Republican Party on brink of irrelevance?

[Nonno]

"Senator Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party is just the latest bad news for the Republican Party. Politico suggests the GOP’s meltdown is the worst of any party’s in decades and has left the Republican party on the brink of irrelevance with few obvious paths back to power.

Specter’s abandonment comes in the same month as a traditionally Republican leaning district in upstate New York tipped for the Democrats. This means in the nine Northeastern states — there are only 15 GOP House members out of 83 seats — and only three Republican senators out of 18.

On a national level, the GOP is near record levels for unpopularity. Only about one person in four identifies himself as a Republican; and a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows only 39 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the Republican party. Even a lot of Republicans no longer like the party much."

More at: Cafferty File: Republican Party on brink of irrelevance? | Video Cafe

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nonno

"Senator Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party is just the latest bad news for the Republican Party. Politico suggests the GOP’s meltdown is the worst of any party’s in decades and has left the Republican party on the brink of irrelevance with few obvious paths back to power.

Specter’s abandonment comes in the same month as a traditionally Republican leaning district in upstate New York tipped for the Democrats. This means in the nine Northeastern states — there are only 15 GOP House members out of 83 seats — and only three Republican senators out of 18.

On a national level, the GOP is near record levels for unpopularity. Only about one person in four identifies himself as a Republican; and a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows only 39 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the Republican party. Even a lot of Republicans no longer like the party much."

More at: Cafferty File: Republican Party on brink of irrelevance? | Video Cafe

So, a Democrat who turned Republican to get votes in a Republican state, then votes with zero consistency throughout his career, then turns against the American people (most importantly those of his state who didn't want him to vote the way he did), turns back to Democrat because of he perceives his political neck on the line. He has no ideological shift, just a personal need to get re-elected, and this somehow has bearing on the whole GOP.


Reaching just a bit, aren't ya?

[SamSpade]

If the Republican party becomes irrelevant, then VOTING becomes irrelevant, because of one thing we actually do know from history --

If one party controls the government long enough, they're goiing to do enough stupid things the people will vote otherwise. If the people are unable to vote the bums out, then we have a dictatorship.

Again, more cases for term limits. Stay in power too long, and you're going to do a WORSE job, not better, because there's no incentive. When you've been an incumbent long enough, you gain enough power that it resembles tenure.

I'm in favor of, at the very least, no more than a few consecutive terms for Representatives and Senators.

[Rosehaven]

Say what you will about the failings, the country needs a two party system--preferably more than that. The GOP needs to find a good voice and as much as i thought Michael Steele was going to deliver, he ain't getting it done.

That said, I'm liberal/independent but the Republicans and their ideas have to be a part of the national discussion.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

Say what you will about the failings, the country needs a two party system--preferably more than that. The GOP needs to find a good voice and as much as i thought Michael Steele was going to deliver, he ain't getting it done.

That said, I'm liberal/independent but the Republicans and their ideas have to be a part of the national discussion.

I disagree. We also don't need the democrats. What we need are parties that will remember that they serve the citizens of THIS country., only. And by what I mean as citizens, those who have performed some service or obligation to EARN that right, not inherit it or get it automatically because of a family member who just happened to have the fortune to be born here legally or illegally.
The Romans had it right initially....priviledges of the state are equally balanced by obligations to that state. Many of us have already fulfilled that duty...many in politics have not. This includes rogues on both sides of the aisle.

[mAlice]

Parties in general are obviously becoming a thing of the past. It no longer matters when your government becomes a dictatorship.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Nonno

Only about one person in four identifies himself as a Republican

Dumb and biased.

There's no need to poll voters and then twist the numbers - all you have to do is compile voter registrations. That will tell you exactly how many people are Republican, Democrat or other.

Pew Research Center: Democrats Gain Edge in Party Identification

The Democratic Party has achieved a small gain in party affiliation and holds a 33%-29% edge over the GOP in Pew surveys conducted in 2004.

So while it is true that only about 1 in 4 voters are Republicans, only about 1 in 3 are Democrats. Yet this article doesn't mention that last part, trying to imply that 3 in 4 are Democrats, which isn't even close to true.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I disagree. We also don't need the democrats. What we need are parties that will remember that they serve the citizens of THIS country., only. And by what I mean as citizens, those who have performed some service or obligation to EARN that right, not inherit it or get it automatically because of a family member who just happened to have the fortune to be born here legally or illegally.
The Romans had it right initially....priviledges of the state are equally balanced by obligations to that state. Many of us have already fulfilled that duty...many in politics have not. This includes rogues on both sides of the aisle.

While I agree with your sentiments, statistically, you're talking out your fourth point of contact. Before this last election, at least, the House and Senate politicians served at a higher rate than the general population. Going on what's left of my memory, but it was something like 24% vs 10%.

Here, research is your friend: Who Served? | 2008 Presidential Candidates

[Pete (Premo)]

Lets see, the minority in the Senate, unable to filibuster, minority in the house, prevented from debate, dem in the White house, I would say yes the GOP is already irrelevant.

they can't propose, pass, block, stop, hinder, slow down, prevent, modify or even plead their case or explain their position. You can't get much more "passenger" than that.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

If the Republican party becomes irrelevant, then VOTING becomes irrelevant, because of one thing we actually do know from history --

If one party controls the government long enough, they're goiing to do enough stupid things the people will vote otherwise. If the people are unable to vote the bums out, then we have a dictatorship.

Again, more cases for term limits. Stay in power too long, and you're going to do a WORSE job, not better, because there's no incentive. When you've been an incumbent long enough, you gain enough power that it resembles tenure.

I'm in favor of, at the very least, no more than a few consecutive terms for Representatives and Senators.

Now that the GOP can't do anything about, there will be some talk of term limits. Smaller government. Voter fraud. Less spending. Freedom. Liberty.

Etc.