• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2012 or Never

The New Yorker was probably one of the liberal rags that declared the GOP dead after the 2006 & 2008 elections.
 
Hopefully they're right. Then we can either build a truly CONSERVATIVE party in the US, or simply move away from this silly idea of voting as the means to change society....
 
it's their last chance until 2016, at least.
 
The more the GOP pushes the illegal immigrant stance, the smaller their voting bloc becomes.
 
tres borrachos said:
The New Yorker was probably one of the liberal rags that declared the GOP dead after the 2006 & 2008 elections.
Click to expand...

It was from New York magazine, not The New Yorker. Two different publications. Still, if it helps your hackery, keep going.
 
Mickey Shane said:
The more the GOP pushes the illegal immigrant stance, the smaller their voting bloc becomes.
Click to expand...

Some of us would rather LOSE an election standing on Principles than to win one by having to violate everything we actually believe in, Mickey. I understand that's not a very common philosophy but SOME of us do still believe in it.
 
Tigger said:
Some of us would rather LOSE an election standing on Principles than to win one by having to violate everything we actually believe in, Mickey. I understand that's not a very common philosophy but SOME of us do still believe in it.
Click to expand...

From what I have been seeing from the outside in, the US political scene has changed dramatically since the beginning of the 1980's. In that time the GOP could stand tall because the social conservatives, the economic conservatives and the small government conservatives used to work and co-exist happily for the betterment of their GOP. Ever since the social conservatives have been getting stronger and stronger within the party, it has been scaring away independents, economic conservatives and to some extent even small government conservatives.

With a war raging, 9/111 still fresh in the minds of the Americans and a weak presidential candidate from the democrats (Kerry) the GOP was just scraping by in the 2004 election. And in 2008 they were not even able to defeat (with all due respect) a liberal african american candidate that was being described as a "foreign national" with dangerous socialist views.

On a state level, in the senate and congress the republicans will fare much better than in presidential elections in the future IMHO because the tea party/social conservatives will demand on choosing presidential candidates that will almost certainly loose if the democrats chose candidates that are not too extreme.
 
Andalublue said:
It was from New York magazine, not The New Yorker. Two different publications. Still, if it helps your hackery, keep going.
Click to expand...

Based on this story, this magazine appears even more leftwing batsh*t crazy than the New Yorker.

But on second thought, its probably just wishful thinking.
 
Peter King said:
From what I have been seeing from the outside in, the US political scene has changed dramatically since the beginning of the 1980's. In that time the GOP could stand tall because the social conservatives, the economic conservatives and the small government conservatives used to work and co-exist happily for the betterment of their GOP. Ever since the social conservatives have been getting stronger and stronger within the party, it has been scaring away independents, economic conservatives and to some extent even small government conservatives.
Click to expand...

GOOD. Those are not the people that a Social Conservative wants to be associated with anyway, Peter. What I think so many people miss is that Social Conservatives are not really all that concerned with winning or losing elections. Either we win them on the merits of our principles or we lose them on the same. We are not interested in compromising our principles just to win an election. Hell, most of us are at a point where we don't see elections as the means to change the government anyway.


Peter King said:
With a war raging, 9/111 still fresh in the minds of the Americans and a weak presidential candidate from the democrats (Kerry) the GOP was just scraping by in the 2004 election. And in 2008 they were not even able to defeat (with all due respect) a liberal african american candidate that was being described as a "foreign national" with dangerous socialist views.
Click to expand...

In both cases because the Republican candidate was not even close to being a Conservative. In both cases the party went with a Moderate - Liberal candidate who had not shown any willingness to adhere to Social or Economically Conservative values and so many of us walked away from the party alltogether in order to vote for Conservative candidates.


Peter King said:
On a state level, in the senate and congress the republicans will fare much better than in presidential elections in the future IMHO because the tea party/social conservatives will demand on choosing presidential candidates that will almost certainly loose if the democrats chose candidates that are not too extreme.
Click to expand...

Don't count on the state races working out that much better for the GOP. Especially in Presidential election years. Real Conservatives won't likely support the party when the top guy on the ticket is not a Conservative and the base of the party is quickly eroding into a bunch of moderate-liberals who won't support real Conservatives when they are nominated.
 
Tigger said:
Hopefully they're right. Then we can either build a truly CONSERVATIVE party in the US, or simply move away from this silly idea of voting as the means to change society....
Click to expand...

oh, I truly pray for a REAL Conservative party to be formed in the USA.

NO abortions.

NO birth control.

NO rights for gays.

NO voting rights for women.

NO rights for Muslims.

NO more immigration.

NO more Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.



...yeah, they would stand by their values, and give Congress and the White House to the Democrats, permanently. :)
 
Mickey Shane said:
The more the GOP pushes the illegal immigrant stance, the smaller their voting bloc becomes.
Click to expand...

Funny, you guys don't want Voter ID. I wonder why? Because it's the only way you seem to be able to win elections, by exploiting minorities, illegal immigrants, and dead people who magically vote from the grave.

If you only allowed people who pay federal income tax to vote, you'd struggle to hit 10 percent on election day.
 
Tigger said:
GOOD. Those are not the people that a Social Conservative wants to be associated with anyway, Peter. What I think so many people miss is that Social Conservatives are not really all that concerned with winning or losing elections. Either we win them on the merits of our principles or we lose them on the same. We are not interested in compromising our principles just to win an election. Hell, most of us are at a point where we don't see elections as the means to change the government anyway.




In both cases because the Republican candidate was not even close to being a Conservative. In both cases the party went with a Moderate - Liberal candidate who had not shown any willingness to adhere to Social or Economically Conservative values and so many of us walked away from the party alltogether in order to vote for Conservative candidates.




Don't count on the state races working out that much better for the GOP. Especially in Presidential election years. Real Conservatives won't likely support the party when the top guy on the ticket is not a Conservative and the base of the party is quickly eroding into a bunch of moderate-liberals who won't support real Conservatives when they are nominated.
Click to expand...

By adding Palin to placate the social conservatives made that ticket almost unelectable.
 
Thunder said:
...yeah, they would stand by their values, and give Congress and the White House to the Democrats, permanently. :)
Click to expand...

Yep, until we EXTERMINATED every Democrat in the country.
 
Thunder said:
oh, I truly pray for a REAL Conservative party to be formed in the USA.

NO abortions.

NO birth control.

NO rights for gays.

NO voting rights for women.

NO rights for Muslims.

NO more immigration.

NO more Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.



...yeah, they would stand by their values, and give Congress and the White House to the Democrats, permanently. :)
Click to expand...

And you actually believe these are conservative positions ????

Very sad..........or maybe just ignorant.
 
Peter King said:
By adding Palin to placate the social conservatives made that ticket almost unelectable.
Click to expand...

LOL. Palin to placate Social Conservatives? You jest. Palin (like all women) has no place in a Social Conservative's political world.
 
Tigger said:
Hopefully they're right. Then we can either build a truly CONSERVATIVE party in the US, or simply move away from this silly idea of voting as the means to change society....
Click to expand...

Tigger, based on your previous posts any "conservative" that fit with your definition of conservative would not get elected. They'd have half the country calling for their head and the other half laughing their heads off.
 
Tigger said:
LOL. Palin to placate Social Conservatives? You jest. Palin (like all women) has no place in a Social Conservative's political world.
Click to expand...

you want to keep more than half of the country, out of the Conservative political realm?
 
Wait, I thought 2008 was the death of the Republicans. When did it get moved back to 2012?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Tigger, based on your previous posts any "conservative" that fit with your definition of conservative would not get elected. They'd have half the country calling for their head and the other half laughing their heads off.
Click to expand...

That's fine. As I've said, I don't see elections as the proper means for correcting the issues with the country at this point in history.


Thunder said:
you want to kill every Democrat in the USA?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd prefer to just deport them, but if necessary that works.


Thunder said:
you want to keep more than half of the country, out of the Conservative political realm?
Click to expand...

No. I want to keep more than half of the country out of the ENTIRE political realm.
 
Tigger said:
Yep, until we EXTERMINATED every Democrat in the country.
Click to expand...

Who's your army? Considering you think that today's conservatives are not conservative enough and are basically liberals (ie democrat) then you've got about 90% of the population to kill murder.

Edit: btw, that 90% only includes democrats and conservatives...it does not include independents.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
Why 2012 Is the Republicans Last Chance -- New York Magazine
Click to expand...



great article. thanks. i especially think this is true:

The Republican Party had increasingly found itself confined to white voters, especially those lacking a college degree and rural whites who, as Obama awkwardly put it in 2008, tend to “cling to guns or religion.” Meanwhile, the Democrats had *increased their standing among whites with graduate degrees, particularly the growing share of secular whites, and remained dominant among racial minorities. As a whole, Judis and Teixeira noted, the electorate was growing both somewhat better educated and dramatically less white, making every successive election less favorable for the GOP. And the trends were even more striking in some key swing states. Judis and Teixeira highlighted Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona, with skyrocketing Latino populations, and Virginia and North Carolina, with their influx of college-educated whites, as the most fertile grounds for the expanding Democratic base.

Obama’s victory carried out the blueprint. Campaign reporters cast the election as a triumph of Obama’s inspirational message and cutting-edge organization, but above all his sweeping win reflected simple demography. Every year, the nonwhite proportion of the electorate grows by about half a percentage point—meaning that in every presidential election, the minority share of the vote increases by 2 percent, a huge amount in a closely divided country. One measure of how thoroughly the electorate had changed by the time of Obama’s election was that, if college-*educated whites, working-class whites, and minorities had cast the same proportion of the votes in 1988 as they did in 2008, Michael Dukakis would have, just barely, won. By 2020—just eight years away—nonwhite voters should rise from a quarter of the 2008 electorate to one third. In 30 years, nonwhites will outnumber whites.
Click to expand...

i do believe we need a viable republican party, for balance, but the republicans of today continue to make themselves more irrelevant speech by speech. the domination of the white male is over.
 
Gill said:
It happened after the "death of the Democrats" in 2010.
Click to expand...

They were to have died in either 2000 or 2004, I can't remember which. Right now we are dealing with Zombie Democrats. Soon Zombie JFK will come back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom