Grand Old Party wilting?

[JackLuis]

"GOP Party Identification Slips Nationwide and in Pennsylvania"


(Click above to see Charts)
It seems that the trends are continuing, the party moderates are shifting to the Independents, and Indi's to Democrats, as the brain washing of the Bush years wears off.

And Arlen made the wise choice, Pennsylvia has only 25% self identified Republicans.

With Moderates leaving the the GOP and the RNC out to purify the party. How long before the all that is left of Teddy's Roosevelt's GOP is the sulking right wing?

The Right wing slips off into self medication and we are hearing more people say "Rebellion in the face of impending Socialism, is not treason!"

 

[sr71plt]

They may have collapsed through the interim congressional elections, but they'll be back by the next presidential election. The Republicans are (relatively) tightly organized, and Americans have a tendency to vote for the underdog unless their representative is entrenched.

 

[JamesSD]

I agree to some extend with sr71plt. These things tend to cycle. Voters tend to go to the polls with one of two ideas "Stay the Course" or "Throw the Bums Out".

The question is not if the Republicans will come back into power, but when. Anything between 4-16 years is possible. The Rebpublicans can stop their bleeding in 2010, but the gap is too big to realistically take the house or Senate. 2012 will be the truly interesting battle.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

After Goldwater's loss in 1964, pundits dismissed the GOP as toast. They were history.

By 1968 Lyndon Johnson, who beat Goldwater's ass, had to drop out of the race. He was finished because of the Vietnam War. And Reagan and Nixon won elections in 1968.

Anything can happen.

No one calls Obama the Messiah anymore. But its too sonn to tell. If the Democrats get their heads handed to them in 2010, because of the economy, things may change back.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I noted that the Dems have dropped even more than the Reps over the last five months, going from 39% to 33% while the GOP went from 26% to 22%. There are apparently more indies than anything else now. That's not really that hard to believe. Many people vote for the candidate rather than the party.

Of course, the inedepndents might be members of a party, just not one of the two major parties. Things like Libertarian, AIP, P&FP. etc. These parties are all over the political spectrum.

Maybe what we need is for a good number of middle of the roaders, such as McCain and Lieberman and Spector to form a third party. They would reject the extremists that seem to have so much control over both the Dems and the Reps.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

'Twas ever thus. The Dems basked in the nostalgia for JFK (that murdering imperialist!) and ran riot over the moderate center of the country. The resentment that caused sent Reagan into office by a landslide to be followed by an Republican dominance for the next forty years. Now the neo-Nazi wing of the GOP has done the same thing from the other direction with the same result. Will the Dems have forty years? Time will tell.

 

[Boxlicker101]

'Twas ever thus. The Dems basked in the nostalgia for JFK (that murdering imperialist!) and ran riot over the moderate center of the country. The resentment that caused sent Reagan into office by a landslide to be followed by an Republican dominance for the next forty years. Now the neo-Nazi wing of the GOP has done the same thing from the other direction with the same result. Will the Dems have forty years? Time will tell.

I'm not sure of your timeline. JFK/LBJ was eight years, followed by eight years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Peanuts. Reagan had eight years and Bush the Elder for four and Blowjob Bill for eight. We all know who came after that for eight years.

I don't believe any one party was dominant for forty years, at least not since the 19th century, either in Congress or the presidency.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, let me see. Eight of Dubya plus six of Billery's when he so pissed the country off that they handed Congress to the GOP. (The real reason the Repub's so hate the man is that he basically co-opted their agenda!) That's 14. Then there's 12 of Reagan/Bush and eight of Nixon/Ford. That makes 34. Alright then, replace 40 with 34 and my question is still will the Dems hold on for 34 years?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I noted that the Dems have dropped even more than the Reps over the last five months, going from 39% to 33% while the GOP went from 26% to 22%. There are apparently more indies than anything else now. That's not really that hard to believe. Many people vote for the candidate rather than the party.

Of course, the inedepndents might be members of a party, just not one of the two major parties. Things like Libertarian, AIP, P&FP. etc. These parties are all over the political spectrum.

Maybe what we need is for a good number of middle of the roaders, such as McCain and Lieberman and Spector to form a third party. They would reject the extremists that seem to have so much control over both the Dems and the Reps.

Are you joking? No one wants McCain et al for for President, why would anyone want to follow them into a new political party?

I said on another thread, Republican voters will flock to the Democrats and do a coup on the Lefties who control the party. And we'll be back to 1961 when the Democrats were managed by adults.

 

[Dragonlipz]

"GOP Party Identification Slips Nationwide and in Pennsylvania"


(Click above to see Charts)
It seems that the trends are continuing, the party moderates are shifting to the Independents, and Indi's to Democrats, as the brain washing of the Bush years wears off.

And Arlen made the wise choice, Pennsylvia has only 25% self identified Republicans.

With Moderates leaving the the GOP and the RNC out to purify the party. How long before the all that is left of Teddy's Roosevelt's GOP is the sulking right wing?

The Right wing slips off into self medication and we are hearing more people say "Rebellion in the face of impending Socialism, is not treason!"

It's with no small measure of amusement and interest that I reply to this thread. The failure of the GOP to find resonance with any majority of voters is a direct reflection of their inability to adapt to the dynamics of the electorate.
The electorate changes, albeit slowly, but changes nonetheless. Bush, Cheney, and Rove were able to frighten a majority into electing him a second time but by a narrow margin.
Bush's response was to declare that he had some sort of political capital to exploit.
That treasure trove was never evidenced. He finished his last four years an abject failure. A poster boy for political and patriotic pretentions......
Has America learned it's collective political lesson? Probably not.
Will they make some more mistakes in the near future? Probably so.
Is there hope for the GOP? I hope so.

Here's why: Hubris and arrogance are greater enemies of any political party or movement than any outside influence.....(Just two years ago the republicant brain-boy, Karl Rove, was espousing the 'permanent GOP majority')..........Quite the intellectual, right?

 

[DesertPirate]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

.....Abraham Lincoln

Seems someone that compares himself to Lincoln forgot to study him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Helping the poor does not destroy the rich-- it merely makes the gap a little smaller, which must seem like destruction.

Strengthening the weak in political terms almost always means the previous strong guys lose their advantage. Tough noogies.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift-- this one I'll agree with wholeheartedly!

When the wage payer is the man holding the wage earner down, he will be pulled down along with his employees. And he'll blame his underlings for it.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred-- which means that the rich had damn well better be more careful about the things they do to the poor. But gold is better than brotherhood anyway.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence, and that's something the capitolist system has proven to be very good at doing.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves, but you can help them get a handle on their difficulties by temporarily doing for them what they cannot yet do for themselves.

Abe would never even have gotten to the Primaries, in this day and age. He wouldn't have been charismatic enough for the television execs, and he would never have let Faux new claim ownership of him.
He had a cranial deformation, and probably suffered from a genetic abnormality-- Today's public won't trust anyone so far out of the ordinary. Today's political parties would never have welcomed this man into their ranks.

You can quote him to your hearts content-- but you do so in the comfort of knowing that he's long dead and can't point at the lies that have been spoken in his name.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, let me see. Eight of Dubya plus six of Billery's when he so pissed the country off that they handed Congress to the GOP. (The real reason the Repub's so hate the man is that he basically co-opted their agenda!) That's 14. Then there's 12 of Reagan/Bush and eight of Nixon/Ford. That makes 34. Alright then, replace 40 with 34 and my question is still will the Dems hold on for 34 years?

Don't forget the four years of Peanuts between Nixon/Ford and Reagan. And, the GOP did not control Congress for any of the Nixon years or most of the Reagan years. What I am saying is that, since Ike, the Dems have been, overall, the dominant party.

 

[TE999]

America is fixated on youth and vitality...in entertainment, sports and now presidential politics...a pretty face trumps experience every time...RR was a relative anomaly...of course both houses of congress look like retirement homes...but that's because they bring home the bacon to their constituents.

A viable two party system is necessary to the functioning of a constitutional republic...so the Republicans better pull their collective thumbs out and get into the 21st Century...the alternative is a virtual dictatorship by fiat...and that ain't good.

 

[Dragonlipz]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

.....Abraham Lincoln

Seems someone that compares himself to Lincoln forgot to study him.

More sour grapes from the sore losers.....A half-black man is President of the United States of America, get the fuck over it. He is our president, his success is our success, perhaps that's a concept that you haven't figured out. Roll eyes.....

 

[Dragonlipz]

Helping the poor does not destroy the rich-- it merely makes the gap a little smaller, which must seem like destruction.

Strengthening the weak in political terms almost always means the previous strong guys lose their advantage. Tough noogies.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift-- this one I'll agree with wholeheartedly!

When the wage payer is the man holding the wage earner down, he will be pulled down along with his employees. And he'll blame his underlings for it.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred-- which means that the rich had damn well better be more careful about the things they do to the poor. But gold is better than brotherhood anyway.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence, and that's something the capitolist system has proven to be very good at doing.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves, but you can help them get a handle on their difficulties by temporarily doing for them what they cannot yet do for themselves.

Abe would never even have gotten to the Primaries, in this day and age. He wouldn't have been charismatic enough for the television execs, and he would never have let Faux new claim ownership of him.
He had a cranial deformation, and probably suffered from a genetic abnormality-- Today's public won't trust anyone so far out of the ordinary. Today's political parties would never have welcomed this man into their ranks.

You can quote him to your hearts content-- but you do so in the comfort of knowing that he's long dead and can't point at the lies that have been spoken in his name.

Well said Stella.....but DP doesn't get it or he wouldn't quote someone whose legacy has been so besmirched by his party......

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by DesertPirate
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

To paraphrase DP's quote - you can destroy the poor by helping the rich get even richer. Take the minimum wage, for example. In the 50s, a guy could live on the minimum wage. Can a guy live on the minimum wage today? Sure, if he has a couple of roommates and no car, or internet, or anything else the middle class takes for granted. We can thank DP's conservative buddies for that.

Any idiot can quote slogans. It takes brains to see beyond the clever wordplay. It also takes empathy, but you won't find either in the Grand Old-Fart Party. What you will find is a lot of chest-thumping and bird-flipping, which obviously works for some people.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

Nope. Minimum wage in 1960 was ONE DOLLAR, 75 cents for agricultural work, and less for servers. One Dollar then is about SIX DOLLARS now. In 1954 my mother worked 2 minimum wage jobs and we lived in a small trailer with no electric, no water, no bathroom, and she had no car.

 

[DesertPirate]

To paraphrase DP's quote - you can destroy the poor by helping the rich get even richer. Take the minimum wage, for example. In the 50s, a guy could live on the minimum wage. Can a guy live on the minimum wage today? Sure, if he has a couple of roommates and no car, or internet, or anything else the middle class takes for granted. We can thank DP's conservative buddies for that.

Any idiot can quote slogans. It takes brains to see beyond the clever wordplay. It also takes empathy, but you won't find either in the Grand Old-Fart Party. What you will find is a lot of chest-thumping and bird-flipping, which obviously works for some people.

Things are out of balance for two reasons, not one.
Women have to work since jobs no longer pay a "living" wage. It has nothing to do with desire, just nesesity for many.
Greed and lust for objects that everyone thinks they "need" is a major part of the problem.
In the 50's life was much simpler. Fewer "things" more well built items that lasted, not the throw away society we have today.
Minimum wage will go up but prices will equal or exceed it. That is wrong but it has happened every time it was raised since the 70's.

Obama is the one that compared himself to Lincoln, shame he was wrong as usual.

 

[rgraham666]

And if wages go down and prices with it, what does it matter? It's buying power that's important, not wages.

You are right about one thing; we live in a throw away society. And the thing at the top of the throw away list is people. And for that mind set the revolutionaries hiding under the title 'conservatives' bear a great deal of responsibility.

 

[cloudy]

Women have to work since jobs no longer pay a "living" wage. It has nothing to do with desire, just nesesity for many.

I call bullshit on this. Many women enjoy working...wouldn't quit if given the option.

You're just as much a misogynist as amicus. And just as wrong.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I was around in the 50s, and things were not made better than today.

Cars were junk at 100K miles, tires took you about 12K miles, and you changed the oil every 1000 miles.

I do agree that living was much simpler.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertPirate
Women have to work since jobs no longer pay a "living" wage. It has nothing to do with desire, just nesesity for many.

I call bullshit on this. Many women enjoy working...wouldn't quit if given the option.

You're just as much a misogynist as amicus. And just as wrong.

I think you are both right here. Most people, men and women both, work because they need to support themselves and their families. There are a few jobs that are interesting enough that people would work on them even if they didn't need to, but that would probably not be the case with most. Agricultural work is one example. How many people would spend all day hoeing weeds or picking fruit if they didn't need the money? Very few, if any. For that matter, how many would work on assembly lines or in repetitive office work or as janitors or chars or similar jobs?

To use myself as an example: My last job, from which I retired, was quite interesting, but I burned out on it and retired just before I turned 62 years old. That was almost eight years ago. Now, because of the big growth in our household, I am working at a dull temporary job. We need the money, so I will continue working but, once the need is less urgent, I will quit, and spend more time writing smut.

ETA: In the sixties, I believe the minimum wage was $1.05 per hour, but that only applied to jobs involving interstate commerce. The feds were less intrusive then. Now, I think there is a nationwide minimum, with some states, such as CA, having a higher statewide minimum.

At one time, beginning in 1963, I worked for 75 cents an hour, and supported myself, but just barely.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I call bullshit on this. Many women enjoy working...wouldn't quit if given the option.

You're just as much a misogynist as amicus. And just as wrong.

HM would be right with you on that, I'm sorry to say. Even when she finally decides to retire at 66 (she says!) I'll bet she'll be spending at least three days/week at the lab. Why not? She hasn't any hobbies to speak of except TV and Sudoku so she may as well be usefull.

Me? Much as I love the kids, I'd be out of here yesterday if I didn't need the money!

Nothing personal, but work is for people with no imagination.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ah, DP. Your ignorance knows no bounds or boundaries. I don't even feel like getting into 'Women are People Too 101,' because you've been told these things over and over and over and there must be a hole in your head where the information just falls right back out.