The GOP’s problem is that it represents too many people who just can’t get along under the same tent.
In March, 1853, Millard Fillmore was still President of the United States. He had been elected, with Zachary Taylor, on the Whig ticket. Winfield Scott had run as a Whig in 1852 and gotten 44% of the vote despite that a 3rd-party candidate siphoned off 5%. But by 1854, the Whig Party was effectively defunct.
I won’t predict the future trajectory of the GOP, but in its present form it’s a sad dying shell. Note that two of the five on-stage for the Democratic debate were Republicans who became Democrats because “the Republican party left them.”
The problem for the Whigs was that they wouldn’t take a firm position on slavery. The country couldn’t have a pro-slavery party and a wishy washy on slavery party. The GOP stepped into that void.
The Whigs were split over slavery. The Republicans are split over issues like science (is it real … or just liberal lies?), governance (is government of, by and for the people … or is it a beast to be fought with filibusters and even guns?), etc.
Rational thinkers and good-spirited people are fleeing the sinking ship in droves, leaving just an empty shell of bitterness, fears and hatreds. This page has a graphic which makes the point: During the debates, Democrats talk about real issues, while the GOP discusses vaccination and Kim Davis.
(Post shortened in deference to Hamster Liberation Week)
Except that the Republican Party has deftly carved out redistricting, aiming at the sacred “50% plus one” enshrined by that civic minded genius, Karl Rove. That, and voter suppression tactics, is their ticket to political dominance. Their calculation is based on getting just enough to get over the line. There is no slack, no more wiggle room than accorded to an anaconda’s most recent meal.
And take a moment to sympathize with the honest conservative. That rarely sighted creature that is troubled that his party swept to House dominance by getting less votes than the other guys. Does he gaze at himself while shaving, and think “This isn’t right, this isn’t ‘winning’, this is gamesmanship…”
Or just grow a beard?
No, the problem is the tent is too small…
*
This tent is my tent
It is not your tent
If you don’t look like me
You’re not import-tent
It can be your color
Or your religion
This tent was made for only me…*
Hillary won. The silent majority has spoken:
Let this be a lesson to you, Bernheads, not to come at us with these unscientific online polls next time.
Obviously the SNL staff read my post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o
The GOP retained the House winning less votes than the other guys. The Democrats have achieved that “feat” before as well. However, the GOP “swept” to House dominance by winning a lot more votes than the Democrats: 52-45 in 2010 and 51-46 in 2014. The “win” in which Democrats are sure they deserved to gain 25 seats or so in 2012? 49-48. Sorry, but no party sweeps into power winning a one-point plurality of the vote. It’s the most pathetic whining in history.
Back to the debate subject, Sanders was the only one to gain from the debate in the polling, so in the way that counts, Sanders won the debate.
Huh?
Not sure what you are looking at.
Polls condensed on RCP certainly show HRC getting a bounce back up both nationally and in NH and as reviewed in the Slate article that Slacker lined to:
More evidence Hillary’s got the “big mo”: Clinton Has Strong Support Among Democrats
Since the entire House turns over every two years, it’s more logical to assume that the 49% party should have the majority than the 48% party.
I agree. I foresee, in the not too distant future, the House going to Democrats in presidential years and then back to Republicans in off years, rinse, repeat. (The Senate would be on a similar, if wobblier, cycle.). I could see that being a relatively stable pattern for decades, unless Republicans become more moderate–although I think the evidence we are seeing in their party right now suggests that this would split them asunder.
It’s called democracy. Some of us think it’s important.
I doubt we can expect a cite for that.
I think that’s right and see this coming:
2016- Democratic wave year, Dems win House and Senate on Hillary’s coattails or Trump’s coat lead weights, Senators from 2010 Republican wave year diminish in numbers.
2018- Republican gains due to the 2012 Democratic Senators riding in on Obama’s 2012 win are beaten and fewer I am not a witch candidates are nominated.
2020- Democratic wave, the 2014 Republican takeover of Senate is reversed. Dems get some statehouses and have more impact on redrawing districts than they had after 2010 election…
That would be awesome. I’m hesitant to think it will happen this soon just because none of the data-based prognosticators seem to see it happening in this cycle. But I would love it if you’re right!