American exceptionalism was one of the excuses. The *reason *was the political power of the insurance industry.
All the photos of him in drag don’t help much with his base. I personally don’t care, except he’s really ugly as a woman. Really ugly.
Don’t worry, he’s realized since 2008 that ‘nice’ doesn’t go over well in today’s GOP, so he’s been cultivating more of a snarl this time.
Maybe that refers to this?
(Insert snarky comment about a 2010 comment having an effect on the 2008 race).
No, what kept Rudy from gaining traction is the same arrogance and shallowness and appearance of personal amorality (highly public adultery, not just cross-dressing) that practically got him driven out of office right before 9/11.
So are they going to be against it or not? Can you be specific on what you actually expect the Democratic nominee to do or say? Cause you started with “The Democrat is going to run against the ACA”, which is quite a claim, but then quickly watered that down to “the Democrat is going to be vague and suggest that there are things they’d like to fix about it”, which isn’t particularly interesting.
If the Republican makes an issue of repealing Obamacare, the Democrat is going to defend it, and win on that issue. The actual meat of the law is too popular, even if the name is not.
Lindsey Graham thinks even he would be a better candidate than Marco Rubio. The, uh, “confirmed bachelor” thing might be an issue for some voters, though, even if they’re used to it in South Carolina.
Ah, Lindsey Graham, I’d definitely vote for him. I like mavericks.
It’s not an assertion at all. It’s a decre-e-e-e-e-e-e-e. 
Wait, since when does the Republican base object to highly public adultery?
Obama won the following states with less than 53% of the vote:
Florida 50.01% (29 electoral votes)
Ohio 50.67% (18)
Virginia 51.16% (13)
Colorado 51.49% (9)
Pennsylvania 51.97% (20)
New Hampshire 51.98% (4)
Iowa 51.99% (6)
Nevada 52.36% (6)
Minnesota 52.65% (10)
Wisconsin 52.83% (10)
Maine 52.94% (1)
New Mexico 52.99% (5)
Hillary could lose any of these.
Florida’s really close.
Wait until he gets into the Republican primary and he has to veer hard right to get the nomination. Love them or hate them, the tea party is driving the Republican candidates to the right because they can’t win primaries without them.
ROFLMAO. You think Mitt Romney lost because the Democrats slung more mud!?!?!!?!? R U fucking kidding me?
Mitt Romney lost because the Democrats managed to turn his greatest strength into his greatest weakness. Namely, his business experience. They associated Mitt Romney with wealthy big business interests. And Mitt did everything in his power to reinforce that impression.
That and Mitt veered hard right during the primaries and couldn’t get back to center quickly enough (I’m not sure anyone could have.
In 10 years Republicans will no longer be able to win presidential elections. Just a matter of demographics.
There are many, many reasons why demographic changes aren’t going to result in one party rule. To find out why, you simply have to look at why none of America’s past demographic changes led to one party rule.
But even if you’re right about the Presidency, your side can have it. Congress is where the power is, and the GOP enjoys a lock on it since the Democrats’ appeal is geographically limited and only growing moreso. As the Democrats are forced to alter their policies to please their increasingly demanding special interest groups in an effort to keep their fragile coalition together, states like Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, etc. will vote 90% GOP.
This is exactly why no one takes you seriously - this is just laughably incorrect. I get what you’re trying to say (though your larger point is wrong, too), but can you at least try to say it without making these kind of silly claims? The GOP currently controls one house of Congress and not the other, and have only controlled that house for fewer than four years, and recorded fewer total votes for its Congressional candidates than the Democrats in the most recent election. That is not a lock.
It’s as valid as saying the Democrats will have a lock on the Presidency. The same trends that are making the electoral college very difficult for the Republicans are making Congress a big problem for Democrats.
Limited appeal beyond the big cities, and an unmotivated voting base to boot means midterms will continue to be nightmarish for Democrats. That will also mean Republican dominance of state governments, since most of those happen in off years.
But of course,I don’t actually believe demographics are destiny. The reasons that different groups vote certain ways change over time and will continue to change. Trying to view the politics of 2030 and beyond through the eyes of today is futile.
I believe that the Republicans have a decent shot at the White House in '16 because of that whole “change the channel” mindset spoken of earlier. (And looking back at elections in the last sixty or so years is fine with me because it is my lifetime!)
However, I do find it amusing that many who said 8 years ago that the Democrats couldn’t win with Obama are now saying that they can’t win without him!
How many Republican women will get in the booth and pull the lever for Hillary and then lie to their husbands about it?
No, it’s way less valid than that. The Democrats currently have the presidency, so it’s at least possible they have a lock on it. The Republicans do not currently have Congress - they have half, and received fewer votes for that half than their competition last go-round. It’s impossible that they have a lock on it. It’s like saying the Libertarians have a lock on the federal government.
What is going on now is meaningless. I remember in 2004 Democrats were wondering just what they had to do to win anything. Wasn’t that long ago.
No, the GOP doesn’t have the Senate, for the same reason the Democrats wont’ always control the White House: candidates and performance in office matter. Barack Obama’s 41% approval rating trumps demographics. And Congress’ 7% approval rating trumps sectionalism.