Wait, so now it’s the Democrats defining themselves by the Republican position? Would you make up your mind?
the gerrymandering (not just by R’s, but recently pursued vigorously by them) have produced a situation emulating the original constitution, where slaves were only 3/5 of a person for House seat counts. Represented, but not allowed to vote. Now, they are allowed to vote, but not allowed to be represented equitably.
Oh baloney. Democrats are concentrated in urban areas. It would be impossible to create a “fair” map under even the most honest conditions. And let’s not forget how Republicans were able to gerrymander in the few places they actually did: they did so by beating the holy hell out of Democrats all over the country.
congressional districts are supposed to be simply a reflection of total population divided by 435. Ideally, every district would include a slice of town, suburb and rural.
G-mandering is accomplished by drawing lines that produce 30% margins for minorities in their districts, and 10% margins for Republicans in theirs. This results in minorities winning elections, not just supporting the winning candidate, so that minorities are present in the legislatures.
In almost every case, minorities would not have a majority in their district if the ideal was followed, but their bloc power would still be felt within each election, the candidates all trying to acquire their support. There might well be fewer minorities winning elections, but the policies of the elected would tend to be the policies minorites would want.
But, as minorities in the aggregate become the dominant group in American society, their positions and politics should, in fact, be reflected in all elections.
The party doesn’t pick the candidates. The party picks the nominee. If Republican voters had anything to say about who ran in the primary, there wouldn’t be fifty people running every time. That only hurts us.
I can’t help, but notice though that you give the impression that the Democrats have their act together. Do you remember your last primary? It was one of the least professional displays of all time.
Don’t let the fact that Obama won give you too much of a big head. Right now, both parties are a mess. And the Dem’s likely nominee for 2016 is Hillary. Did she all of the sudden fix the fact that she’s missing like 30% of the Democrat base? That’s an even bigger rift than Romney had on the GOP side.
Whoa, my face is starting to shrivel up like when you just bite into a lemon. You Republicans are so bitter! LOL! 
Consider, and you don’t have to even respond to me, but consider in your mind this possibility: Crowley was perfectly fair in her role. She didn’t favor one candidate or the other. Romney simply was ignorant of what happened at Benghazi (too much Fox News!) and tried to attack Obama for something he didn’t do. Romney deserved to lose that campaign, it was all his and the Republican echo chamber’s fault for not living in reality.
Clinton is more moderate than Obama. What exactly are the Democrats doubling-down on?
A suggestion for you, since you asked, about what the GOP is supposed to do: Position themselves in the side of sanity. That means: they can say they don’t like abortion, but make exceptions because most people don’t agree with the extreme zero abortions stance; tolerate gays and not demonize them as family-killers, every study done has shown that there is no difference between kids from a gay family vs. a straight one (they can leave the acceptance to the Democrats); raise taxes and close corporate loopholes, acknowledge that some rich people will have to pay more; stop trying to destroy the social safety net for the poor, they are poor not because they deserve it but because of circumstances that an affect any American, so the public should pay to help support them; tell racists you don’t want their votes.
I have no faith that your party will take any of these suggestions and so I revel in the fact that the GOP will continue to lose elections and hopefully die out as a national party within 10 years
Hey! I’ll have you know that Dread Cthulhu has a very leftist social policy: Anything is ok in the bedroom as long as he gets to eat them at the end!
How does the math work on that, if the minority of Americans are “conservative”? And which “conservative” are we talking about here, the moderate fiscal/business conservative, or the batshit bible thumping reactionary conservative? To get your numbers, you have to blend those together as if they were pretty much the same thing, and they are not.
Is the Tea Party conservative? By a very generous and forgiving definition, perhaps. But theirs is an agenda for radical change, only backwards. The correct term for such people is “reactionary”. So you have to blend the reactiionary in with the moderate conservative, and you still have a minority number, 40%. And in almost the same breath, you claim that the leftward coalition is made up of freakishly disparate groups that will not maintain a coalition. But when you look rightward, you see a vast group of essentially like minded people!
You’re adorable!
First of all, I’m registered as an independent. I have no vested interest in either party.
Second…no…I don’t really remember the specifics of the 2008 Democratic primary. What specific unprofessionalism were you referring to?
Finally, I am under the impression when a nominee is saying wacked-out crazy shit, it tends to on the Republicans side.
. . . existent.
:dubious: Actually, he governs from a position further right than he campaigns.
Clinton is RW now? (I know she ain’t LW and I can see no third way to construe your sentence.)
The problem for the republicans is simple: a candidate with mass-appeal can’t get through their primaries, which tilt ultra-conservative. A moderate, populist like Christie would draw a lot of independents and conservative democrats in the general election, but compared to Santorum he’s a flaming liberal. And America is not going to put Santorum in the White House, but he’s the kind of guy the hard-core right wing primary voters love.
2016 will probably play out like 2012, with a compromise candidate like Romney. It wouldn’t be a huge surprise if that candidate is Jeb Bush.
RWs. The GOP can’t win with 'em, can’t win without 'em.
If a candidate said this, it would rate two falses, four Pinocchios, and eight pants on fire. It could sink a career all by itself.
And that is equal baloney. You were told over and over that this wasn’t true at the time. I know, because I said it to you. Obama led by fairly consistent margins for the entire race. He was never on the ropes, because there was never at any time a chance that Romney would win.
Your blindness on this subject is itself consistent. If it’s as representative of most Republicans as your talking points are, then 2016 will come as another huge shock.
Influenced by ads on the Mexican radio, no doubt.
The Tea Party’s road to senescence.
Census Benchmark for White Americans: More Deaths Than Births
Pat Buchanan sets what little hair he has left on fire.
The republican plan is going to be trying to rig the vote so they don’t need a majority. Just engage in enough voter ID laws, voter suppression, prohibiting registration drives and splitting up the electoral vote in swing states and you don’t need to win a majority.
I dont’ think the GOP will learn anytime soon either. They aren’t a very introspective bunch, and they are catering to the most dogmatic 10% of the electorate.
However it is possible they will have a wilderness moment like the democrats did in the 70s and 80s after a string of failures and losses (the failing of McGovern and Carter followed by the rise of Reagan and movement conversatism) which moved the overton window to the right.
With the rise of millennials who will be 40% of the electorate by 2020, and the dieoff of the tea party (the average age of a fox news viewer and/or talk radio listener is about 67, and that study was done several years ago) the GOP has no choice but to move to the left or die.
Not in any upcoming electoral cycles, but in the 2020s. I think they will spend the rest of this decade doubling down on the crazy. However if/when Texas becomes a swing state in 2020 (which is possible if a few thousand voter registration drives are done there, since people who lean democratic are underrepresented in turnout) that will make victory near impossible for the GOP.
My big fear is that the dems have a string of victories, but they always end up being a party of pussies who get outmaneuvered by the GOP. Even when the dems win, they have to govern according to the wishes of the GOP or the most conservative democrats.
Because of turnout. In 2010 about 50 million republicans went out of vote, and about 40 million democrats did.
In 2008 about 70 million democrats and 60 million republicans went to vote. In 2012 about 66 million democrats voted vs 61 million republicans.
The 2010 victory of the GOP was a fluke due to low turnout by the democrats. Compared to 2008 and 2010, about 10 million republicans stayed home, but about 25-30 million democrats stayed home. A lot was the fact that even with a supermajority, the democrats were still inept so why bother voting them back into office. It wasn’t people turning to the GOP, it was people feeling the dems weren’t worth the effort.
Mychal Denzel Smith in The Nation: White America Is Here To Stay.