Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

Hey, remember the 2012 election? You know, the one where you were COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG about, well, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING?

There was this guy that you disagreed with…a lot. His name is Nate Silver and he was PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ON THE MONEY. He happened to have recently written an article about this very subject:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/

Just FYI.*

*BTW, you might want to link to his blog and read it occasionally. I know it says stuff that makes you uncomfortable since it’s not all YAY GOP!!! all the time, but it might actually cut down on the number of your posts that are factually inaccurate.

I guess the takeaway for me is that adaher seems pretty troubled about a time where whites are not in control, GOP, Dem, whatever. I think this is primarily a GOP concern.

I can’t speak for everyone, but wrt my own experience I can point out I studied Spanish for years. This hemisphere is chock full of Spanish speakers yanno, so it seemed like a good idea. Turns out it was very interesting, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to identify with Hispanics, I guess I like ‘them’ and am not especially worried about what ‘they’ will do. I dunno, ‘they’re’ just people who happen to prefer Spanish, like most everyone else where they’re from.

We could talk about black people the same way, or the Irish I guess… In a nutshell, I think the GOP broadcasts fear of the ‘others’ (which increasingly just makes people uncomfortable), and the dems, not so much.

Sort of, and, yes, pretty much entirely and exclusively, but, actually and more specifically, it’s more of a Tea Party concern.

I think you misunderstand. I don’t actually believe the demographic changes Democrats are hoping for are going to come about, and if they do, it won’t work out the way they think it will.

Secondly, I’m not sure that predicting that a Latino-dominated Democratic party will focus primarily on economic concerns at the expense of the environment, or that such a party will be more religious than it is now, is fearmongering. Unless as a liberal, you find the thought of such a party frightening somehow.

Perhaps not, but, based on your posts in this thread so far, you have no good reason to think that.

Oh, don’t worry. The Democratic Party will remain pro-choice and anti-creationism no matter how many Latinos join it. Catholics are surprisingly more flexible than Protestants about things in general.

economic concerns.theres a joke considering the sad shape Democratic ran citys are in
oh and coming from a republican.if people wernt so ignorant and blamed bush and if they would of picked a little better canidate we’d have a republican president right now

I do think that the party will be pro-choice and anti-creationism, but I also believe that it won’t be AS pro-choice when it comes to some of the actual legislation going around these days. Most Catholic countries have pretty restrictive abortion laws after the 1st trimester. A more Catholic Democratic Party will probably be less protecting of abortion after the 1st trimester than it is now.

Cities generally aren’t a good barometer. Of course, state measures really are generally less forgiving for “blue” states than measures based on city data so…

Romney was fine. The biggest problem is that Democrats did best among the undereducated and the marginally attached/politically detached voter. There was an article or two written post election about Obama specifically targeting these two groups.

Of course they are. More people live in cities (blue) than in the countryside (red). Between the two are the suburbs/exurbs (purple). And, history American and foreign teaches us, when a political conflict comes down to City vs. Countryside, the City usually wins and usually deserves to win.

He was referring to how poorly Democratic cities are run. By contrast, New York hasn’t been run by a Democrat in a very long time and it went from ungovernable to the safest big city in the country.

Be interesting to see what happens to New York with a liberal Democrat back in charge. The denial will be over if they screw it up.

As opposed to a liberal independent?

Bloomberg isn’t a liberal except for his nanny state instincts. On law enforcement, fiscal issues, and corruption issues he’s the same as Giuliani was.

Quinn and Weiner want to roll back New York’s law enforcement policies to the pre-Giuliani era. Should be interesting to see what that does to NYC’s crime rate. ANd we know they’ll jack up spending, they can’t help themselves. And of course that will mean legal and sorta legal patronage. I’m sure there are lots of interest groups that are feeling like they’ve waited a long time to get that money again.

Because Fox News tells us so…

No, because that’s what liberals do in the big cities.

Capitalization is a vital part of the English language. You might want to practice more.

Oh, and “weren’t”, “would HAVE”, “candidate”. And frankly, my dear, you folks DIDN’T pick a better candidate (either time). Instead, you picked the man who picked Caribou Barbie and the man who thinks half the country is a bunch of luckie duckies who are mooching off the real human beings like him. Good calls, both.

All their other choices both years were hilariously worse.

Which relates to the OP.

Since I can remember, the Presidential Ticket has been a choice between Dumb and Dumber.

Obama, Dukakis, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy and Stevenson are/were all pretty smart, whatever else you might say about them.

I guess we have to define smart because I dont agree with all of those. I could be a freakin savant surgeon, and be the worst POTUS ever.