What's Next for the Republican Party?

[Stavros]

An openly gay Senator is elected in Wisconsin; States vote in favour of gay marriage, the legalised use of marijuana...voters have rejected Akin and Mourdock...

It seems to me that extremists tend not to get elected, that many Republicans are as liberal on social policy as Democrats, but that the tight score on the popular vote suggests that this election has not marked a significant change in anything other than the Hispanic vote, which in proportion is now more Democrat than it was in 2004; but I am saying this without a minute analysis of the figures.

Am I right in thinking that John Boehner is now the senior elected Republican, and that he is, in effect, the 'leader' -or the public voice- of this Party? I don't know if this means he will run for President in 2016, but I think it does mean that in the medium term, how his Band of Brothers in Congress work with the President, if they work at all, will be worth watching.

Do Republicans reinforce their conservative economics? Do they 'confess' that it is not what the people want, and find some new way of addressing economic policy? Do they realise that taking conservative positions on social policy is unpopular?

Some how or other, they have to find a way of getting voted in to the White House in 2016, and they need a charismatic, credible candidate. I would be interested to know how people see the next 18 months or so in the life of the GOP.

[tommy001]

No matter who gets in they're all the same! Promise everything and deliver nothing!

[trish]

Except for equal pay for equal work, affordable healthcare and Bin Laden on a platter:D

[tommy001]

Except for equal pay for equal work, affordable healthcare and Bin Laden on a platter:D

And don't forget about the $600 billion spending cuts coming up

[trish]

:party::party::party::party::party:

[tommy001]

:party::party::party::party::party:

What's next..mmmm.. they join the 12.3 million unemployed lol

[trish]

Who's they? Calm down now. Take a breath. Now blow.:party::party::party::party::party:

[Stavros]

This is the view of the editor of the Daily Telegraph, Britain's premier Conservative newspaper.
The Religious Right is dead


By Damian Thompson (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/) US politics (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/us-politics/) Last updated: November 7th, 2012



http://1.2.3.12/bmi/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/11/becoming_christian_citizen.jpg (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100188256/the-religious-right-is-dead/becoming_christian_citizen/)He won't be electing a President any time soon

Guys – have a quick puff of your joint before heading down the aisle with your boyfriend. In addition to re-electing Obama, various American states voted to legalise dope and gay marriage. OK, so they weren't necessarily the same states, but you get the picture. Last night was a victory for secular liberal America – or, to put it another way, America's emerging secular liberal majority. The United States is still pious by European standards, but the gap is narrowing every year. You cannot visit American bookshops without being struck by the popularity of atheist cheerleaders or agnostic self-help gurus; when I meet a young New Yorker or Californian I assume – as I would in Britain – that they don't go to church, have liberal positions on abortion and homosexuality and generally despise the conservative religious activism that, until so recently, had the power to elect presidents.
Two points worth noting about this election. First, the Religious Right – and how dated that phrase already sounds – united around a candidate who, by most standards, is not even a Christian. The lack of an anti-Mormon backlash among orthodox Catholics and Protestants who were brought up to regard Latter-day Saints as sinister cultists tells its own story. Also, and here I'm going out on a limb, America has just re-elected its first post-Christian president (unless you count Jefferson). I've never thought that Barack Obama's churchgoing was anything more than Chicago politics: why else would a sophisticated Harvard-educated lawyer sit through years of incoherent ranting by the Rev Jeremiah Wright?
I'll return to this theme, but even the Tea Party wasn't the Religious Right – at least, not at first. When Christian fundamentalists jumped on board, that's when public support began to bleed away.
Americans: welcome to Europe. You may miss the City on the Hill but, hey – no one's going to give you a hard time if you stay in bed on Sunday morning.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100188256/the-religious-right-is-dead/

[Willie Escalade]

They need to realize there are other cultures and lifestyles out there. Focusing on one parameter of the population will NOT get anything done to put this country on the right track...especially when it's their policies that got us in this trouble in the first place.

Instead of working separately they need to work with everyone; the audience of the DNC was a more realistic view of how this country is than what was seen at the RNC. Celebrate diversity instead of condemning it...those other races/cultures are NOT going anywhere anytime soon.

AND KEEP RELIGION OUT OF IT! And I was raised Catholic.

[trish]

Boehner has a rule that nothing gets brought to the floor of the house unless it can be passed without any help from democrats. He wants the GOP to own all legislation. This has got to end or the Congress will remain gridlocked.

The republican half of the Senate through filibusters have effectively required all legislation pass with a two thirds majority rather than a simple majority. This practice has to end. The Senate could require filibusters be attended or fail, or the republicans could just behave rationally and stop abusing the filibuster. In any case it is a source of gridlock.

This time the republicans can accept the president as their president and work with him and the democrats in good faith. Last term the bipartisan panel on Heath care hammered out an agreement that wound up looking more like what the republicans wanted (Romneycare) than what the Dems wanted (single payer) and the republican panel members still didn't vote for their own proposal!

Wllie Escalade is right, the GOP has got to grow a lot more inclusive. They have alienated women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, anyone with a modicum of education in science. Their governors have gone on a firing rampage getting rid of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firemen, policemen etc. They've attacked social security and Medicare, programs that are extremely popular. The U.S. is a huge country and a world power. As long as that is true it will have a correspondingly large government. The GOP knows that. It's time they end their small government rant. It's bringing all kind of clowns into the power structure of their party who simply are too naive to run or comprehend a nation as complex as the US; witness the clown car of GOP primary candidates.

[Queens Guy]

An openly gay Senator is elected in Wisconsin; States vote in favour of gay marriage, the legalised use of marijuana...voters have rejected Akin and Mourdock...

It seems to me that extremists tend not to get elected, that many Republicans are as liberal on social policy as Democrats, but that the tight score on the popular vote suggests that this election has not marked a significant change in anything other than the Hispanic vote, which in proportion is now more Democrat than it was in 2004; but I am saying this without a minute analysis of the figures.

Am I right in thinking that John Boehner is now the senior elected Republican, and that he is, in effect, the 'leader' -or the public voice- of this Party? I don't know if this means he will run for President in 2016, but I think it does mean that in the medium term, how his Band of Brothers in Congress work with the President, if they work at all, will be worth watching.

Do Republicans reinforce their conservative economics? Do they 'confess' that it is not what the people want, and find some new way of addressing economic policy? Do they realise that taking conservative positions on social policy is unpopular?

Some how or other, they have to find a way of getting voted in to the White House in 2016, and they need a charismatic, credible candidate. I would be interested to know how people see the next 18 months or so in the life of the GOP.

Yes, John 'Tanning Bed' Boehner, is the senior Republican. And 2nd in line to be President, God forbid both the President and the Vice President were killed or became incapacitated. It's President Obama then V.P. Biden, then Boehner, then Senator Harry Reid.

As you said Obama didn't win with much of a mandate. Obama won 49.9% and Romney won 49.3% of the popular vote.

In the 2010 election, the 'Tea Party' election, In the House of Representatives, the Republicans won 51.38% and the Democrats won 44.77% of the popular vote. (Every member of the House stands election every 2 years, so that may have been the temperature of the electorate that year). In the Senate, where only 1/3 of the members faced election that year, the Republicans won 49.37% of the vote and the Democrats won 43.98%. Much greater margins that Obama vs. Romney 2012. The Republicans also won the vast majority of the Governor races. (The Governor is the executive in charge of each State.)

Do they reinforce their conservative economics? Well, it seems that's what the electorate wanted in 2010. Romney was not a Tea Party favorite. Republicans did very well in the 2010 election. Very well. If Obama had been up for re-election in 2010, he probably would have lost.

So, did the electorate change that much from 2008 to 2010, and then again from 2010 to 2012?

Maybe it was the candidate. And the way he explained his positions to the masses. There are a lot of similarities in the economic situation of the USA when it was Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1976 and as it is this year with Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. Romney was an unpopular candidate who was quite stiff. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, wasn't stiff. He seemed more 'approachable', and Reagan was able to get a large amount of 'traditional' Democratic voters to switch sides and vote for him.

So, I'm not sure the answer is that simple. With only .6% difference in the popular vote and slim margins of victories in the 'Swing States', it may have been Hurricane Sandy that made the difference. MSNBC host and Obama supporter Chris Matthews said "I'm so glad we had that storm last week." It took the focus off the economy and gave Obama the chance to fly to the storm on Air Force One and 'look Presidential' and 'concerned'. If the Hurricane had hit 3 weeks ago, perhaps FEMA's poor response and allowing Romney to refocus on the economy would have tipped the results in Romney's favor.

Just some thoughts.

I sincerely hope the President is successful as he faces the challenges of his 2nd term.

[broncofan]

The swing states were close, and the popular vote was close, but the whole question of "the mandate" that a President wins with his election to office is overblown. There a several ways to protect the minority vote, and they are indeed protected in the house and senate votes for legislators. However our executive power is more concentrated. I remember when the 2004 election came down to Ohio, President Bush won and said he had earned political capital and planned to spend it. He also said something about a mandate.

The election itself was in some ways a referendum on Obama's first term as the re-election of any incumbent is. This incumbent had to deal with an obstructionist senate who blocked various initiatives for stimulus spending and then blamed him for the state of the economy. I don't see anything in the Constitution or elsewhere that says his power as the Chief Executive is diluted because he won by a narrow margin. What sort of mandate did Bush win with his non-existent margin of victory in 2000? Did President Bush not have the authority vested in him to invade Iraq, against the will of nearly half of the electorate?

I understand and respect what you're saying Queensguy, but I must disagree. The President's results over the last four years were very much at issue, in the face of a united political party whose sole goal was to prevent him from obtaining a second term. And all the while they blamed him for the fallout from the previous disaster administration while thwarting his attempts to take corrective action. They did this not because of ideological differences but because they were committed to his failure and with it policy failures that threatened everyone. By overcoming those sinister attempts and winning the electoral college, he won his mandate to lead to the full extent that his office lawfully permits.

As for the Republican Party? Come back to Planet Earth. Understand that in the 21st Century gay-bashing, corporate cronyism, thinly veiled racism, greed, religious fundamentalism and militarism are becoming less popular and will be further stigmatized with each electoral cycle. Lick you wounds and return four years from now as decent people and you stand a chance.

[trish]

...he (Obama) won his mandate to lead to the full extent that his office lawfully permits. :claps:claps:claps

[Ben]

"The White Establishment Is Now The Minority" - Bill O'Reilly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ

[broncofan]

"The White Establishment Is Now The Minority" - Bill O'Reilly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ
And the minority of Bill O'Reilly's white vibrator is not in his ass.

[broncofan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Sexual_haras sment_lawsuit

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-oreillyvibratorzone.htm

Sorry I forgot to source my last post:dancing:

[Cuchulain]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conservative-Voices-Weigh-Election-Results-for-Congress-amp-the-GOP/10737435639/

I saw the short vid above on CSPAN today and nearly choked laughing. A handful of very angry CONs representing various extreme REICHwing groups blame Romney, repub leaders in the House and Senate and even Karl Rove for the election thumping because they were NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

These warthogs doubled down on their hatred of PBS, NPR, Planned parenthood, government regulation, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and anything else they could think of. They said that repubs who don't get on board must be replaced. No more 'RINOS', lol. All future repub candidates must be carefully coached on how to present themselves, what to say and how to react to questions. Damn, these poor freaks are angry.

[broncofan]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Conservative-Voices-Weigh-Election-Results-for-Congress-amp-the-GOP/10737435639/

I saw the short vid above on CSPAN today and nearly choked laughing. A handful of very angry CONs representing various extreme REICHwing groups blame Romney, repub leaders in the House and Senate and even Karl Rove for the election thumping because they were NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.

These warthogs doubled down on their hatred of PBS, NPR, Planned parenthood, government regulation, taxes, abortion, gay marriage and anything else they could think of. They said that repubs who don't get on board must be replaced. No more 'RINOS', lol. All future repub candidates must be carefully coached on how to present themselves, what to say and how to react to questions. Damn, these poor freaks are angry.
They do face a dilemma in that they want to implement all of these hateful policies but can't afford to alienate their constituents. If they move to the center they have a chance of winning but then they don't really get their way. So we see this reactionary shift to the right, which hurts their chances electorally, but what's the point of being Republican if you're going to be reasonable?

Yes, yes of course they lost the election because there were too many fraudulent liberals posing as Republicans not because the world is changing and people don't like their wedge issues, where they selectively represent a very small minority but turn enough people against each other to squeak out elections. They are walking a tight rope because to win they have to convince some decent people they have a social conscience so this play to their hardcore base is the opposite of good politics. If they are so uncompromising how do they convince one issue voters to vote for them; the person who doesn't want to pay taxes, who thinks gay marriage is a bridge too far, or who thinks government doesn't belong in the bedroom (for a meaningless cliche).

[broncofan]

I second the recommendation to click on Cuchulain's video. Once you open the link you are treated to all of these dour faces blaming their loss on all the wrong causes. I sincerely hope this introductory speaker Richard Viguerie gets a foothold in the party.:D This is honestly self-mockery at its finest.

LMAO- Brent Bozell to the press- "nothing personal but your profession was atrocious."

Then he discusses why so many Republican pundits thought Romney was going to win despite the fact that the polls universally favored Obama. He says why were Noonan and Hannity so wrong? His reason: it's because they couldn't believe America would go down the path to destruction.

No dipshit. Why did they ignore polling data? Because they're Republican shills posing as journalists doing what they've done for over a decade; letting their political biases overrule any logical faculty they may have. They ignored polls by independent organizations that had Obama winning because they didn't want to believe they wouldn't get their way and it was easier for them to pretend non-partisan agencies were in the pockets of liberals.

[robertlouis]

Is OMK on sabbatical or did he spontaneously combust at the result?

[Stavros]

There was a short, but brutal remark by an Hispanic American on the BBC last night -he argued most Hispanics are 'family values' people, they are religious, they often run their own small business and don't like paying taxes or filling in forms, their children go into the military -we are natural Republicans, he said. The problem with the Republican Party when asked? They don't want us here.

How long will it be before an American President is chosen from among its Hispanic communities?

[Stavros]

Yes, John 'Tanning Bed' Boehner, is the senior Republican. And 2nd in line to be President, God forbid both the President and the Vice President were killed or became incapacitated. It's President Obama then V.P. Biden, then Boehner, then Senator Harry Reid.

As you said Obama didn't win with much of a mandate. Obama won 49.9% and Romney won 49.3% of the popular vote.

In the 2010 election, the 'Tea Party' election, In the House of Representatives, the Republicans won 51.38% and the Democrats won 44.77% of the popular vote. (Every member of the House stands election every 2 years, so that may have been the temperature of the electorate that year). In the Senate, where only 1/3 of the members faced election that year, the Republicans won 49.37% of the vote and the Democrats won 43.98%. Much greater margins that Obama vs. Romney 2012. The Republicans also won the vast majority of the Governor races. (The Governor is the executive in charge of each State.)

Do they reinforce their conservative economics? Well, it seems that's what the electorate wanted in 2010. Romney was not a Tea Party favorite. Republicans did very well in the 2010 election. Very well. If Obama had been up for re-election in 2010, he probably would have lost.

So, did the electorate change that much from 2008 to 2010, and then again from 2010 to 2012?

Maybe it was the candidate. And the way he explained his positions to the masses. There are a lot of similarities in the economic situation of the USA when it was Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1976 and as it is this year with Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. Romney was an unpopular candidate who was quite stiff. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, wasn't stiff. He seemed more 'approachable', and Reagan was able to get a large amount of 'traditional' Democratic voters to switch sides and vote for him.

So, I'm not sure the answer is that simple. With only .6% difference in the popular vote and slim margins of victories in the 'Swing States', it may have been Hurricane Sandy that made the difference. MSNBC host and Obama supporter Chris Matthews said "I'm so glad we had that storm last week." It took the focus off the economy and gave Obama the chance to fly to the storm on Air Force One and 'look Presidential' and 'concerned'. If the Hurricane had hit 3 weeks ago, perhaps FEMA's poor response and allowing Romney to refocus on the economy would have tipped the results in Romney's favor.

Just some thoughts.

I sincerely hope the President is successful as he faces the challenges of his 2nd term.

Which is why I think that had this election been as 'radical' as some pundits believe -that hideous loud-mouth Andrew Sullivan was on the BBC last night making inflated statements one of which was that the Democrats could be in power for years because of the implosion in the GOP- then the House would be Democrat; certainly there was no haemorrhage of the Republican vote comparable to the Conservative defeat by Blair in 1997.

[Willie Escalade]

There was a short, but brutal remark by an Hispanic American on the BBC last night -he argued most Hispanics are 'family values' people, they are religious, they often run their own small business and don't like paying taxes or filling in forms, their children go into the military -we are natural Republicans, he said. The problem with the Republican Party when asked? They don't want us here.

How long will it be before an American President is chosen from among its Hispanic communities?

2016...maybe 2020.

[Prospero]

It won't be that long I suspect. Perhaps a Republican if they wake up to reality.
The Republicans for the short term are likely to continue to be opposed to anything and everything that President obama proposes. The tea party in Congress really didn't suffer any reverses.

I would suspect that on a longer term basis there will be a battle for the soul of the party. Will the economy improve? if it does then the tea party will begin to wither. if not then it will fight to gain greater control of the Republicans. The religious right on the other hand seem to have been fired a warning shot or two. Those fools with their remarks about rape have been ushered into the darkness. The social conservatives are not the wave of the future and I think that this election might be the point at which the Republicans realise a need to embrace a wider America.

But for the next election? Hilary? But she'll be 69. Biden. He has hinted he might run. Cuomo?

Ryan? Or Jeb Bush? Rubio?

Off the cuff remarks.

[danthepoetman]

There was a short, but brutal remark by an Hispanic American on the BBC last night -he argued most Hispanics are 'family values' people, they are religious, they often run their own small business and don't like paying taxes or filling in forms, their children go into the military -we are natural Republicans, he said. The problem with the Republican Party when asked? They don't want us here.

How long will it be before an American President is chosen from among its Hispanic communities?
But they are Catholics, Stavros. Not sure you can make Catholics swallow that God wants them to make money and couldn’t care less about the miserable. The fundamentalist Christian religious ideology at the basis of today’s Republicanism is something totally alien to my catholic background, I can tell you that. It rather sounds like the opposite of Christianity. I’m far from sure this will all mix with the Hispanics culture…

[broncofan]

But they are Catholics, Stavros. Not sure you can make Catholics swallow that God wants them to make money and couldn’t care less about the miserable. The fundamentalist Christian religious ideology at the basis of today’s Republicanism is something totally alien to my catholic background, I can tell you that. It rather sounds like the opposite of Christianity. I’m far from sure this will all mix with the Hispanics culture…
This is interesting Dan as I have a lot of friends who come from a Catholic background and are flexible in terms of their politics. On the other hand I have talked to some devout Catholics who simply could not vote for a Democrat because the party is deemed to favor abortion (a wholly judicial issue outside the political realm now). In fact, a number of these Catholics are Hispanic and perhaps you are right that it is a mix of culture blended with religion.

It's another point that while Democrats pick up voters who are attracted to its core values, liberalizing social policy, making economic burdens more equitable, Republicans often have to morph their values to win over segments of the population. They have pursued an unforgiving immigration policy that promotes the use of invasive investigatory techniques to challenge the citizenship of Hispanics in border states. They even had several pundits such as Pat Buchanan who have taken to discussing why immigrants coming from our Southern border are different and harmful to our culture whereas the European immigrants of the first part of the 20th century were not. Many of the Speak English campaigns seeking to ban non-English dialects in the workplace were promoted by right wing groups, yet everything Stavros says is true. Many small business owners with conservative social values. This is an emerging issue.

How will the GOP contort to capture their votes? They have already bent over backwards to accommodate the racists who want to purge the southwest of Hispanics. Can they simultaneously capture the vote of conservative Hispanics and develop a very dependable part of their base? The video on the previous page shows an identity crisis of sorts. They have become such a hodge podge of competing interests. Some woman saying she wants the pro-life voice of the party to have a fair hearing. Sure, but might that not alienate younger voters and women? I think with outreach efforts they can win the Hispanic vote without too much hemorrhage but they will have to be less vitriolic on immigration issues.

Afterall, the people who want to purge Hispanics from the Southwest aren't going to vote Democrat anyway. But they are their own worst enemies because if they are more reasonable on the immigration front we will hear more of this RINO (republican in name only) talk from the extreme wing of the base and this will be a turnoff to Hispanics with conservative values.

[danthepoetman]

Very deep analysis, Broncofan. I was just speaking out of my mind on the moment “it” was coming out of it. lol. You right: it’s much more complicated than what I was talking about.
I must admit to you though, that I always have a hard time thinking “republican”; it’s like trying to fit my liberal mind in some alien geometry…
Hey! when I read the thread topic, this is pretty much what came to my mind:

[Prospero]

Broncofan wrote: "Republicans often have to morph their values to win over segments of the population. They have pursued an unforgiving immigration policy that promotes the use of invasive investigatory techniques to challenge the citizenship of Hispanics in border states. They even had several pundits such as Pat Buchanan who have taken to discussing why immigrants coming from our Southern border are different and harmful to our culture whereas the European immigrants of the first part of the 20th century were not. Many of the Speak English campaigns seeking to ban non-English dialects in the workplace were promoted by right wing groups, "

Do you think that the first element of this is to do rather simply with short term electoral politics rather than any deeper issues?

Buchanan on the other hand is reflecting a concern I've seen widely discussed and reported over a much longer time period - namely about the shifting nature of the US and a fear among many primarily white Americans of a northern european background that the nation will over coming decades be one where their long cultural domination will be eclipsed. The rise of the asian, black but particularly Hispanic population, has provoked serious debate about the demographics of late 21st century America and onwards.

I've certainly seen some pundits talk of a white rebellion - characterised as being an underscore to the growth of the tea party - having its last gasp at this election.

[danthepoetman]

After an attempt at one strategy, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--GcowID395I/TYnKD7tlRAI/AAAAAAAAHnU/lJpIVOQ1oXQ/s1600/elephant-fucking-a-donkey.jpg you wander if there is not quite a bit of fatigue... http://images.smh.com.au/2012/02/02/2931531/art-elephant-420x0.jpg

[danthepoetman]

Aren't you affraid that in the end something like this comes out of it all?

[Queens Guy]

It won't be that long I suspect. Perhaps a Republican if they wake up to reality.
The Republicans for the short term are likely to continue to be opposed to anything and everything that President obama proposes. The tea party in Congress really didn't suffer any reverses.

I would suspect that on a longer term basis there will be a battle for the soul of the party. Will the economy improve? if it does then the tea party will begin to wither. if not then it will fight to gain greater control of the Republicans. The religious right on the other hand seem to have been fired a warning shot or two. Those fools with their remarks about rape have been ushered into the darkness. The social conservatives are not the wave of the future and I think that this election might be the point at which the Republicans realise a need to embrace a wider America.

But for the next election? Hilary? But she'll be 69. Biden. He has hinted he might run. Cuomo?

Ryan? Or Jeb Bush? Rubio?

Off the cuff remarks.


Biden? He really is a stupid man. I think I've owned furniture that is smarter than he is. This really akes some doing, but I think he's even dumber than Dan Quayle. Biden miscounted the number of letters in the word 'Jobs'. Chris Rock used to joke that if he was the first Black President he would appoint a Black Vice President to avoid a racist assassinating him, because they'd still wind up with a Black President. Obama has Biden.

I sincerely hope that Obama can handle the financial problems I think face America, with our deficits and debt. Europe, especially Germany, can bail out Greece, but nobody can bail out America. I think we will need some reforms that won't be popular.

If the economy continues to do poorly, I think the Democrats will not run somebody who promises to be Obama's 3rd term. It will have to be somebody that has no connection to Obama. So Hillary and Biden will be out. Cuomo has connections to Bill Clinton's Administration, and many Americans would like to return to the economic climate of the Clinton years.

[broncofan]

Broncofan wrote: "Republicans often have to morph their values to win over segments of the population.

Do you think that the first element of this is to do rather simply with short term electoral politics rather than any deeper issues?


I had written a long post on what makes a policy conservative, but I had difficulty settling on an ideological underpinning for their ideology. But perhaps they are a big tent party not because they are ideologically unprincipled and they make overtures to these various single issue voters but rather because very few people are conservative across the board. If the guidepost for conservatism is maintaining status quo in legal and institutional structures regardless of any pressing needs for reform, they will always have constituents who think this should not be the measuring stick for certain policies. When someone wants to hold onto an antiquated practice for traditional reasons, it may be specific to that practice. Let's say the immigration policy is driven by an unstated concern about a shifting demographic balance. Such a concern may be both very pressing for an individual (they vote on the basis of it) and not define their other views. That's the only reason I can think of other than ideological inconsistency in the GOP platform that they have attracted such a culturally and politically diverse group of characters.

But I'm curious to hear everyone else's view on this as well because it is mind-boggling. First, what are their principles? How are their policy choices tied to these principles? And is their mix of constituents the result of them having an inconsistent mix of policy initiatives or these constituents not being wholly "conservative"?

[robertlouis]

Some of the Repubtards are unspeakably stupid. An improvement in basic world knowledge would make a good start.

Exhibit #1

[Ben]

Hey, Rush Limbaugh: 'Starting an Abortion Industry' Won't Win You Female Voters:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/hey-rush-limbaugh-starting-an-abortion-industry-wont-win-you-female-voters-20121108

[robertlouis]

Hey, Rush Limbaugh: 'Starting an Abortion Industry' Won't Win You Female Voters:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/hey-rush-limbaugh-starting-an-abortion-industry-wont-win-you-female-voters-20121108

Fabulous article, Ben. Well-spotted.

Essentially, where there's no regret nor introspection, there's neither learning nor redemption. Asshole.

[danthepoetman]

A Republican?

[robertlouis]

A Republican?

Probably a member of the Tee Partay....

[Prospero]

This is what veteran right winger pat Buchanan had to say in an article posted today.
A rather obvioulsy racist proposal.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/09112012-patrick-buchanan-is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Euras ia+Review%29

Is The GOP Headed For The Boneyard?
By: Patrick J Buchanan

November 9, 2012


After its second defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, under whom unemployment has never been lower than the day George W. Bush left office, the Republican Party has at last awakened to its existential crisis.

Eighteen states have voted Democratic in six straight elections. Among the six are four of our most populous: New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California. And Obama has now won two of the three remaining mega-states, Ohio and Florida, twice.

Only Texas remains secure–for now.

At the presidential level, the Republican Party is at death’s door.

Yet one already sees the same physicians writing prescriptions for the same drugs that have been killing the GOP since W’s dad got the smallest share of the vote by a Republican candidate since William Howard Taft in 1912.

In ascertaining the cause of the GOP’s critical condition, let us use Occam’s razor–the principle that the simplest explanation is often the right one.

Would the GOP wipeout in those heavily Catholic, ethnic, socially conservative, blue-collar bastions of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois, which Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan swept, have anything to do with the fact that the United States since 2000 has lost 6 million manufacturing jobs and 55,000 factories?

Where did all those jobs and factories go? We know where.

They were outsourced. And in the deindustrialization of America, the Republican Party has been a culpable co-conspirator.

Unlike family patriarch Sen. Prescott Bush, who voted with Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurmond against JFK’s free-trade deal, Bush I and II pumped for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and opening America’s borders to all goods made by our new friends in the People’s Republic of China.

Swiftly, U.S. multinationals shut factories here, laid off workers, outsourced production to Asia and China, and brought their finished goods back, tax-free, to sell in the U.S.A.

Profits soared, as did the salaries of the outsourcing executives.

And their former workers? They headed for the service sector, along with their wives, to keep up on the mortgage payment, keep the kids in Catholic school and pay for the health insurance the family had lost.

Tuesday, these ex-Reagan Democrats came out to vote against some guy from Bain Capital they had been told in ads all summer was a big-time outsourcer who wrote in 2008, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!”

Yes, the simplest explanation is often the right one.

Republicans are also falling all over one another to express a love of Hispanics, after Mitt won only 27 percent of a Hispanic vote that is now 10 percent of the national vote.

We face demographic disaster, they are wailing. We must win a larger share of the Hispanic vote or we are doomed.

And what is the proposed solution to the GOP’s Hispanic problem, coming even from those supposedly on the realistic right?

Amnesty for the illegals! Stop talking about a border fence and self-deportation. Drop the employer sanctions. Make the GOP a welcoming party.

And what might be problematic about following this advice?

First, it will enrage populist conservatives who supported the GOP because they believed the party’s pledges to oppose amnesty, secure the border and stop illegals from taking jobs from Americans.

And in return for double-crossing these folks and losing their votes, what would be gained by amnesty for, say, 10 million illegal aliens?

Assume in a decade all 10 million became citizens and voted like the Hispanics, black folks and Asians already here. The best the GOP could expect–the Bush share in 2004–would be 40 percent, or 4 million of those votes.

But if Tuesday’s percentages held, Democrats would get not just 6 million, but 7 million new votes to the GOP’s less than 3 million.

Thus, if we assume the percentages of the last three elections hold, the Democratic Party would eventually gain from an amnesty a net of between 2 and 4 million new voters.

Easy to understand why Democrats are for this. But why would a Republican Party that is not suicidally inclined favor it?

Still, the GOP crisis is not so much illegal as legal immigration. Forty million legal immigrants have arrived in recent decades. Some 85 percent come from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Most arrived lacking the academic, language and labor skills to compete for high-paying jobs.

What does government do for them?

Subsidizes their housing and provides free education for their kids from Head Start through K-12, plus food stamps and school lunches, Pell Grants and student loans for college, Medicaid if they are sick, earned income tax credits if they work and 99 weeks of unemployment checks if they lose their job.

These are people who depend upon government.

Why would they vote for a party that is going to cut taxes they do not pay, but take away government benefits they do receive?

Again it needs be said. When the country looks like California demographically, it will look like California politically. Republicans are not whistling past the graveyard. They are right at the entrance.

[Prospero]

And this from Robert Reich, professor of public policy in California.

What now for the tea party?

Why John Boehner May Have More Leverage Over Tea Partiers In Congess
By: Robert Reich

November 9, 2012


“If there’s a mandate in yesterday’s results,” said House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday, “it’s a mandate to find a way for us to work together.” Republicans, he said, were willing to accept “new revenue under the right conditions,” to get a bipartisan agreement over the budget.

We’ve heard this before. The Speaker came close to agreeing to an increase in tax revenues in his talks with the President in the summer of 2011, but relented when Tea Partiers in the House made a ruckus.


But Tea Partiers may be more amenable to an agreement now that the electorate has signaled it doesn’t especially like what the Tea Party has been up to.

Consider Indiana, where the Tea Party had pushed out veteran GOP Senator Richard Lugar in favor of Richard (rape is “something God intended”) Mourdock. Mourdouk was soundly defeated Tuesday by Rep. Joe Donnelly.

In Missouri, the Tea Party was responsible for Todd (some rapes are “legitimate”) Akin winning the Republican Senate nomination – which gave Sen. Claire McCaskill a landslide victory.

And in Montana, Tea Party nominee Denny Rehberg was no match for Senator Jon Tester.

Of the sixty incumbent members of the House’s Tea Party Caucus, 47 were reelected, while 6 lost big, two ended up in races far too close for comfort, and one is still hanging by a thread (the rest either retired or sought higher office). Overall, those are bad odds for House incumbents.

As of Thursday morning, Tea Party icon Florida’s Rep. Allen West — who made a name for himself calling several of his Democratic colleagues communists — was still trailing his Democratic opponent Patrick Murphy by more than the 0.5 percent margin that would trigger an automatic recount. Nonetheless, West is charging “disturbing irregularities” in the balloting process, and his lawyers have asked that ballots and voting equipment be impounded in St. Lucie and Palm Beach counties in expectation of a recount.

Another Tea Party icon, Minnesota’s Rep. Michele Bachmann, beat challenger Jim Graves by just over 3,000 votes out of nearly 350,000 votes cast — even though she outspent Graves by more than 12-to-one. Not a good omen for Bachmann in 2014.

Tuesday wasn’t exactly a repudiation of the Tea Party, and the public’s rejection of Tea Party extremism on social issues doesn’t automatically translate into rejection of its doctrinaire economics. But the election may have been enough of a slap in the face to cause Tea Partiers to rethink their overall strategy of intransigence. And to give Boehner and whatever moderate voices are left in the GOP some leverage over the crazies in their midst.


About the author:
Robert Reich



Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, Supercapitalism, and his most recent book, Aftershock. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. He is also Common Cause's board chairman. His website is: http://robertreich.org

[broncofan]

It is quite unbelievable that Patrick Buchanan has been a mainstream commentator in American politics for as long as he has. His focus on the right kind of Americans and his obvious consideration of blacks, hispanics, jews et al over the years as the wrong kind has lost all of its subtlety.

I think Buchanan does not really take into account the potential for Hispanics not to vote in their existing patterns if Republicans stopped taking such a persecutory tone with them. I recall very well Proposition 187 in California during the 1990's when Republicans were trying to turn Hispanics into suspects for deportation. If I remember this I can only imagine that Mexican-American voters in the Southwest will take a while to forgive them.

I also think Robert Reich has it right. If the Republicans play to their base any more, they will not provide enough cover for those who want to present themselves as respectable Republicans.

[Stavros]

It is quite unbelievable that Patrick Buchanan has been a mainstream commentator in American politics for as long as he has. His focus on the right kind of Americans and his obvious consideration of blacks, hispanics, jews et al over the years as the wrong kind has lost all of its subtlety.

I think Buchanan does not really take into account the potential for Hispanics not to vote in their existing patterns if Republicans stopped taking such a persecutory tone with them. I recall very well Proposition 187 in California during the 1990's when Republicans were trying to turn Hispanics into suspects for deportation. If I remember this I can only imagine that Mexican-American voters in the Southwest will take a while to forgive them.

I also think Robert Reich has it right. If the Republicans play to their base any more, they will not provide enough cover for those who want to present themselves as respectable Republicans.

I think you are right, Bronocfan, if there is a debate to be had about the Hispanic communities, Buchanan isn't contibuting anything positive to it; it seems hard to believe that you attract voters through attacks on other Americans. If there has to be a debate about immigration policy, it should be about what it means rather than who it selects to be 'afraid' of. It also reinforces a belied that 'white America' is being eclipsed by 'the others' as if the whole concept of America could only be understood in terms of colour.
If the demographic trends are right, then the opportunity to develop a strong voter base in Hispanic communities must be tempting, and it is odd that as we are told many of them are 'natural conservatives' it is even more important for the GOP to act on it, if it gets its act together at all. What do you think are the key issues over the next 4 years-would a rapprochement with Cuba mark an important boost for the Democrats if Obama can find a way to achieve it?

[Ben]

Whose Fault Was Romney Loss? Conservative Finger-Pointing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpVg3TwZPgY&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Schadenfreude, anyone?

Here's Trump exploding on Twitter.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXg9TYdzgJs&feature=relmfu

[trish]

Life is like a box of really classy, super expensive gourmet chocolates__Forrest Trump.

[Ben]

Life is like a box of really classy, super expensive gourmet chocolates__Forrest Trump.

Ha ha ha! And:

Donald Trump's Companies Filed for Bankruptcy 4 Times:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250&page=3#.UJ3fUmdf9mA

[robertlouis]

Ha ha ha! And:

Donald Trump's Companies Filed for Bankruptcy 4 Times:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250&page=3#.UJ3fUmdf9mA

Trump represents several of the things that make the Republicans dislikeable. He's loud, arrogant, hypocritical (rails against Chinese imports while having his own label clothes made there!), the living antithesis of trickle down economics, has an ego the size of his towers while being visibly ignorant (cf his twitter rants about the election result) and is convinced of the importance of his opinions. In short, a nasty, ignorant prick, and a salutary reminder of the nastiness that the GOP sadly now largely represents. As long as people like him retain influence, bolstered by the anti-women, anti-abortion, anti-gay, fundamentalist religious taliban that comprises the Tea Party, the hole they're digging for themselves is simply getting deeper every day.

PS. Where the fuck is OMK? We need his cool, measured and rational analysis of what went wrong.

Yes, that IS sarcasm.....:wiggle:

[trish]

PS. Where the fuck is OMK? We need his cool, measured and rational analysis of what went wrong.

Yes, that IS sarcasm.....:wiggle:I'm not sure but I think he may be banned for editing the content of an article to suit his needs and posting it. Such behavior could've got him sued had he done such a thing in a venue with a less...shall we say...specialized audience. Start your investigation here ->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1231098&postcount=567

[robertlouis]

I'm not sure but I think he may be banned for editing the content of an article to suit his needs and posting it. Such behavior could've got him sued had he done such a thing in a venue with a less...shall we say...specialized audience. Start your investigation here ->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1231098&postcount=567

Ah, thanks Trish, I did wonder. I almost miss the lying bastard, well, not really....

[robertlouis]

Another batshit-crazy fundamentalist republican apologist. I don't know about you, but I find his holocaust analogy offensive in the extreme. And I'm also utterly amazed that someone like this commands a significant public platform in the USA.

[danthepoetman]

Another batshit-crazy fundamentalist republican apologist. I don't know about you, but I find his holocaust analogy offensive in the extreme. And I'm also utterly amazed that someone like this commands a significant public platform in the USA.
Disgusting!
If there was divine Justice, if there was a God, I’m pretty convinced he would strike him…

[Prospero]

"More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
Pt Robertson.

I had NO idea.

So President Obama is just pretending he is a Christian? There we were thinking he was called Barack Hussein Obama when - really - the H stood for Hitler.

Gosh. So c'mon America where are the extermination camps? Utah?Somewhere in Nevada? Maybe in rural maryland? We should be told.

And all those Christians being forced to wear yellow crosses on their coats.

[Willie Escalade]

He's gotta be shitting us, right?

[Prospero]

Not to mention the slave trade...

Reason and Robertson parted company long ago.

[trish]

Extermination camps? I know nothing...:whistle:

[martin48]

one view

[broncofan]

I think you are right, Bronocfan, if there is a debate to be had about the Hispanic communities, Buchanan isn't contibuting anything positive to it; it seems hard to believe that you attract voters through attacks on other Americans. If there has to be a debate about immigration policy, it should be about what it means rather than who it selects to be 'afraid' of. It also reinforces a belied that 'white America' is being eclipsed by 'the others' as if the whole concept of America could only be understood in terms of colour.
If the demographic trends are right, then the opportunity to develop a strong voter base in Hispanic communities must be tempting, and it is odd that as we are told many of them are 'natural conservatives' it is even more important for the GOP to act on it, if it gets its act together at all. What do you think are the key issues over the next 4 years-would a rapprochement with Cuba mark an important boost for the Democrats if Obama can find a way to achieve it?
About a rapprochment with Cuba you identified a blind spot for me. I know Florida has a large Cuban American population but I'm not exactly sure that's what they want. Our government for some time has had a very radical position on Cuba, and perhaps any departure from that is politically risky, because people have gotten used to the status quo. It has become one of those issues where politicans are afraid to act simply because they are not sure what the response will be. BTW, I think a rapprochment would be reasonable, absent politics, and perhaps politics notwithstanding.

I think you're right that thinking in terms of the effect of immigration policy on Republican candidacy (or voting patterns) is the wrong way to think about immigration to begin with. The Republican's approach to immigration is imo wrong regardless of the effect it has on how Hispanics vote. With millions of undocumented immigrants, it is simply impossible to mount an effective law enforcement effort to expel even a fraction of the "illegals". The result is an ineffective policy that results in harassment of Hispanics here legally, and the pushing to the margins of people who are here illegally who have no opportunity for provisional citizenship and will then be encouraged to engage in underground, criminal activity. Nobody wants to reward illegal behavior, but it is unhelpful to call any efforts to provide a provisional path to citizenship as an incentive to come forward and be part of the system "amnesty", which is what the Republican base has done.

But as for Buchanan's calculus, I think he has applied his cynical math incorrectly. That there are any Hispanics in border states who vote Republican speaks loudly to the fact that they have a minority culture that might be amenable to some of their policy choices. Their approach to our illegal immigration problem has encouraged active harassment of Hispanics on a local level. That they can expect Hispanic-Americans to ignore the fact that they are presented by Republicans as undesirables is unreasonable.

[danthepoetman]

The Republican Party?

(Don't worry: no actual elephant was hurt in the making of that post; they saved the little guy)

[trish]

This piece by Ross Douthat is in today's NYT.

"But Republicans are also losing because today’s economic landscape is very different than in the days of Ronald Reagan’s landslides. The problems that middle-class Americans faced in the late 1970s are not the problems of today. Health care now takes a bigger bite than income taxes out of many paychecks. Wage stagnation is a bigger threat to blue-collar workers than inflation. Middle-income parents worry more about the cost of college than the crime rate. Americans are more likely to fret about Washington’s coziness with big business than about big government alone."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-gops-demographic-excuse.html?smid=pl-share

Why did he wait until after the election to write that? Did he only come to this understanding as a result of Tuesday's trouncing? Or was he shilling lies up to election day?

[Ben]

Marco Rubio Drops Some Science About the Age of the Earth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/19/marco_rubio_drops_some_science_about_the_age_of_th e_earth.html

[robertlouis]

Marco Rubio Drops Some Science About the Age of the Earth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/19/marco_rubio_drops_some_science_about_the_age_of_th e_earth.html

Oh well, at least that's something to dust off when he runs for the GOP in 2016.

Err, Ben, please change that avatar. It's obscene. Dicks are fine, but that's steroids gone mad.

[robertlouis]

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory
By Tom Cohen, CNN

November 21, 2012 -- Updated 0058 GMT (0858 HKT)



Die-hard conservatives blame Mitt Romney, electoral fraud and liberal conspiracies
Few discuss demographic shifts in America
Anti-Obama sentiments abound in conservative post-election commentary
One blogger proposes an Electoral College boycott

Washington (CNN) -- Step by step, die-hard conservatives are confronting their grief over President Barack Obama's re-election.

But judging from blog posts and other public pronouncements, many remain stuck somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance.

So far this week, prolific blogger Judson Phillips on Tea Party Nation has called for boycotting the Electoral College to prevent validating the election result and lamented the triumph of liberalism in destroying national unity and therefore America's greatness.

Over at RedState.com, a more sophisticated political analysis echoes calls by Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them.

"There'll be no hand-wringing here and there sure as hell won't be any apologies for fighting for what we believe in," founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday.

"Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful," said another Erickson post Tuesday. "Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies."

Some acceptance has been necessary. On Tuesday, tea party favorite Rep. Allen West of Florida conceded in his race for re-election after initially alleging electoral fraud.

Little of the discussion focuses on the changing demographics of the country, identified by exit polls and many analysts as a major factor in both Obama's 2008 victory to become the nation's first African-American president and his re-election on November 6.

In particular, Obama received overwhelming support from the nation's fastest-growing demographic -- Hispanic Americans -- to cause some high-profile conservatives including Fox radio and television host Sean Hannity to soften their stance on immigration reform.
Lessons learned from the 2012 vote
Taking stock of tea party after election
LaTourette: Tea Party is not the GOP

Overall, though, hard-core conservatives continue to reject that they are a minority in a country built on the core principle of liberty that they embrace.

Instead, the initial reactions and subsequent attempts to explain what happened sought scapegoats, such as what right-wing critics describe as a deficient Republican challenger in Mitt Romney, electoral theft or a liberal-dominated media industry that is part of a broader Marxist effort dating back decades to undermine the nation.

Study: Fox, MSNBC got more extreme

On November 10, Phillips alleged that more votes than registered voters in several Florida precincts were part of Democratic efforts to "steal the election" against West.

There was no immediate posting Tuesday in response to West's concession.

Six days later, Phillips took aim at Romney, calling the former Massachusetts governor a "flip-flopping liberal who ran a content-free campaign."

In a response to Phillips' post, one writer ranted about what he alleged were "the sexual perversions and drug use of the Obamas," the president's "forged birth certificate" and "voter fraud of biblical proportions."

"Why are we talking secession instead of removing the New York Times and supporting citizens' Grand Jury indicments against this unbelievable treason, felonies and usurpations raining down on us on a daily basis?" said the post attributed to Royce Latham of Penngrove, California.

Timothy Stanley: Don't dismiss secession talk

On Sunday, Phillips proposed an action plan -- getting Electoral College voters in states won by Romney to boycott the validation of the election result by the December 17 deadline.

"The 12th Amendment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3," Phillips wrote. "In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum."

Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and presumably choose Romney. Phillips acknowledged such a move would set a "dangerous precedent," but added that "the situation is so grim we really have no other choice."

"Does anyone really believe America can survive four more years of Barack Obama?" he wrote, saying the president will seek to "transform America from that shining city on a hill into a third world shantytown, with massive unemployment and a corrupt government."

What's next for Obama election organization?

The next day, Phillips sounded more resigned, lamenting what he called "the triumph of liberalism in America" that he said was "destroying our national unity and by extension destroying the freedom."

"In America, until now we have always identified ourselves as Americans," he wrote. "The balkanization that has been pushed by the hard left has one goal in mind. That is the end of America as a great nation. They are perilously close to succeeding."

Tuesday brought his attack on a carbon tax being discussed by some on both sides in Congress as a step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to climate change.

While challenging "the mythical man-made global warming," Phillips also said a carbon tax would create a "massive new tax stream" for liberals bent on growing government.

U.N.: Greenhouse gases set record in 2011

The focus on a single issue certain to generate legislative and public debate signaled some change in the response to the election.

To Phillips and other conservatives, any increase in revenue goes against their goal of shrinking the federal government by cutting spending.

"It is time for conservative activists to make the case to the American people that we have far more government than we can afford, or than we want, no matter what our politicians may think, or what deals they may be willing to cut with each other to keep spending other people's money until we are all bankrupt," said a Tuesday post on Tea Party Nation by Bruce Donnelly of Fox River Grove, Illinois.

GOP, Dems seek common ground on fiscal cliff

Donnelly called for "organizing voters to rein in the politicians, rather than let them keep playing the game by their rules with our money."

"It's worth your effort to organize voters in your community and apply real political pressure for change, because if we just keep playing the game by their rules, your own financial situation will keep getting worse, rather than better," he continued.

"The politicians keep offering free stuff with other people's money, playing us all for fools. It's time to wake up the voters in every corner of America to the fact that they have been conned by these snake oil salesmen and their well-rehearsed lies and false promises," Donnelly said.

In the end, a reviled Democrat in the White House may mean more followers of conservative websites such as Tea Party Nation and RedState.com. No one seems happy about the better business prospects, at least for now.

[Prospero]

That's a depressing read, RobertLouis. What hope for reconciliation with such noxious and divisive myths being propagated by the right and being believed by the gullible.

[Willie Escalade]

The "United" States of America...

[Stavros]

The post mortems and the whining are of no importance. What matters is how the Republican Party behaves in Congress and how the RNC goes about re-defining its principles and policies, and with which intellectual leadership. I may have been wrong about Petaeus, and believe McChrystal is not interested, but the GOP could conceivably go for a military man, which hasn't happened for some years, and someone who would appeal to a broader range of Americans, though whether they can find someone who is charismatic, articulate and shares whatever brand of conservatism they want I cannot say. Otherwise, it would appear to be down to House representatives, Senators and Governors, as far as leadership goes, although one should not rule out the role played in the back office by gurus like Karl Rove, although I don't know how much influence he has these days. If the party is badly divided, of course, then visible movement is not likely in the near future.

[natina]

Death

[broncofan]

The post mortems and the whining are of no importance. What matters is how the Republican Party behaves in Congress and how the RNC goes about re-defining its principles and policies, and with which intellectual leadership. .
Great post. I particularly like this last part where you ask with which leadership. For their own sake they don't want the people doing the whining to be the same people re-organizing their party. It's not just that the whining has shown a lack of political sense, and a lack of judgment generally, but the people who are whining in many cases represent the social special interests (pro-life, anti-gay, culture war fearmongers). I think any reorganized Republican party is best organized as a sort of pro-corporate, small government, strong military party. The social policies I think are a net loss for them, though I could be wrong. They are best holding on to the social policies but having them be less rhetorically conspicuous on the campaign trail. You want the votes of those who are pro-life, you just don't want them grabbing a megaphone and being the face of the party imo.

[yodajazz]

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory
By Tom Cohen, CNN

November 21, 2012 -- Updated 0058 GMT (0858 HKT)



Die-hard conservatives blame Mitt Romney, electoral fraud and liberal conspiracies
Few discuss demographic shifts in America
Anti-Obama sentiments abound in conservative post-election commentary
One blogger proposes an Electoral College boycott

Washington (CNN) -- Step by step, die-hard conservatives are confronting their grief over President Barack Obama's re-election.

But judging from blog posts and other public pronouncements, many remain stuck somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance.

So far this week, prolific blogger Judson Phillips on Tea Party Nation has called for boycotting the Electoral College to prevent validating the election result and lamented the triumph of liberalism in destroying national unity and therefore America's greatness.

Over at RedState.com, a more sophisticated political analysis echoes calls by Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them.

"There'll be no hand-wringing here and there sure as hell won't be any apologies for fighting for what we believe in," founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday.

"Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful," said another Erickson post Tuesday. "Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies."

Some acceptance has been necessary. On Tuesday, tea party favorite Rep. Allen West of Florida conceded in his race for re-election after initially alleging electoral fraud.

Little of the discussion focuses on the changing demographics of the country, identified by exit polls and many analysts as a major factor in both Obama's 2008 victory to become the nation's first African-American president and his re-election on November 6.

In particular, Obama received overwhelming support from the nation's fastest-growing demographic -- Hispanic Americans -- to cause some high-profile conservatives including Fox radio and television host Sean Hannity to soften their stance on immigration reform.
Lessons learned from the 2012 vote
Taking stock of tea party after election
LaTourette: Tea Party is not the GOP

Overall, though, hard-core conservatives continue to reject that they are a minority in a country built on the core principle of liberty that they embrace.

Instead, the initial reactions and subsequent attempts to explain what happened sought scapegoats, such as what right-wing critics describe as a deficient Republican challenger in Mitt Romney, electoral theft or a liberal-dominated media industry that is part of a broader Marxist effort dating back decades to undermine the nation.

Study: Fox, MSNBC got more extreme

On November 10, Phillips alleged that more votes than registered voters in several Florida precincts were part of Democratic efforts to "steal the election" against West.

There was no immediate posting Tuesday in response to West's concession.

Six days later, Phillips took aim at Romney, calling the former Massachusetts governor a "flip-flopping liberal who ran a content-free campaign."

In a response to Phillips' post, one writer ranted about what he alleged were "the sexual perversions and drug use of the Obamas," the president's "forged birth certificate" and "voter fraud of biblical proportions."

"Why are we talking secession instead of removing the New York Times and supporting citizens' Grand Jury indicments against this unbelievable treason, felonies and usurpations raining down on us on a daily basis?" said the post attributed to Royce Latham of Penngrove, California.

Timothy Stanley: Don't dismiss secession talk

On Sunday, Phillips proposed an action plan -- getting Electoral College voters in states won by Romney to boycott the validation of the election result by the December 17 deadline.

"The 12th Amendment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3," Phillips wrote. "In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum."

Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and presumably choose Romney. Phillips acknowledged such a move would set a "dangerous precedent," but added that "the situation is so grim we really have no other choice."

"Does anyone really believe America can survive four more years of Barack Obama?" he wrote, saying the president will seek to "transform America from that shining city on a hill into a third world shantytown, with massive unemployment and a corrupt government."

What's next for Obama election organization?

The next day, Phillips sounded more resigned, lamenting what he called "the triumph of liberalism in America" that he said was "destroying our national unity and by extension destroying the freedom."

"In America, until now we have always identified ourselves as Americans," he wrote. "The balkanization that has been pushed by the hard left has one goal in mind. That is the end of America as a great nation. They are perilously close to succeeding."

Tuesday brought his attack on a carbon tax being discussed by some on both sides in Congress as a step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to climate change.

While challenging "the mythical man-made global warming," Phillips also said a carbon tax would create a "massive new tax stream" for liberals bent on growing government.

U.N.: Greenhouse gases set record in 2011

The focus on a single issue certain to generate legislative and public debate signaled some change in the response to the election.

To Phillips and other conservatives, any increase in revenue goes against their goal of shrinking the federal government by cutting spending.

"It is time for conservative activists to make the case to the American people that we have far more government than we can afford, or than we want, no matter what our politicians may think, or what deals they may be willing to cut with each other to keep spending other people's money until we are all bankrupt," said a Tuesday post on Tea Party Nation by Bruce Donnelly of Fox River Grove, Illinois.

GOP, Dems seek common ground on fiscal cliff

Donnelly called for "organizing voters to rein in the politicians, rather than let them keep playing the game by their rules with our money."

"It's worth your effort to organize voters in your community and apply real political pressure for change, because if we just keep playing the game by their rules, your own financial situation will keep getting worse, rather than better," he continued.

"The politicians keep offering free stuff with other people's money, playing us all for fools. It's time to wake up the voters in every corner of America to the fact that they have been conned by these snake oil salesmen and their well-rehearsed lies and false promises," Donnelly said.

In the end, a reviled Democrat in the White House may mean more followers of conservative websites such as Tea Party Nation and RedState.com. No one seems happy about the better business prospects, at least for now.

There are lots of crazy assertions here by conservatives. But the most ridiculous here to me, is the one saying, 'liberalism is destroying the national unity.' Now people of which political view are talking about succession? Romney just happened to get caught with his "47%" remark, but many, many people knew that this type of thinking was prevalent in conservative circles. I saw this type of comments numerous times in news article comments on Yahoo News, for example. I think lots of those types of ideas are perpetrated by entertainers, such as Rush Limbaugh. It's really a form of hate. The core of liberalism is believing in the positive potential of all people. Yet it talked about in disease like terms. That's a form of hate.

Some conservatives say that those who feel that tax rates for the top bracket, should be the same as they were in 2000, when the US had a budget surplus, as class warfare. No, if 8 million jobs are lost in for years, or a million home foreclosures, or seniors lose their life assets to medical bills, shouldn't we as a nation feel some compassion by those in crisis? And what about the wars, we have fought and thousands of people gave their lives for? I really feel the conservative movement is devoid of human compassion, except for the unborn. And they dont seem to have that much compassion for the woman carrying the fetus, either. Saying that people are poor, because they are lazy or untalented, denies the reality of life. What about people that have strokes, are car accidents, etc? For conservatives it seems to me to mostly about money. An average person has to spend time fighting large corporations, as the make new rules, or charge new fees at their whim. Yet all the conservatives talk about is small government, denying the reality that the pursuit of profits, can even justify slavery. I recommend that they drop the hating, and respect all human life, once they are born.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, YodaJazz:
You are both right, but there is sometimes a tendency for the bitterness of defeat to accentuate the extremes in a party, so that in the early phase of defeat it appears to turn inwards, rather than expand out to the constituency is has failed to win to its arguments.

This happened to the Labour Party following its defeat in 1979 when it adopted policies which were deemed too extreme by the British public; although it did not happen to the Conservatives when they lost power in 1997, they appeared to be in disarray over issues such as membership of the European Union, and to some extent have not really been able to re-brand themselves with a sufficiently distinct set of policies, which is why they failed to gain the majority of seats in the Commons at the last election.

This is but an hypothesis, but if the Republicans in Congress return to the tactics that they used in the last session, and thereby alienate the voters, the prospects for them in the mid-term elections (2014?) could present Obama with a Democrat majority in both houses -if the economy has picked up by then this will also be a plus factor and Obama could spend his last two years able to do what he wants, more or less. The alternative scenario is that the Republicans speak with a different voice, reaching out to those communities and indidivuals they have alienated, and improve their rehabilitation in the mid-term on the back of a disappointing economic record.

However, I don't think it is that easy for a major political party to change in a short space of time, and the prominence of religion in US Politics -as it is perceived to be- may now be the weakest element of Republican Party politics, even if people like Todd Akin are extreme even by their standards (and a gift to the Democrats for that reason).
People don't like extremes of anything, and the strident tones of some Republicans suggests that they also need better PR.
News today is that Jeb Bush may be in the frame for 2016, but then who else is there whose names were not mentioned before?

[broncofan]

It will be interesting to see what happens if they do have another setback in 2014 mid-term elections. If by then they have continued to assume that their failures are the result of not being conservative enough, will they then take a step back? Will they do it before then?

I think you're right that religion has a major place in U.S politics and even if they are careful with how they present the social/cultural issues, they won't be able to mute it entirely. In my lifetime, neither party has ever really gained total supremacy. It is sort of strange that not only do we have a virtual two party system but the two parties have had nearly equal support, though varying greatly by region, for some time now. I have not been politically conscious though for that many years so maybe you can provide some historical perspective on that Stavros.

But what we seem to have here is a Republican party that when defeated narrowly is pursuing what I think is a failing strategy. I don't know if we have a trend, but if we do, it will be very interesting to see what happens if they become a clear underdog in national elections. What would it be like in this country to have a two-party system where one party is the perpetual minority? I am not saying we are there or even close to there, but since our government is set up to provide checks and balances between the branches, such a break for either party would be an interesting dynamic. I also wonder how shrill either party would get if they consistently lost presidential and congressional elections.

I know, premature at best, but I think an interesting hypothetical. Part of the problem the Republicans are having is speaking with one voice. They have a lot of options. Often when someone wants to make the right choice so badly they vacillate between equally good options and fail to choose one. They need a vision and to stick with that vision.

[broncofan]

You mentioned Jeb Bush Stavros. I don't know too much about him except that he is the smarter of that Bush generation. But it raises the interesting point that we cannot underestimate the power of a charismatic politician to change the public image of a party. Barack Obama did that for liberals, who were coming across as stale, weak-willed, even pathetic during the Bush years. He was an intelligent self-made man from a minority background who stepped onto the stage and presented himself as balanced and sensible. An enlightened but not elitist (despite the claims) alternative to what the Republicans were offering.

The Republicans could use someone like this to help their brand. Not a copy, but someone who is serious, is not vulnerable to attacks for having a history of making controversial comments. I still love the General idea for them. Generals have to hold their political opinions close to the vest and so there is not much history to criticize. They also can present a sort of duty bound, no nonsense air to their candidacy. I guess we cannot ignore the possibility that Republicans find someone fresh and better than the current candidates in the coming years.

[Willie Escalade]

Death

Winner winner chicken dinner

[danthepoetman]

....

[robertlouis]

What's implicit in so many Republicans' rejection of Obama's victory is a rejection of the entire democratic process and the elaborate apparatus constructed by the founding fathers which lies at the base of the entire constitution. These are things which they claim to love and cherish.

It's laughable, but it's dangerous too.

[fred41]

...give it a couple of months...you can't judge any of this so early after an election.

[robertlouis]

...give it a couple of months...you can't judge any of this so early after an election.

I fervently hope you're right, Fred, but I have my doubts.

Can we make a date to discuss after Obama's inauguration?

[fred41]

Sounds fair.
Should be enough time to gauge it all.

[trish]

After the 2008 election the GOP was declared hopelessly broken. By the 2010 elections it bounced back with the help of an energized base of teabagging birthers, social security collecting, government hating retirees on medicare and other assorted mentally challenged racists. A whole slew of patriotic, government hating, proud-that-we're-the-non-apologizing-leader-of-the-free-world dimwits were sent to Washington to govern a complex nation that spans a continent and "leads" the free world.

True, the GOP primary candidates were a clown car of no-brain losers...Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Cain are all bottom of the barrel Palinesque boobs. It was sad (not to mention scary) to see each one have his week or two in the Sun. To think that Cain or Santorum actually could've been the GOP nominee makes my skin crawl. There was one exception. Huntsman never had his week in the Sun, even though he was the lone sane man in the asylum (to mix a metaphor). Exempting Huntsman, Romney had the highest IQ in the car and unlike Huntsman, Romney had real contempt for the "mooching" class who only work eighteen hours a day holding down three minimum wage jobs and don't make enough money to owe Federal income. He didn't have to be caught on tape for that contempt to shine through...it was obvious from the start that Romney enjoys firing people, forcibly shaving the hair off school boys and roof-riding the family dog 'til it was scared shitless. He wasn't ideal. He was Mormon. He was hardly charismatic. His defining characteristic was that he had no defining characteristics. He was a pod-person. But his hatred for "giveaways," his contempt for "takers," his enthusiasm for the virtues of greed and avarice shown through his cracked smile like a black light. The teabagging mouth breathers, and the hollow eyed billionaires chose Romney for that dark luminescence (and his one extra IQ point beyond Perry's) and backed him to the hilt.

The GOP came back in 2010 and nobody knew (though many claimed they knew) how the 2012 election would come out. If Romney won I was prepared to go to Washington holding a "Keep Your Govmn't Hands Off My ObamaCare" sign. Fortunately for the Nation the fiscally conservative and socially slowly-progressing party won( i.e. the democratic party); by a wide margin. The GOP is still reeling...still trying to spin it their way. Democrats are just relieved.

Is the GOP dead in water? Not for long. They're already strategizing on how to save the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy from the fiscal slope (otherwise known as the Austerity Bomb). Rubio (another numskull who thinks: the Earth is 6000 years old and anyway the science that determines it's age is irrelevant to the economy) is already campaigning. They'll be back in two years and two years after that. We can only hope that sometime in the future they will evolve larger brain pans and grow hearts three sizes larger than the selfish grinch-hearts that currently spasm in their hollow, teabagging breasts.

[Prospero]

Brilliant Trish... "hollow eyed billionaires", "dark luminescence", "selfish grinch-hearts" - you should be speech writing for the Democrats.

I see that another Bush - Jeb's son - is already being talked-up as a potential Republican candidate because he is part hispanic.

[Prospero]

What is curious is the wholesale absence from the post election discussions here of such in house and previously vocal Republican supporters as Faldur. (We know why OMK is missing - since he is locked out until he explains his scurrilous tampering with re-published journalism)

But Faldur and the others. Why not offer us your judgements on what went wrong and what next for the Republicans.

[robertlouis]

What is curious is the wholesale absence from the post election discussions here of such in house and previously vocal Republican supporters as Faldur. (We know why OMK is missing - since he is locked out until he explains his scurrilous tampering with re-published journalism)

But Faldur and the others. Why not offer us your judgements on what went wrong and what next for the Republicans.

Multiple explosion of pointy heads?

[Ben]

The GOP's Misplaced Rage:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/08/12/the-gops-misplaced-rage.html

[giovanni_hotel]

It's hilarious to see how the Tea baggers are single handedly destroying the GOP.
Those pricks all run as Republicans, then get in office and disassociate from the party.

The GOP should have seen how radical these nutters were from a mile away and refused to let them run on the party's brand.
If the Tea baggers are the wave of the conservative future, they should have gone it alone as an independent party.

[fivekatz]

The Tea Party is a pretty interesting movement, largely fueled by big money donors like the Koch's and openly fueling anger without any of the nuance for public policy or political process that the earlier "wedge movements" that created the Republican voting coalitions from 1968-2004.

But in a larger view and in the spirit of the OP, we probably should not read too much into the defeats of the 2012 election cycle any more than 2008 signaled a sea change in US politics. Granted the GOP certainly is fumbling most post election issues right now and to many of us are on the wrong side of the tide of history.

But OTOH the success of 08 and 12 had much to do with Obama. Not just Barack Obama himself but that the organization he had. In presidential years more people vote and Obama's folks brought coat tails with them in their ability to get out the vote.

And when one party largely represents 1% of the populace and depends on sturring the worst nature in the souls of others to win, big turnout is bad.

Whether progressive candidates can drive similar turnouts of the young voters and people of color will be seen in 2014. Whether it is 2014 or later, at some point the GOP will need to evolve many of its social positions or become the Whigs. The demographics of the nation are changing and the value of the wedge issues that have been the wrapper for a core of policies that benefit the 1% are not compelling to the changing population.

As for the Tea Party going it alone, it would be like Ralph Nader in 2000 on steroids. It would bleed votes from GOP candidates and insure victory for Dems, who are even more distasteful to Tea Baggers than moderate GOPers are IMHO.

[Ben]

Hopefully Rick Perry runs again...

Rick Perry Takes On Madonna Over Boy Scouts' Gay Ban:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/rick-perry-takes-on-madonna_n_2935596.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Ben]

Immigrant Terrorist Fetuses? | Brainwash Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_zrc2dYL2o)

[buttslinger]

What's next for the Republicans?
HILLARY!!!!!

And she'll be grinding her axe from DAY ONE.

[Willie Escalade]

Future President Clinton doesn't take any shit lol!

[buttslinger]

Future President Clinton doesn't take any shit lol!

This time it's personal!!!

[Stavros]

In this article in today's Telegraph the Channel 4 news presenter Cathy Newman refers to Mrs Clinton's
comments in Toronto to a supposedly ‘private’ audience over the weekend: "Hypothetically speaking, I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime. And whether it's next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process, which is very difficult."

But then adds:
But what if we're all missing the point? It seems to me that Mrs Clinton's Toronto comments might point to a different scenario: skip a generation and install her daughter Chelsea in the White House. People in the know tell me this is exactly what's happening behind the scenes. Yes, ‘mom’ will run, but if that presidential bid doesn't work out, Chelsea will be perfectly placed to make history instead.


I don't think Mrs Clinton will run, for health reasons. As for Chelsea, she will need to develop a political career in -presumably- the Senate before she runs for the White House, if she does (suppose she becomes pregnant in the next four years?).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10139278/Hillary-Clinton-just-paved-the-way-for-Chelseas-presidential-campaign.html


And I do think Americans may wonder about political dynasties this time around, and not just because of the claim that Hilllary Clinton is really George H Bush's secret love-child. This web-site is one of the most bizarre conspiracy sites I have wasted some moments on; apart from the 'Walt Disney is Adolf Hitler' routine it claims Bing Crosby is really Adolf Eichmann; Margaret Thatcher was a Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton the daughter of George HW Bush, the one who supposedly died of leukemia. Unless the site is a joke. Problem is some people believe this stuff.
http://www.wellaware1.com/bush.shtml

[Willie Escalade]

Problem is some people believe this stuff.
http://www.wellaware1.com/bush.shtml

Of course people do. Exhibit A: Birthers.

[trish]

To believe a claim is to be willing to base personal action upon that claim; i.e. belief is tantamount to a bet. When a belief has no verifiable substance the only available personal action is to recite it in public. Except when done anonymously, the recital is like a dare: it identifies you with a small cult of like believers and demonstrates the strength of your resolve in that belief. The resulting publicity also serves to propagate the belief.

[buttslinger]

If they can plug the latest HEART device into Cheney every three years, they can pop a few Livers into Hillary while she declares obesity a crime, blackmails a few Republican Senators, or sends a special ops seal team to kill Ken Starr. She'll be there. She'll be there.

There was an article in the Post yesterday that said CAMP HILLARY is whirring already. I'm going to the VEGAS site, I want to get my bet down now, while the odds are still good.

[Ben]

GOP in Crisis at CPAC 2014 | Interview with Ben Swann - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwocJaAz_Y)

[Ben]

Question: What's next for the Republican Party???
Ya mean, aside from serving the super-rich??? The old Republican Party serve the super-rich or about, um, 0.01 percent of the populace... and, sadly, the Dems are movin' in that direction.
Neither party serve the working class or middle class or even, say, the moderately rich. It's the super-duper rich that they both serve.

Republican Presidential Hopefuls Pay Homage to Billionaire Casino Tycoon Sheldon Adelson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3z5peHS5s

[buttslinger]

Lots of guys in Congress, especially the House, are nothing special. Some guy who owns a car dealership in Huckburg can get a nice suit and haircut, shoot a few TV ads and get elected.
The Uber-Riche, they are no fluke. They are not the smartest guys in THE room, they are the smartest guys in ANY room.

The 1% that own half of everything? the moronic 99% gave them their money, well, one way or another they got it.

Luckily they leave us enough for our expenses, a crappy car and apartment, a false sense of security, a little hope (it's free) so we can hop on the treadmill every day and whip them up some more cash and power. Even when Capitol Hill works for the little guy, the little guy is going to hand it over to Mr Big.

There were a couple times my Pop got some great stock tips, the second time he made a nice bit of coin. The One Percent own Wall Street. The fix is in.
Beware the Military Industrial Complex??? oops.

[buttslinger]

Kidd Buddslinger's home state of Virginia ousted Homeboy Eric Cantor, those Buzzard good looks weren't good enough to be bad enough on immigration, I guess. Power to the People!!!!

[Turlington]

Ahahahaha

[Ben]

Eric Cantor Loses to a Conservative Who Rips Crony Capitalism:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/11-3

[Ben]

Dave Brat reacts to his shocking win over Eric Cantor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAIAopx2jgQ

[buttslinger]

The Party of NO has been avoiding saying what it's for, (I suspect they don't want to get in a serious debate with Obama about what's right) in favor of a safer less provocative stance of just blaming everything that is wrong on the President.
The part of the Republican Party I hate, the behind closed doors strategies that protect the interests of the one percent, is in direct conflict with what the Good Ole Boys want. The NASCAR Republicans.
The way the Top Republicans lie to their own faithful is what really seems criminal to me. How can you debate somebody about what they value when they're lying through their teeth?

If the ONE-PERCENTERS ever lose, maybe they will be defeated by Republicans rather than Democrats. The Tea Party was born out of the frustration Republicans felt after Bush destroyed the Economy.

[trish]

My sense is that Tea-Baggers first appeared (sometimes openly armed) at the town meeting discussions of "Obamacare" during the first two years of his term. It's the Tea-Partying NASCAR republicans that are against everything "that Nigger in the White House" proposes. [That's a quote from the tea-bagging lady that lives two blocks down the street from me]. Cantor went down because he was almost in some sort of alignment with Obama on immigration reform. I gotta say, there's no part of the present day republican party that's less despicable than the other parts.

[buttslinger]

I'm waiting for the day the most despicable trailer trash racist wakes up and realizes that he'd be better off voting Democrat.
Obama would never let Sasha and Malia go to a DC Public School, that doesn't make him a racist or a Republican. That makes him practical.

If anybody has a right to complain about their quality of life in the US since 1950, it's the White Man!!!

In a Two-Party System, let the Rednecks keep their racism, guns, and Religion. GIVE them Healthcare, Education, and a higher minimum wage. A closed Mind is what Republican Suits want. Let the silent majority talk.
Watching the Party of No trying to convince their followers to vote Yes on immigrants in 7-11s is great.

[Ben]

How A Pornstar & A Dick Pic Brought Down A Republican:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2R1ebZvnYM

[Prospero]

The Ted Cruz phenomenon. An insightful iece from the new Yorker this week.

Beware the potential of cruz Control.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all

[broncofan]

The Ted Cruz phenomenon. An insightful iece from the new Yorker this week.

Beware the potential of cruz Control.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all
Good article. He is an extremist, but he's articulate and intelligent. It will be interesting to see what he does in the Republican primaries in 2016 and then the general election if he's successful there. I wouldn't count him out, but he seems like such an asshole to me.

But if he gets through the primaries by playing to the base, Hillary could be vulnerable...she seems to be so transparent in her attempts to always say the right thing. She's always been a little contrived...even thinking back to her attacks on Obama in 08 for being an elitist and not understanding why people love guns.

[danthepoetman]

....

[danthepoetman]

Expect more of the same stupidity. The extreme is making it easy.

[Stavros]

So far 16 candidates have now come forward from the Republican Party. I am not going to repeat the statements made by Donald Trump, but I do wonder if there is any sign that the GOP has learned from its past failures how to connect with the American people...any thoughts?

[trish]

Their strategy is to put forward few insensitive, ignorant jerks together with a bushel of completely clownish assholes. That way, by contrast, the jerks look pretty good.

[buttslinger]

There is a GOP that is millions of voters and there is a GOP that is a few guys in some smoky back room in New York or Switzerland where all the real decisions are made. I have a hunch the real decision makers have made the decision that 2016 is not the year to go all in on the presidential election, better off keeping their money in the stock market. Hilary will take their calls.
Jeb Bush has the blessing of the big wheels, and he won't be an embarrassment, but he won't win either. Trump speaks for a large section of GOP voters, but the big wheels see him as a Hee Haw character. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole Trump campaign is more a move to become a MADE MAN in that smoky back room more than being President, I might be announcing my candidacy next week. Send your donations now. For a one hundred dollar donation I will send you a bumper sticker and a pair of Nikka's soiled knickers.

PS.....Can you imagine the stock tips you would get being in that smoky back room?

[Stavros]

I will admit that I have not watched all of the Republican Party nominees debate that took place in Ohio -the 'top ten- and not being an American or living there I don't get some of the nuances or references, I don't know who Rosie O'Donnell is though it appears Mr Trump doesn't like her. Jeb Bush to me came across as the most reasonable of the candidates, adopting the least extreme positions, compared to Mike Huckabee whose definition of a person must rank as one of the greatest innovations in human biology. Whatever. What strikes me about these candidates is that I wonder if anyone has sat them down and told them what the USA in 2015 looks like, and what most Americans think are the key issues that are shaping their lives, because I suspect that issues like jobs, housing, education and health are vastly more important than gay marriage, political correctness or abortion, although that latter is a serious issue. I came across a study of Latinos in California and how the Republican party since the Reagan era has lost this important source of votes in the state, mostly because of Proposition 187. I know that illegal immigration is as hot a topic there as it is right now in the UK, but I do wonder why Republicans seem unable, or unwilling to address such an important constituency without being offensive at the same time -as if there were no other solution than building walls on the border.

I also wonder if this issue is different in California than it is in Florida where, for example, an issue like Cuba may be more relevant than immigration from Mexico -?

The article linked below looks in depth at how the Republicans lost the Latino vote in California, stating in its intro-
According to polling data from the California Field Poll, after winning the presidential election in 1980, former California Governor Ronald Reagan raised his share of the Latino vote from 35% to 45% in 1984 while carrying 59% of the entire state. Republicans went on to win the Golden state again in 1988. Since that election, three significant changes have reshaped California politics in a manner that has made the Republican Party nearly irrelevant:

1. The Latino share of the total California electorate has dramatically increased.
2. California Republicans embarked on an anti-immigrant agenda that alienated Latino voters and drove them into the open arms of the Democratic Party.
3. Republicans are unable to compete for California’s 55 Electoral College votes, which amounts to 20% of the total 270 necessary to win a presidential election.
As the Latino voter population grows across other states, and a rigorous debate unfolds about immigration reform, we take this opportunity to revisit lessons learned from California. How did California go from a Republican stronghold to a Democratic lock? The answer is clear – anti-immigrant policy and a frustrated and mobilized Latino vote. In a comprehensive review of academic research published in political science journals and public opinion polling and surveys from 1994 to 2013, Latino Decisions senior analysts Dr. David Damore and Dr. Adrian Pantoja, detail what they call “The Prop 187 Effect.

It is now well established in both the political science research community and real world campaign politics that the mid-1990s Pete Wilson era of California Republicanism was a historic turning point in the state’s politics. Prop. 187, the infamous anti-immigrant ballot measure, which was championed by then Governor Pete Wilson in his re-election bid, resulted in significant backlash and political mobilization among California Latino voters. Following Prop. 187 were additional anti-immigrant measures such as Prop. 209 and Prop. 227 that proposed to outlaw affirmative action and bilingual education. Since 1996 when Latinos first comprised more than 10% of the state electorate, Latino partisanship has grown to over 70% Democratic. In light of these dynamics, it is little wonder that California has become an easy win for the Democrats?

(*I think that last part should be 'is it any wonder...')
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2013/10/17/prop187effect/

[broncofan]

Interesting write up Stavros. I agree with you that housing, education, and employment should get more coverage. The Republican party has focused on other issues though because they are better at whipping up the base. It does work to an extent. I also agree that Jeb Bush is the most reasonable of the candidates, so hopefully he gets the nomination and Trump's popularity fades.

Edit: I was in middle school and high school when prop 187 was proposed, passed, and then held unconstitutional by federal courts. It was an ugly time...people who supported it knew that it was offensive to Mexican-Americans because it allowed them to be treated as suspects. I don't blame latinos for not forgetting.

I remember some hispanic kids were wearing badges that said "suspect under 187" to indicate that if it passed they would be treated as suspects. Some other kids decided it would be funny to wear badges that said "187 on suspect". 187 is police code for murder. So tensions were high..

[buttslinger]

It's hilarious to me that Fox news isn't even pretending it cares about what grass root republicans are concerned with anymore, they're showing their true colors of being 100% concerned with big business only. They're using Barbie doll Megyn Kelly to do their dirty work- get that fool Trump off the stage while they throw BushIII softball questions.
There are actually more Hispanics in California now than Whites.
Rush Limbaugh was actually trashing Fox news the other day.
I'm loving this!!!

[broncofan]

I'll admit Fox News did appear to ask Trump combative and difficult questions. The questions weren't unfair on their own but every question was aimed at challenging his record and past statements rather than asking him about his policy positions. But people on the left have said for years that Fox News is not a place one should expect to find impartiality or fairness.

[buttslinger]

.....But people on the left have said for years that Fox News is not a place one should expect to find impartiality or fairness.

The real question is will people on the RIGHT doubt Fox as fair and balanced!!??????!!!
It's not what the O'Reilly factor says, it's what the loonytoons factor say in the polls this week. Will the yahoos side with the Donald after he said Fox Darling Megyn Kelly had blood shooting out of her.......whatever....
He already got away with insulting John McCain's war record.

[broncofan]

I really can't make a prediction I am so befuddled by what's going on right now. I think if I were a Republican I'd want Trump to just go away. A third party run would be a disaster for Republicans, but they also think he would be a loose canon as the nominee. I read some of the comments on the message boards and I have never seen such internal dissension and confusion. Carly Fiorina said trumps comments were unacceptable and a bunch of twitter people are calling her a RINO (republican in name only)...because being concerned about misogyny means one can't be a Republican apparently.

I also am not sure if Trump was referring to menstruation with his comment. He may have been or he may have just been saying she was so angry she had blood coming out of her eyes and then could not think of how to complete the thought. It doesn't matter because the Republicans really have to figure out who they are. They don't want another milquetoast candidate but do they want a raving moron.

[Stavros]

The focus on Donald Trump's offensive remarks about women in general and Megyn Kelly in particular ought not to allow the other candidates to get away without being scrutinised when it comes to their attitude to women. Abortion has always has been a difficult issue in the USA, but the other candidates have taken positions which either remove from women the right to make their own decisions about what happens to their bodies, or have apparently even lost the right to life themselves -Scott Walker has taken the position that an abortion ought not to be carried out even if it threatens the life of the woman carrying the foetus -he has said there are now ways of preventing that happening, but does not say how medicine can always prevent a woman dying from an ectopic pregnancy, to give just one example. Marco Rubio has said abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest, while Jeb Bush is just one of the candidates who when he was Governor of Florida removed state funding of Planned Parenthood, although I am not sure how key an issue this is for Americans generally. But these issues affected women directly, and none of the candidates seemed to have a sensitive way of talking about the issues, it was as if women were some 'other species' and not one half of humanity. I don't believe the candidates offered proof that women have told them what they want to base their policies on solid evidence.

The GOP seems to have a problem with women, or it has failed to find a way to appeal to women as natural 'conservatives' on the economy or education; or to put it another way, it does not seem to have learned any lessons in the last 8 years about what the Party stands for and who it is appealing to for votes, and yet it continues to dominate Congress.

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?

[yodajazz]

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/david-brooks-gop-not-governing-mode-its

I think David Brooks has it right, here.

[buttslinger]

When it comes to women and blacks, there are both Republicans and Democrats who wish them all the best, but they don't want them in seats of Power. They've both got lots of coiled resentment down there, that might taint clear logic.

[broncofan]

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?
This is one of the groups where they have taken positions that are not absolutely necessary to conservative dogma and which erode their base. And they not only alienate women but have done a lot to alienate Gay Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans. Because they have become the party that opposes liberal political correctness they reject any civil rights question as a liberal issue, any issue relating to fairness or autonomy for women as liberal...as Yoda's article indicates they are a party defined by protest, by what they dislike. When Mitt Romney was asked about fair pay for women in the 2012 race, it was as though he had never contemplated the issue and ended up making the memorable "binders full of women" statement that was really an attempt to sound concerned but ended up sounding detached and confused.

I don't know what kind of backlash, if any, there will be. They have had a certain immunity to their mistakes in certain parts of the country, and they never seem to lose as much support as I expect.....perhaps I engage in wishful thinking.

[broncofan]

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?
Another thing to consider is that some of the dislike of Hillary is based on misogyny. She is mocked for what she wears, for wanting power, and generally not behaving as some traditionalists expect women to behave. The problem is that a lot of this sexism is so ingrained that even someone fleeing from the excesses of the Republican party might have some aversion to her and not know why...for the same reason some women on juries in rape cases engage in victim blaming. So it's quite possible that a woman is repulsed by the Republican stance on many women's rights issues but in some way carries around prejudices they are unaware of.

None of this is to say they aren't other reasons not to support Hillary Clinton.

[broncofan]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/fox-news-picked-trump-over-megyn-kelly.html

Thought this was an interesting article about how Fox is trying to bring Trump back into the fold. Despite the lack of integrity it shows by Fox when it leaves its own reporter out to dry, at least it's acting more like a news station than an arm of the republican party. What I mean is, I think the truce with Roger Ailes means it is choosing ratings over the party agenda.

As I said, I think Trump is bad for the Republican party. But Fox has decided that as long as he's around and getting attention they might as well get the ratings from it.

[trish]

Often Trump supporters, when interviewed, say they like the fact that he doesn't need to be financed by billionaires because he has his own money. That's amusing on two counts: 1) It's like saying it's better to have an oligarch in White House than have wannabe oligarchs vying to influence the White House. 2) Trump is not nearly wealthy enough to finance a presidential campaign on his own. Indeed, yesterday he announced he'll be accepting money from big donors.

I'm wondering, should he get the nomination, will he divest himself and will he be making his tax records available? And what about that animal precariously perched on his head?...it doesn't look like any American animal I ever saw...where's it's birth certificate?

[broncofan]

Trump is the loosest of the loose canons. He is dead-set on building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico that would cost billions of dollars. Who knows what his foreign policy will be like but it has to be dangerous.

I agree about his net worth. Whatever the exact figure is I don't expect that a lot of it is liquid, but tied up in real estate with a lot of debt. As you say, I don't see how it's an advantage to be a wealthy person in a position of power (as you say, he may not be influenced by the wealthy but he will naturally identify with that interest group as a class member).

I don't see his wealth as a demerit but he has shown a flare for self-promotion rather than skill in investing or even economic forecasting. So I don't see how his hugely leveraged real estate empire, which was built from a substantial inheritance says anything about how efficiently he'll run the economy. I don't see what he offers other than divisive rhetoric, scapegoating, and bluster.

[Stavros]

I spent over an hour watching the Republican candidates debate from the Ronald Reagan library on Wednesday, and I must admit I have rarely come across people seeking the highest office in the USA and one of the most influential in world politics who come across as unintelligent, uninformed, and threatening to a frightening degree. While all or most of them paid great praise to what Reagan had achieved for the USA none of them said they wanted to follow Regan's example and ship millions of jobs overseas, and none of them implied that at the end of their term in office they would have borrowed so much money it would leave the USA with the largest budget deficit in its history.

That aside, Donald Trump comes across as a man who is, quite simply, rude. I suspect his rude remarks are a cover for an absence of policy detail, but Trump is not the only nutter on the list, because I was incredulous at the hysterical reactions to the negotiations with Iran, the public declaration 'I won't talk to Putin' and the fact that people can talk about building a wall across America to keep illegal immigrants out without once thinking in simple, practical terms what that would mean in practice.

It is true that after Friday prayers in Tehran a crowd gathers to shout 'Death to America' when the Ayatollah Khamene'i appears to greet them; it is also also true that the crowd has been smaller year on year, that it was never a spontaneous demonstration of loathing but a stage-managed event, and that across Iran mosque attendance has been falling, and that the UK recently re-opened its embassy n Tehran -because if anything the situation in Iran is calmer than it was, and less aggressive toward the USA than many might think. Iran is of course involved in the wars in Iraq, Syria and to a lesser extent in the Yemen, but so is the USA, but at no time did any of the candidates express any serious thought about the closest allies of the USA in the Middle East, where in Saudi Arabia people have their heads chopped off in public week in week out, are flogged to within an inch of their lives, week in week out, and where the long-established raising of money to attack the USA across the Middle East and inside the USA has been going since the days when Ronald Reagan was President. Supporting Saudi Arabia for the second time fighting the Yemen (as it did in the 1960s) and killing innocent civilians ought to be near the top of the agenda on foreign affairs, but like Cambodia in the 1970s, nobody seems to know or to care about the destruction or the deaths.

Candidates railed at the Iran's nuclear weapons as if they were rolling off the production line but none asked the obvious question -if Iran does produce a nuclear bomb will it use it, and if it uses it, what will be the response? Think it through and the candidates appear so out of touch with reality you wonder why men in white coats did not storm the stage.

Walls, wars and insults. Given the issues that the USA like other advanced capitalist economies has to deal with over the next 25 years, this line-up looked as if it should have taken place in a police station, not on prime time tv. And to think the Democrats are not that much more intelligent either.

Scary stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WwzXkJd8aY

[buttslinger]

When the People of the United States decided that we should elect our own Representatives to lead us, most of the World had Kings and Queens. Abraham Lincoln is considered to be a great President now, but when he was elected, half the Country left!!! Nixon was elected by a landslide his second term! And while Reagan is considered a God amongst Republicans, he had Alzheimers while he was President!
I think the reason you see a bunch of clowns running on the Republican side is everybody knows Hillary is going to be in the White House next, so who cares? The Republicans are picking who they want to lose to Clinton. (don't tell the voters that)
The problem isn't the Republican Slate, it's the American voters who only get serious about politicians when they're being indicted on TV. Cheney shot a guy when he was drunk. That woke people up.
From the HUNG ANGELS perspective, it's probably a good thing Trump is the Dynamic Presence in the Republican field, because if they had somebody with a real shot that would mean Gay Rights might grind to a screeching halt along with all the other Liberal concerns.
Carly Fiorina does have a face that would break a mirror. Jeez!

[martin48]

Can we hope for this?

[Stavros]

Is it not a paradox of contemporary American politics that the Republican Party does not look as if it can win a Presidential election but does look capable of maintaining a majority in Congress? If the Party is so weak, so divided, can its enduring success in Congress merely be the result of stale districts with majorities guaranteed by secure boundaries? Would boundary changes make a real difference?

[Stavros]

For those of you interested, The Times of London in an editorial today has voiced its support for Marco Rubio as the Republican candidate for President; highlighting its belief that Rubio can win back the 'Latino' vote for the GOP.

[trish]

Is it not a paradox of contemporary American politics that the Republican Party does not look as if it can win a Presidential election but does look capable of maintaining a majority in Congress? If the Party is so weak, so divided, can its enduring success in Congress merely be the result of stale districts with majorities guaranteed by secure boundaries? Would boundary changes make a real difference?
Here's my theory: I think the political makeup of Congress and largely be explained by gerrymandering. So in that sense "borders" make all the difference. By and large, in most States the population is concentrated in a few urban cities. The population of these urban centers lean democratic. There are fewer people living in the rural areas, towns and small cities. This largely conservative population (being spread out over a larger area) is partitioned into many more districts. So the representatives from these areas outnumber the urban representatives; i.e. instead of favoring the majority of people, the system favors the majority of districts. With gerrymandering one can secure a given representative's seat for a long time. Unfortunately, in a relatively recent decision, the Supreme Court bestowed its imprimatur upon the practice.


The Senate is elected differently, since there are exactly two senators per State. Besides the popular vote a Senator usually needs name recognition and of course she always needs monied backers.

[yodajazz]

Here's my theory: I think the political makeup of Congress and largely be explained by gerrymandering. So in that sense "borders" make all the difference. By and large, in most States the population is concentrated in a few urban cities. The population of these urban centers lean democratic. There are fewer people living in the rural areas, towns and small cities. This largely conservative population (being spread out over a larger area) is partitioned into many more districts. So the representatives from these areas outnumber the urban representatives; i.e. instead of favoring the majority of people, the system favors the majority of districts. With gerrymandering one can secure a given representative's seat for a long time. Unfortunately, in a relatively recent decision, the Supreme Court bestowed its imprimatur upon the practice.


The Senate is elected differently, since there are exactly two senators per State. Besides the popular vote a Senator usually needs name recognition and of course she always needs monied backers.

Gerrymandering was certainly true here in Ohio. The Republican led state legislators, in 2012, made a long snake-like congressional district that covered nearly half the state, linking two of the top four urban areas. So that two progressive Democrat incumbent have to run against each other. Thus insuring one less democratic US Congressman. The two Congressional members were Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich. If you are not familiar with either of them, look them up. I only became aware of Kaptur, when made a strong scathing speech against the Wall Street bail-out in 2008. She is Ohio longest serving Congressperson. the district was not even continuously connect by land. But it made legal requirements, because of connecting bridge between. two areas. Here are two maps of Ohio's 9th Congressional district. One additional thing, Oberlin, Ohio is a very progressive college town and that makes the longest north-south area. If this isn't gerrymandering, they should remove the term fromthe dictionary.

[Stavros]

Thanks to Trish and Yodajazz for clarifying boundary issues in Congressional Districts (which obviously does not apply to the Senate). Surely there must be a way to challenge that daft boundary in Ohio-?
I wonder why there are fewer Congressional districts in the USA than there are House of Commons constituencies in the UK, does a smaller pool of voters improve their access to legislators?

I wonder if the departure of Mr Boehner (I am tempted to call him The Grim Weeper) will fracture the Republican Party and lead to a loss of votes?

[trish]

Most other States are just a bad as Ohio. Iowa on the other hand is not gerrymandered; it, for the most part, nice rectangular districts. But it suffers other defects, the their caucus system for nominating presidential candidates. I'm not even sure how it works (or doesn't).

In most State district borders are redrawn every ten years (to the benefit of the party that happens to be in power). There are always State specific petitions going around to dispense with the gerrymandering system. The backers of such movements don't always have the purest of motivations. As far as I know, none of the efforts ever came close to changing any particular State's gerrymandering policies.

"Grim Weeper" I love it! Hope you don't mind if I use it on occasion. The fact that Boehner's gone, is evidence that the party is already fractured. His absence may give the anti-U.S.Government obstructionists in the party a tad more say. On the other hand, Boehner's replacement ('Who?' is the question) may be someone who can control those nuts and steer the party through the reef of dysfunction in which it currently finds itself. Naw...never mind.

[fred41]

John Boehner makes one of the funniest goofy faces when he cries...but I can't make fun of him for that because, I too, have a tendency to 'well up' at the drop of a hat (...please don't tell anyone...lol).
Judging by some of the hate directed at the man from a large portion of any 'comments' section, in any conservative news portion of a site devoted to his stepping down, he was probably a lot more rational than than some folks give him credit for.
Regardless of what the intent for the Tea Party was originally, it is now just a group of people filled with hate, that think they are right because they can scream the loudest. They are absolutely destroying a political party that they are not really a part of, but truly believe that every Republican that doesn't think like them is a RINO...when, in fact, they are the RINOs.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1638095]

In most State district borders are redrawn every ten years (to the benefit of the party that happens to be in power). There are always State specific petitions going around to dispense with the gerrymandering system. The backers of such movements don't always have the purest of motivations. As far as I know, none of the efforts ever came close to changing any particular State's gerrymandering policies.
--I think this is the kind of decision-making that should be taken out of state and given to what in the UK we call a 'Boundary Commission', perhaps established by the Supreme Court? One that would make decisions on the basis of geography, population density, income differentiation to take three. If it is a decision made by local politicians I don't know that anyone would be satisfied with that.

"Grim Weeper" I love it! Hope you don't mind if I use it on occasion.
-A 5% return on capital would be sufficient to meet my needs...

[Stavros]

John Boehner makes one of the funniest goofy faces when he cries...but I can't make fun of him for that because, I too, have a tendency to 'well up' at the drop of a hat (...please don't tell anyone...lol).
Judging by some of the hate directed at the man from a large portion of any 'comments' section, in any conservative news portion of a site devoted to his stepping down, he was probably a lot more rational than than some folks give him credit for.
Regardless of what the intent for the Tea Party was originally, it is now just a group of people filled with hate, that think they are right because they can scream the loudest. They are absolutely destroying a political party that they are not really a part of, but truly believe that every Republican that doesn't think like them is a RINO...when, in fact, they are the RINOs.

It would be easy from the UK to ridicule the GOP, particularly the current group of Presidential candidates, but that is mainly because the theatre and the language of politics is different from what it is in the UK. I wonder, without knowing where the GOP is headed over the next 18 months, why there seems to be no hope for a 'third force' in US politics. It used to be Labour and the Conservatives in the UK with the Liberal Party (these days Liberal Democrats) hovering in the shadows and only in 2010 winning enough seats to become part of the Coalition although it collapsed (again) in 2015.

But the ascendancy of the Scottish National Party, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (more successful in elections to the European Parliament then the one in London) has challenged the duopoly and created a major problem for Labour in Scotland, yet the same diversion of voter loyalty doesn't seem to exist in the USA where, I imagine, there could be an independence party in California, if only because they bang on about it so much.

How do you Americans see the 'third force' party argument, and would it be more likely to challenge the Republican than the Democrat Parties? It appears to be more of a problem for the Republican Party, but I cannot be sure. And there may be regional variations -?

[fred41]

How do you Americans see the 'third force' party argument, and would it be more likely to challenge the Republican than the Democrat Parties? It appears to be more of a problem for the Republican Party, but I cannot be sure. And there may be regional variations -?
I believe neither party would like a third candidate, because either party could potentially be hurt...although it doesn't always turn out that way...When Ralph Nader ran with the Green Party in 2000, some Democrats never forgave him because they believe that it was his fault that Gore lost to Bush. Nader himself claimed that exit polls show that it was fairly evenly split among his voters: 25% would've voted Bush, 38% would've voted Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. When Ross Perot ran in '92, his votes would've been evenly split between Bush Sr. and Clinton.

[trish]

I think this is the kind of decision-making that should be taken out of state and given to what in the UK we call a 'Boundary Commission', perhaps established by the Supreme Court? One that would make decisions on the basis of geography, population density, income differentiation to take three. If it is a decision made by local politicians I don't know that anyone would be satisfied with that.A few years ago there was a petition in Illinois, a Democratic State, to have the lines drawn by an independent commission. The petition (of course) was sponsored by the Republicans and it was never very clear who would be seated on the commission. Having the party by happenstance in charge redraw the lines every ten years, might be better than to have the lines always drawn by a board headed up by CEOs and other assorted men with finely tailored suits. But I agree - if set up properly-the lines should be drawn by truly independent commission. I'm fairly naive when it comes to politics, but it's always been a puzzle to me why we periodically draw up districts when the States are already partitioned permanently into counties?

Sporadically we've had third party candidates in the past. Andersen, Perot, Nader. Rather than drawing evenly from both parties, they have been candidates that draw their support largely from one of the existing parties. Nader, for example, appealed basically to environmentalists and drew them away from the Democratic Party. He is probably the reason Bush got close enough to steal the election from Gore. It's the reason the Republican's wanted Trump to take a pledge of loyalty to their party and promise not to run as a third party candidate.

[trish]

Nader himself claimed that exit polls show that it was fairly evenly split among his voters: 25% would've voted Bush, 38% would've voted Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. When Ross Perot ran in '92, his votes would've been evenly split between Bush Sr. and Clinton.I did not know that. Still, the fear exists.

[Stavros]

Rupert Murdoch, that great American, has been issuing tweets in praise of Ben Carson. Is this an awakening moment for the the GOP?

Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch (https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch) Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else.
1:59 AM - 8 Oct 2015 (https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/651924724960874497)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/08/rupert-murdoch-tweets-ben-carson-republican-candidate-twitter

[broncofan]

Wow that quotation by Murdoch is in really poor taste. Ben Carson has made more idiotic public statements than anyone on record. What would he do to address the racial divide? Would love to hear it. He would be an absolute disaster as a candidate for the Republicans. Am I wrong?

[buttslinger]

What's next, indeed. Kevin McCarthy out as House Speaker candidate, that job is a hot potato. Nobody wants the headache....

[Stavros]

Wow that quotation by Murdoch is in really poor taste. Ben Carson has made more idiotic public statements than anyone on record. What would he do to address the racial divide? Would love to hear it. He would be an absolute disaster as a candidate for the Republicans. Am I wrong?

Murdoch has now retracted his comment;

Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch (https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch) Apologies! No offence meant. Personally find both men charming.
1:14 PM - 8 Oct 2015 (https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/652094791602319360)

Ben Carson, however, has not been able to make an advance in the promotion of his campaign unless you agree with this kind of comment, relating to an argument in his book A More Perfect Union:
Carson was quizzed on CNN over comments in his new book, A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties, which cites Nazi Germany to argue that the right to bear arms should not be curtailed.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him: “Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?”
Carson replied: “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed … I’m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/ben-carson-claims-jewish-people-might-have-stopped-holocaust-if-they-had-guns

-Hmmm, what happens if an armed school-teacher gets fed up with a student who refuses to shut up and shoots him (or her). Will that set a trend? As for the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943...

[broncofan]

That was a question designed to make a pro-gun advocate slip up even though it's a fair question given their claims. I've heard this argument about the nazis from the pro-gun lobby for over ten years I think.

This pre-supposes that every single person who could arm himself does and becomes a resistance fighter. This ignores the collective action problems. The same reason a room full of people don't charge a shooter....people who are used to civilized life aren't ready to run headlong onto a gunman. They would not organize a militia against their government unless they were certain that failure to do so would result in extermination. When is one ever certain of that? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising is a great example for two reasons; 1) action was not initiated until the resistance fighters were fairly certain they were not being relocated to labor camps but marked for extermination and 2) its lack of success.


Ben Carson also said that prison rape was proof that homosexuality is a choice because straight men enter prison and decide to have sex with men. He made a slippery slope argument that he retracted about gay marriage, bestiality, and pedophilia. His polling numbers are pretty good now.

Edit: It would be unfair not to include his comments about a Muslim President which were in the article you linked. Even Ted Cruz and other Republicans did not go along with this.

[broncofan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/09/ben-carson-is-right-about-jews-holocaust-and-guns.html

This is the defense of Ben Carson...written by a Jewish man, and I think somewhat offensive to common sense and human decency. Could go in the gun thread, but I thought it relevant to Carson specifically. Seems Keith Ablow is like Ben Carson, super courageous in the face of danger.

[Stavros]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/09/ben-carson-is-right-about-jews-holocaust-and-guns.html

This is the defense of Ben Carson...written by a Jewish man, and I think somewhat offensive to common sense and human decency. Could go in the gun thread, but I thought it relevant to Carson specifically. Seems Keith Ablow is like Ben Carson, super courageous in the face of danger.

A poor argument on any level and one that is designed not to explain what happened in the Third Reich but to justify gun ownership in the USA today. And don't forget that Carson's argument was premised on the claim that dictatorships first take guns away from the citizens -as if no other government, particularly after a war did not become worried about the volume of weapons in the homes of individuals. The first laws on gun control in the USA were initiated after the Civil War because of the fear that freed slaves might be armed; gun crime was rampant in Britain after the Napoleonic Wars as soldiers returning from the wars held on to their weapons.

The image of the 'weak Jew' which permeates the article is offensive in itself, but prefers to skip over the irony that some of the most vocal opponents to the Nazis were not just Jewish but Communists, given that the Nazis extended the Russian 'fascists' claim that the Jews had organised the Bolshevik Revolution. The Black Hundreds, many of whom left Russia after the revolution to settle in Munich were an influence on Nazi thinking on this level. (Walter Laqueur wrote a book on The Black Hundreds).

On yet another level, the Turks have dismissed claims of genocide against the Armenians by claiming that armed groups of Armenians fought the nascent Turkish state and that any Armenians killed were a consequence of an internal war not genocide. As I think someone mentions in the comments to the article linked, had Jews fought the Nazis with guns this would merely have given the Reich an excuse to kill Jews on the spot.

It would be better for those who want to defend the right of Americas to own guns did so in the contemporary American context in which it makes most sense.

[Stavros]

I thought this article in today's Independent made a key point-

At the 2014 midterm elections, the Republicans achieved their largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1920s. This resounding victory, party leaders boasted, would showcase their ability to govern. Instead, the debacle over the election of a new Speaker has demonstrated that Republicans are unable to govern themselves, let alone the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republicans-in-disarray-after-hardliners-force-favourite-for-speaker-to-withdraw-from-race-a6688566.html

In addition to pointing out that three of the leading contenders for the GOP -Trump, Carson and Fiorina- have never held political office. Presumably at some point in the next three months the people who run the Republican Party will have to sort out this mess by the time the primary season starts in the New Year? One wonders...

[buttslinger]

It's certainly not a buttslinger rule, but there's a rule in politics and debate you never ever mention Hitler or Nazi. The top three Republican potential Presidentis aren't politicians, they don't understand the concept of the "gotcha" sound clip yet. Except Trump, who bases his whole campaign on it.
On the broader view, the TEABAGGERS are almost a third party, and while they showed up strong last year, they're apt to be pissed off next year. So,.....we are deep into buttslinger territory here, senseless, but here just the same...
The Vegas odds have Hilary as the shoe-in.
Say what you want but put your cash on Clinton.
I'm sick of my savings acct earning 0.6%

The Republicans are like Hitler saying everything is great, even though the Russians are 20 miles outside Berlin. Ordinarily people would be lined up to be Speaker of the House.

[Stavros]

Is this sensational news, or just an example of how they do things their own way in California?
The Republicans in California have failed to get a candidate onto the ballot to challenge for Senator Barbara Boxer's seat in November. I read about the Senate race in California in this morning's New York Times, a story that has not made it to the UK -but while it is of local significance, it does seem to underline the long-term crisis that the Republican Party in California appears to be in, and as the article below suggests even in the case of Schwarzenegger he is both an immigrant and a moderate on many policies that have alienated people from the GOP. The Nation has a good overview and I think is the key paragraph:

Under California’s nonpartisan “blanket primary” law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary), which was enacted by the voters in 2010, Tuesday’s Senate primary ballot featured all the candidates on one list. Democrats, Republicans, and several dozen third-party and independent candidates competed against one another in a race where only the top two finishers (https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2016) could earn a place on the November ballot.
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-republican-party-just-crashed-and-burned-in-california/

[Stavros]

There is an interesting article in today's New York Times which looks at the Republican Party in Congress, mostly the Senate where sitting Senators are either likely to stand down or possibly die (due to ill-health) or be challenged, and how a vigorous process is being mounted by Steven Bannon and the 'alt-right', and Mike Pence's team to 'purge disloyal Republicans' (the phrase used by Pence's Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/republicans-disarray-trump-senate-congress.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

What intrigues me about this is that the definition of loyalty is presented, not as loyalty to an idea or a party, but to an individual, the .45 sitting in the White House on the basis that he represents whatever it is the Conservatives and alt-right define as their cause. But I cannot recall when American politics was a matter of loyalty to one person rather than to a party, the Constitution or perhaps a movement. Unless...unless one casts one's mind back to the late 1770s when there was an issue of loyalty, and it was loyalty to King George III...maybe that's why Ivanka is referred to as the Princess Royal...