Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

You know your party is in trouble when....

49 posts in this topic

Posted

social values while important, can't just be the straw that stirs the drink.

consider this. lets fast forward where every state has gay marriage and legalized weed and immigration reform all states are on the same page as the feds. then what?

in an odd way, at some point, it may truly come down to the nuts and bolts of the economy but by then, it may not really matter.

Obviously gay marriage and legalized weed wont really have a fiscal impact on the economy, unless the Feds start selling and taxing weed of course.

A posession bust is little more than a ticket here in Cali currently so you wouldn't be emptying jails.

Immigration reform on the other hand.

Here in California we have currently about 3 million of the estimated 11 million "Unauthorized immigrant population" in the United States. The cost is immense.

The rest spread throughout the 49 states.

California is a glimpse into the future and is almost to the it may not really matter part you mentioned.

Consdier that 12 years ago California was in the black.

Consider that in 1986 there wasn't any "Unauthorized immigrant population" in California because the Governor signed an amnesty bill and 3 milion Illegals came forward and were granted amnesty.

That was that evil Ronald Reagan guy who penned that.

Here's the may not really matter part:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've said this in other threads but I honestly think they just don't care they simply do not connect at a mass social level...at all.

They have a fundamental belief set (that is mainly stemming from bs social views) you have to publicly say you believe in and support at nearly every turn even if it makes you seem like a disingenuine d-head.

And instead of at least trying to find the sharp divides in the 20-30s where they can start courting at least 50% of em', they just shun them all, farting in their general direction for being a young social liberal, fiscal conservative type. They come across as angry and unwilling bunch..but they don't care.

The latino population: well you really don't need an explanation.

As long as they come across as the 'angry people from the suburbs and their fears club', they will never get far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

social values while important, can't just be the straw that stirs the drink.

consider this. lets fast forward where every state has gay marriage and legalized weed and immigration reform all states are on the same page as the feds. then what?

in an odd way, at some point, it may truly come down to the nuts and bolts of the economy but by then, it may not really matter.

Filmorem.jpg

Millard Fillmore, the last Whig president

The GOP used to be primarily known for focusing on business, the economy and foreign affairs. On social issues they were pretty moderate, but for the most part that was a secondary concern.

The Dem's had control congress for decades after WWII, but then, they decided to do the right thing and push for civil rights. Not long after that, the GOP was able to swoop in and pick up disaffected Dixiecrats, people that would have previously never, ever, considered voting for the "Party of Lincoln" were now voting for Tricky Dick Nixon.

Ultimately, Dixiecrats ended up transforming the "Party of Lincoln" more than the party transformed the Dixiecrats.

Today, the GOP has a choice, stick with antebellum ideals and ultimately die like the Whigs before them or recreate themselves yet again.

I don't see how that transition takes place without gradually marginalizing the TP and the moral minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Perhaps all of this is true. But if the Republicans had a better crop to choose from than Romney, Gingrich, the Texas governor and Santorum, they win this thing and we're talking about the Dems. All of those candidates had major warts. All of them. I think Romney's a good guy, but his past just killed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Perhaps all of this is true. But if the Republicans had a better crop to choose from than Romney, Gingrich, the Texas governor and Santorum, they win this thing and we're talking about the Dems. All of those candidates had major warts. All of them. I think Romney's a good guy, but his past just killed him.

Obama gives a great speech, Romney not so much.

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also think about this. Each time I heard of a "celeb" who publicly supporting Romney the venom that spewed towards them was fast and furious. This coming from folks who are supposedly progressive and tolerant.

Dems are as hypocritical in tolerance as much as the reps are hypocrites in being fiscally responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Perhaps all of this is true. But if the Republicans had a better crop to choose from than Romney, Gingrich, the Texas governor and Santorum, they win this thing and we're talking about the Dems. All of those candidates had major warts. All of them. I think Romney's a good guy, but his past just killed him.

And why don't they have a better crop to choose from? Where are the great Republicans?

This is a symptom of what we're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama gives a great speech, Romney not so much.

Simple.

We know the Dems cleaned up in single women, blacks, latinos and gays, but they also won a good share of white union people. Are union people going to blame the unions or the Dems because their company went out of business, or the rich guy who once moved a factory to China so his company would make a lot more money?

What bothers me about how this thing turned out is that during the last three weeks, I never saw Romney blatantly insult Obama while campaigning. It was all "let's get this country going again" and all positive. Then you had Obama out there just ripping into Romney left and right. I'm disappointed that the latter strategy worked and the high road did not. I thought Romney looked much more presidential than Obama. Whether that would have translated into the job, who knows? But I know that Obama can't do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama gives a great speech, Romney not so much.

Simple.

I don't know about that. Romney rose 28 points after the debates. Then Obama won them back with the job he did handling Sandy, which most certainly wasn't just a speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And why don't they have a better crop to choose from? Where are the great Republicans?

This is a symptom of what we're saying.

Too young. Too afraid to go up against the Chicago Machine.

Why was John Kerry/John Edwards the best that the Dems had to offer in 04?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What bothers me about how this thing turned out is that during the last three weeks, I never saw Romney blatantly insult Obama while campaigning. It was all "let's get this country going again" and all positive. Then you had Obama out there just ripping into Romney left and right. I'm disappointed that the latter strategy worked and the high road did not. I thought Romney looked much more presidential than Obama. Whether that would have translated into the job, who knows? But I know that Obama can't do the job.

Good lord dude you really see what you want to see sometimes. Romney ran more than his fair share of negative ads and attacks. If you didn't notice any "the last 3 weeks" it's because Romney had a self imposed gag order where he didn't do any interviews for the last 22 days. Before that he ran as negative a campaign as any recent candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Too young. Too afraid to go up against the Chicago Machine.

Name all these young great Republicans who were just afraid of the Chicago Machine and not at all imaginary.

Why was John Kerry/John Edwards the best that the Dems had to offer in 04?

The better option that year was done in by the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites