Why GOP is in Trouble

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don't have a reliable demographic voting block they can depend on regardless.

In a word - good. That's good. It means if a Republican sucks, his own constituents will kick his butt to the curb.

It means if he has cash in his freezer, an intern under his desk or is caught in a sting smoking crack, Republican voters can reliably kick his butt out. They will NOT re-elect him or sanctimoniously recuse his actions. It's ridiculous that the Democrats can rely on groups of people who will vote for them no matter who they put up, or what issues they espouse.

[otter (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Good point, but the Dems turn their backs on their supporters too. My point is that the GOP cannot equalize the stupidity of the Dem voters.

Exactly

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

It's ridiculous that the Democrats can rely on groups of people who will vote for them no matter who they put up, or what issues they espouse.

Yes, it is ridiculous and it pisses me off. I actually think it is only one group that votes for them no matter what issues they espouse. Do I need to say what that group is?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

In a word - good. That's good. It means if a Republican sucks, his own constituents will kick his butt to the curb.

The problem, of course, is that if we are constantly culling our own herd and the opposition is not....

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Yes, it is ridiculous and it pisses me off. I actually think it is only one group that votes for them no matter what issues they espouse. Do I need to say what that group is?

Blacks, gays, women, lawyers, teachers, union workers....which group are you referring to?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Bob Shrum weighs in;

The Republican Ruins

The Republican Ruins - THE WEEK


This week, the Dem Machine is going after Drudge;

Perhaps demonstrating that Drudge, not Limbaugh, is the maestro of the GOP chorus, the point was quickly picked up by Karl Rove on the house network, Fox News. Then the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson, one of the few Bush aides to emerge from that administration with a reputation worth having, vigorously banged the same tin drum, arraigning Obama as “the most polarizing new President.”

Then, a shot at Newt;

Republican intransigence does not constitute a strategy, but a suicide note. Undeterred by the steep rise in the ranks of Americans who believe the nation is now headed in the right direction—up almost threefold from the rock-bottom dregs of the Bush years—the Republican remnant continues on its march of folly. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who speaks to the sour soul of his party, propagates an alternate reality in which Americans are yearning to repudiate Obama’s activist reach for economic recovery, health care reform, and energy independence.

Then, he goes after McCain;

Their situation grew more dire last week with reports that the White House intends to move ahead on immigration reform. This will guarantee conservative outbursts of barely disguised ethnic-baiting that is sure to alienate Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Without a foothold among Hispanics, it’s almost impossible for the GOP to win a presidential contest (ask John McCain) or regain a competitive edge in Congress. Texas could evolve into a Democratic state, just as California did following Republican Governor Pete Wilson’s tactical immigrant-bashing in 1994.

And, after a gratuitous shot at Bush and praise for Specter and Ahhhnold, he closes with a misdiagnosis;

The Republicans aren’t dead—just comatose. If Obama fails, they will be back. But that outcome appears increasingly chimerical. Meantime, amid the Republican ruins, delusion provides a temporary shelter and psychic self-satisfaction. How many defeats will it take for Republicans to rebuild a credible party of ideas? It’s bound to happen some day, but who knows how or when?

So, to the point of this tread; did the GOP fall apart because they were too conservative? That, to anyone being honest, is laughable.

Or, did the GOP collapse because they were too liberal?

Considering our nominee was a left wing media friend, known by all as a RINO, (Republican In Name Only for those who forgot) who supported illegal immigration, the man made global warming farce, limits on free political speech, was opposed to oil independence, against 'too' conservative judges and admittedly knows little about economics, the obvious conclusion would be...?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Yes, it is ridiculous and it pisses me off. I actually think it is only one group that votes for them no matter what issues they espouse. Do I need to say what that group is?

No, but here's the thing. I used to live in the Boston area. Those guys won't vote for a Republican. Period. Frankly, it amazes me to no end that they have elected a couple of Republican governors in the last several years, because I knew many people who never had any intention of voting for a Republican. They included some of the most conservative, religious fundie, gun-toting rednecks you'd ever meet. It did not matter. They voted that way, because they have always voted that way.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Or, did the GOP collapse because they were too liberal?

I think "collapse" is wishful thinking. The GOP was beating the ever living crap out of the Democrats in Congress, governorships and state legislatures for well over a decade until 2006. Even 2002 was a banner year for the GOP, a year where the party opposite the White House *always* picks up seats.

They've had a bad run for one Presidential election and two Congressional elections. So what? The GOP wasn't dead in the 80's, and they didn't have Congress at all.

Shrum has been on the losing side of Presidential campaigns his entire career - he has always managed to find the one Democrat who is going to lose. Somehow, his forecasts don't strike me as holding much credibility.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I think "collapse" is wishful thinking. The GOP was beating the ever living crap out of the Democrats in Congress, governorships and state legislatures for well over a decade until 2006. Even 2002 was a banner year for the GOP, a year where the party opposite the White House *always* picks up seats.

They've had a bad run for one Presidential election and two Congressional elections. So what? The GOP wasn't dead in the 80's, and they didn't have Congress at all.

Shrum has been on the losing side of Presidential campaigns his entire career - he has always managed to find the one Democrat who is going to lose. Somehow, his forecasts don't strike me as holding much credibility.

Good point.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Blacks, gays, women, lawyers, teachers, union workers....which group are you referring to?

As for union workers, I know quite a few of them that set aside their partisan views and instead vote for GOP candidates, especially when there is an issue (such as Second Amendment rights) that they consider more important than their loyalty to the unions. Similarly, I know some teachers who vote for candidates other than Democrats, although they don't dare disclose this to their fellow teachers. It seems to me that only about 2/3 (or less) of lawyers are Democrats. As for women, they seem to get more conservative as they get older, especially if they get married and have kids (if they get knocked up and live their lives on welfare, however, they are lifelong slaves to the Democrats). So, that leaves 2 groups remaining. Among them, one of them thinks of Republicans as "moral homophobes," and the other thinks of them as "racists" (Godammit, I hate that word because it is used so much by them in an attempt to scare us away from using logical arguments).