• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



The future of the Republican Party



Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
9,743
Big problems for the GOP in the 2018 elections, especially for the House of Representatives:

[h=1]THE REPUBLICAN EXODUS IS BECOMING A DELUGE[/h]And the White House is struggling to respond.
Quinnipiac polled nearly a 20% lead for Dems over GOP yesterday
If the economy so much as wobbles between now and then, we could see the biggest House trouncing in history in November
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,113
Certainly don't more guys like the creepy governor of Missouri:

[video=youtube;idVQ61PLNks]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVQ61PLNks[/video]
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
Probably a need for a separate thread on this (there is one for the Dems) as there is movement in the GOP station - hopeless, chaotic movement. Now, according to this article from Vanity Fair, the GOP has to settle into another routine post-Bannon:

[h=1]WITH BANNON GONE, THE G.O.P. SCRAMBLES FOR AN AGENDA[/h]Their populist bogeyman excommunicated, the MAGA crowd has reverted to its pleasantly nebulous state of making America great again—whatever that means

Will the GOP's agenda be as damaging and pointless as it has been so far?
ROFL

Have seen this so many times and then Trump went into Dem heartland and won.

He said the stuff that the voters wanted and now is doing it.

Problem for MSM is he doesn't need them and they know it.

Dems have no strategy only Blame Trump.................
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
Certainly don't more guys like the creepy governor of Missouri:

[video=youtube;idVQ61PLNks]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVQ61PLNks[/video]
If you want to pick on Individuals then why not person who had HRCs private emails on his laptop while using it to sext Minors.
Huma's husband................ Mr Weiner
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
I still think they can recover. The party that has the WH tends to lose a lot of seats in their midterms (2002 was an exception because of 911). At present it looks like a 1994/2010 type wave election in the Dems favour in the House, but the GOP are somewhat buffered in the Senate by having only 8 seats up for election compared to 26 Dem seats.

Divided parties tend not to win election. The divisions were on show during the primaries and the Never Trump movement last year and Trumps actual vote share was slightly less than Romney's. Trump won because the anti Trump vote was split between HRC and Johnson and Stein. Meanwhile HRC was a terrible candidate, repeating her 2008 tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory owing to a furniture store worth of metaphorical skeletons in her closet.

The Dems seem united on their agenda. But at times before Trump came along the GOP seemed united too. But it was a mirage. Once they gain the majority in Congress the divisions always surface, just as they did under Obama with the lack of progress on gun control.

Finally, US political parties are loose coalitions unlike most of their European counterparts like the CDU or FF/FG. The primary system means that party bosses no longer call the shots. So you will probably never get party unity on everything.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,722
If you want to pick on Individuals then why not person who had HRCs private emails on his laptop while using it to sext Minors.
Huma's husband................ Mr Weiner
And there we were all think Republicans like yourself were complete virgins.

Even after Denis Hastert, David Vitter, and Roy Moore it is hard to accept that Republicans have any male sex drive at all.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,986
Quinnipiac polled nearly a 20% lead for Dems over GOP yesterday
If the economy so much as wobbles between now and then, we could see the biggest House trouncing in history in November

They also polled Hillary to have a landslide in 2016.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,986
I still think they can recover. The party that has the WH tends to lose a lot of seats in their midterms (2002 was an exception because of 911). At present it looks like a 1994/2010 type wave election in the Dems favour in the House, but the GOP are somewhat buffered in the Senate by having only 8 seats up for election compared to 26 Dem seats.

Divided parties tend not to win election. The divisions were on show during the primaries and the Never Trump movement last year and Trumps actual vote share was slightly less than Romney's. Trump won because the anti Trump vote was split between HRC and Johnson and Stein. Meanwhile HRC was a terrible candidate, repeating her 2008 tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory owing to a furniture store worth of metaphorical skeletons in her closet.

The Dems seem united on their agenda. But at times before Trump came along the GOP seemed united too. But it was a mirage. Once they gain the majority in Congress the divisions always surface, just as they did under Obama with the lack of progress on gun control.

Finally, US political parties are loose coalitions unlike most of their European counterparts like the CDU or FF/FG. The primary system means that party bosses no longer call the shots. So you will probably never get party unity on everything.
I'm almost with you on that.
By nobbling her primary, Hillary alienated Sanders supporters.
Many voted for Trump to spite her personally.

Trump is also an independant more than a republican.
This allows republican candidates to distance themselves from him.

But the Dems remain fractured.
They still do not have a main leader or indeed any focus (other than anti-Trump).

One thing you're definitely right about is that the GOP will lose seats, as they also hold the WH.
However, this is nothing to do with the DNC, as many of it's supporters will falsely claim when it rolls around.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,090
I'm almost with you on that.
By nobbling her primary, Hillary alienated Sanders supporters.
Many voted for Trump to spite her personally.

Trump is also an independant more than a republican.
This allows republican candidates to distance themselves from him.

But the Dems remain fractured.
They still do not have a main leader or indeed any focus (other than anti-Trump).

One thing you're definitely right about is that the GOP will lose seats, as they also hold the WH.
However, this is nothing to do with the DNC, as many of it's supporters will falsely claim when it rolls around.
Sanders has only 8 million Twitter followers
Bill Clinton has over 9 million
HRC has over 20 million
Elizabeth Warren has 4 million

Even today


Bernie Sanders would not have won the election. He is not generally acceptable.

The DNC primaries were not nobbled. If you disagree, show me how they were, with statistics thx
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,722
I still think they can recover. The party that has the WH tends to lose a lot of seats in their midterms (2002 was an exception because of 911). At present it looks like a 1994/2010 type wave election in the Dems favour in the House, but the GOP are somewhat buffered in the Senate by having only 8 seats up for election compared to 26 Dem seats.

Divided parties tend not to win election. The divisions were on show during the primaries and the Never Trump movement last year and Trumps actual vote share was slightly less than Romney's. Trump won because the anti Trump vote was split between HRC and Johnson and Stein. Meanwhile HRC was a terrible candidate, repeating her 2008 tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory owing to a furniture store worth of metaphorical skeletons in her closet.

The Dems seem united on their agenda. But at times before Trump came along the GOP seemed united too. But it was a mirage. Once they gain the majority in Congress the divisions always surface, just as they did under Obama with the lack of progress on gun control.

Finally, US political parties are loose coalitions unlike most of their European counterparts like the CDU or FF/FG. The primary system means that party bosses no longer call the shots. So you will probably never get party unity on everything.
The November elections are not a done deal, certainly.

AFAIK, the Democrats need to win 25 seats, assuming they hold on to what they have, and Republican retirees are now 25+. There is a big advantage in incumbency that will not be present in those districts, so giving a fresh Democrat a shot. Plus early signs from Virginia, New Jersey, and Alabama is that the suburbs have swung back against Trump and the Republicans, with Trump being an unusually unpopular President.

But it is always possible that the outcome will be otherwise. Ralph Northam's and Doug Jones steady moderate campaigns are probably a good model to follow, with emphasis on healthcare and the welfare safety net, where Republicans want to make having a job a condition for Medicaid.

On the Republican side, they need to mimic Trump to energise his base, but his base is not enough to get them elected in numbers. Trump has promised to campaign for "traditional" Republicans so that the insurgent Bannon operation is dead in the water. A resurgent Democratic party against the stale old Republican elite, now with Trump as their cheerleader? Will it play in Peoria?

PS I am talking mostly about the House, as I think the Senate is out of reach for the Democrats to win back. But the Republicans will not reach 60 seats.
 
Last edited:

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
349
Sites like 538 are very good to follow for theses races, they do some exceptional stuff. On the current "national ballot" for congress the Dems are verging on an historic lead, which will result in a "wave" election. Keep in mind the tax cuts will not come through on peoples pay checks until Feb 2019 after the election. So people won't see the pay benefits until after the election and Republicans will be snookered. Another thing to take into account is the Dems have raised a record amount of money and a massive amount of candidates looking to run, which will lead to some of these war chests being heavily spent on home turf.

Finally, while I think Democrats will take the house, due to the gerrymandering after 2010 Democrats will need an 8 point lead to be absolutely certain of flipping the house. They won't take the senate.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,986
Sanders has only 8 million Twitter followers
Bill Clinton has over 9 million
HRC has over 20 million
Elizabeth Warren has 4 million

Even today


Bernie Sanders would not have won the election. He is not generally acceptable.

The DNC primaries were not nobbled. If you disagree, show me how they were, with statistics thx
What ?
Did you miss the biggest story of the Presidential election ?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Defends Rigging of Elections


Anyone with eyes to see knew that Wasserman Schultz was doing her best to clear the field for one candidate — and unfortunately that was a candidate who was under FBI investigation and with the lowest favorability ratings of any Democrat in modern history. Of course, Wasserman Schultz has denied this, even after the Wikileaks email disclosures confirmed her role and that of her DNC.
As a result of those revelations, Bernie Sanders supporters filed a class-action lawsuit for fraud against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. Last week, in federal court, lawyers for Wasserman Schultz actually argued that the DNC was under no obligation to abide by its own charter provisions requiring neutrality and impartiality in the conduct of the party’s presidential nominating process.


In fact, Wasserman Schultz’s lawyers argued that the DNC could legally rig the nomination in a “smoke-filled backroom deal.”


This is the same Wasserman Schultz who recently claimed on cable TV that it was “mind boggling” that Bernie Sanders “was complaining about the number of debates.” She went on to say, “I will be frank with you, if I was trying to rig the outcome of the primary, trust me, I could have.”
https://medium.com/@Tim_Canova/debbie-wasserman-schultz-defends-rigging-of-elections-754b157ab81a


Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to resign after being found out.
She immediately joined Clinton's campaign team.


Clinton was reliant on Sanders supporters switching allegiance to her.
They didn't in sufficient numbers.
In fact, it's well documented that many voted for Trump.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
And there we were all think Republicans like yourself were complete virgins.

Even after Denis Hastert, David Vitter, and Roy Moore it is hard to accept that Republicans have any male sex drive at all.
As someone who happily Clinton and Gore in elections then really shows you knows jack sugar
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,159
I still think they can recover. The party that has the WH tends to lose a lot of seats in their midterms (2002 was an exception because of 911). At present it looks like a 1994/2010 type wave election in the Dems favour in the House, but the GOP are somewhat buffered in the Senate by having only 8 seats up for election compared to 26 Dem seats.

Divided parties tend not to win election. The divisions were on show during the primaries and the Never Trump movement last year and Trumps actual vote share was slightly less than Romney's. Trump won because the anti Trump vote was split between HRC and Johnson and Stein. Meanwhile HRC was a terrible candidate, repeating her 2008 tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory owing to a furniture store worth of metaphorical skeletons in her closet.

The Dems seem united on their agenda. But at times before Trump came along the GOP seemed united too. But it was a mirage. Once they gain the majority in Congress the divisions always surface, just as they did under Obama with the lack of progress on gun control.

Finally, US political parties are loose coalitions unlike most of their European counterparts like the CDU or FF/FG. The primary system means that party bosses no longer call the shots. So you will probably never get party unity on everything.
That she did. Trump's share of the vote was about 1% less than Romney's but Trump got 2 million more votes. Clinton's actual vote was nominally less than Obama but her share of the vote was about 3% lower. As you note the rest went to Johnson, Stein and McMullin who got about 5% between them. Johnsons and Steins vote share tripled on their previous runs.

There was about 7 million more votes cast in the 2016 election than in 2012 and Clinton was the only one who didn't get any of those extra votes.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,722
As someone who happily Clinton and Gore in elections then really shows you knows jack sugar
Yes, as a non-American citizen I supported Bill Clinton.

In retrospect, only a very stupid person would not (with the limited knowledge we had then), since he presided over the biggest boom in American history, and his successor (whom I have no doubt you supported to the hilt) blew the surplus, destroyed the US economy, and started a war that devastated the Middle East.

Of course, I supported Al Gore. I am proud to say I did.

And who but a very stupid person (like you, probably) would regret that he did not win the Presidency, given the havoc wreaked by the man you supported, even after failing to win the popular vote.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Yes, as a non-American citizen I supported Bill Clinton.

In retrospect, only a very stupid person would not (with the limited knowledge we had then), since he presided over the biggest boom in American history, and his successor (whom I have no doubt you supported to the hilt) blew the surplus, destroyed the US economy, and started a war that devastated the Middle East.

Of course, I supported Al Gore. I am proud to say I did.

And who but a very stupid person (like you, probably) would regret that he did not win the Presidency, given the havoc wreaked by the man you supported, even after failing to win the popular vote.
His legacy in the Bosnia and NI peace deals was positive and for being the last president to make a serious efforts to negotiate Middle East peace. His legacy with banking deregulation was eventually disasterous.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
Yes, as a non-American citizen I supported Bill Clinton.

In retrospect, only a very stupid person would not (with the limited knowledge we had then), since he presided over the biggest boom in American history, and his successor (whom I have no doubt you supported to the hilt) blew the surplus, destroyed the US economy, and started a war that devastated the Middle East.

Of course, I supported Al Gore. I am proud to say I did.

And who but a very stupid person (like you, probably) would regret that he did not win the Presidency, given the havoc wreaked by the man you supported, even after failing to win the popular vote.
You really are piss poor at things where you abuse time and again...................... Gore ran for President in 2000 and I supported him.

But hey don't allow your brain to be connected again to anything.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top