrat during the most recent Republican era.
The longest period of time that one political party has had control of the White House is 20 years, when the Democrats had it from 1933 to 1953. There were two 16-year periods of one-party control, both by the Republicans, from 1869 to 1885, and 1897 to 1913. Other than that, neither party has been in control for more than 12 years at a time, which illustrates that Americans don't tolerate continuous one-party rule well.
Any thoughts?
Demographically and culturally things seem to favor democrats. I think the shelf life of running against GWB, however, has expired with the last election.
I do think Democrats, and Obama in particular, tend to misread fairly close victories for sweeping mandates and will continue to overreach, which might swing things back to the GOP in 4 years, particulary since their policies will continue the economic malaise we are in and continue to increase the national debt at an alarming rate. I also think as Obamacare continues to be fully implemented, that people will have more problems with it as their costs soar, as employers opt out, as the hidden taxes hit more individuals and not just the high income types.
I like Romney and actually think he ran a pretty good campaign, but Obama's class warfare message seemed to resonate with enough of the electorate and a wealthy private equity firm owner was probably not the best messenger at this particular time.
A 30-year run, even allowing for a "Carter moment" or two, isn't something I'd expect to see. But what I think is quite plausible is a Democratic victory in 2016, followed by a Republican administration in 2020.
I think the GOP is beginning that process of rehabilitation which is inevitable after a political rout, but I'm less than convinced that the process will be sufficiently complete by 2016. In British Labour Party terms, after the disaster of Michael Foot's leadership, the GOP will be ready to run a Neal Kinnock - a more acceptable candidate, but not sufficiently acceptable to convince a majority.
The GOP's Tony Blair - the candidate who can really mark a break with the sins of the past and win over the nation - will emerge more likely in 2020 than '16. And by that moment, after twelve years in power, like any other modern political party, the Democrats will be tired and out of ideas.
The problem with the American system is that much of the period will see divided government and gridlock, which means very little will be done to address what are certain to be serious issues of financial and imperial retrenchment. And in that sense, no party may wish for control of the White House over the next 30 years, because no one would willingly preside over a period of imperial decline and adjusted expectations.
Gridlock is generally correlated with progress and prosperity. The 80's, with a D controlled house and R-controlled WH were boom times. Similarly the late 90's with an R-controlled house and a D-controlled WH were also boom times. Generally the most disastrous periods have been when either party had the trifecta of WH, house, and senate. The 2000-2006 era when the R's controlled everything, or 2008-2010 when the D's controlled everything.
2008 Democrats: "The patriot Act is pure evil, vote Obama he won't renew it!"
2011 Democrats: "Obama did the right thing renewing the Patriot Act"
2008 Democrats: "I am voting for Obama because the debt has grown too high it is over 9 Trillion"
2012 Democrats: "The 16 Trillion debt isn't that bad if you look at it standing upside down, squinting, after just having been pepper sprayed"
I think this is the main thing that causes so much friction between dems and repubs, liberals and conservatives. For example, in 2003 McCain had republicans and democrats at his side, and all were upset at the our of control budget deficits and soaring debt, but after 0bama was elected, McCain has no more democrats at his side. Partisan politics has made democrats into complete morons and sellouts to their own country.
It's all about gay marriage.
...
With voters in the 18-29 bracket, this is the defining issue.
Considering that gays make up between 2-10% of the population (depending on who you're listening to), and that young people have been among the hardest hit by the bad economy, that's really, really sad.
I'm proud to say that our 19 year old does NOT consider that "the defining issue." He has opinions on many issues, and all of them carry weight. We've taught him to not be a one-issue voter, and that those who are have been successfully conditioned by politicians and groups with a political agenda into casting their vote for whomever those groups tell them to vote for.
Having a "defining issue" is a FANTASTIC way to allow others to control you - and your vote.
Personally, I think both sides are just two separate sides of the same coin. Big biz and lobbyists control both. Suburban and rural whites mostly vote Republican while urban (and educated) whites and minorities vote Democrat. All of these red herring issues like race prevent us from seeing that the real divide is income and access to opportunity.
Realistically, Dems will control the White House simply because a Democrat doesn't have to venture too far to the left to win the Democratic Nomination. GOP candidates often have to exaggerate their conservative credentials just to win the party's nomination (Mitt Romney). In a general election, a Democratic candidate can repeat all of the GOP candidates' old talking points and paint that person as "too far to the right" to be electable.
Republicans will continue winning gubernatorial elections and some House/Senate seats. Those elections allow for more partisanship and are often reliant on the particular demographics of a state. Most states (especially in Middle America) are heavily populated with whites in suburban/rural areas and they'll reliably vote for the GOP unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
The democrats will probably continue to make gains as long as they keep buying votes, until they run out of people to steal money from.
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.
