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.
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.
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.
If half of what you said was true I wouldn't have to vote 3rd party in protest anymore.
Sadly, you're drunk on propaganda including all the "green energy" initiatives that were nothing but corporate pork for big donors and that actually HURT green companies like Tesla by propping up their competitors. Every heard of Fisker? Of course you haven't.
Your lack of knowledge of democratic involvement in the miltiary industrial complex and with corporate welfare is equally appalling....they are no different than the republicans on that front....but hey, you probably don't know whom repealed the bank regs nor whom all signed NAFTA either.
Well look on the bright side, at least gas prices are lower now that Bush is out of office and the dems are in control!
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.
One way to look at it.
My take is that the idiot in the WH is too obstructionist, too radical, too far to the left, unwilling to compromise; has never had a budget even for the 1st two years of his presidency, even swhen he had majority in Congress; presided over the one of the worst failures in history, .e. ACA, sat for several scandals, re IRS, and NSA and Benghazi. Brokered a monumental idiotic deal with Iran for no gain to the US. Alienated most of our allies overseas. Has been relegated to ruling by decree since he refuses to compromise even with his fellow democrats.
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?
More poor, dependent people = more democrats
Is it any wonder that democrat policy seeks to increase the number of poor, dependent people, and thus oppose the personal goals of US citizens?
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.
I think that this statement is a bit simplistic, considering that the GOP can still win the White House with its certain platform in certain cases/situations. However, you are correct that without significant changes to their platform, it might very well gradually get harder and harder for the Republicans to win the White House.
Nope. Just look at the boomer generation. Back in the 60s you would have sworn that the peace and love generation would keep liberalism going for decades. They loved Kennedy, adored McGovern. Instead, the boomers morphed into the most bigoted, spiteful, self-centered, and selfish generation in the history of the country. They are now the bulk of the extremist tea party movement and the core of the Republican party;
I think that this statement is a bit simplistic, considering that the GOP can still win the White House with its certain platform in certain cases/situations. However, you are correct that without significant changes to their platform, it might very well gradually get harder and harder for the Republicans to win the White House.
Just another Obamabot.
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.
