• 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!

Do You Think the GOP Will Lose Their Majority in the House in 2014?

Will the GOP Lose Their Majority in the House in 2014?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Total voters
    33
MarineTpartier

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Simple question. Personally, I don't think so. I think the country will stick with the status quo on this. Pres Obama and the Dems have generally made themselves look pretty greedy and irresponsible lately with the $1 trillion in tax hikes proposal in their budgets and their lack of compromise on tax hikes during the sequestration "negotiations" (I use that term loosely). In addition, it seems convervatives in general have begun to back off of their opposition to gay marriage and have softened their stance on immigration issues. Those two issues, IMO, are the two they can back off of and save face with their constituents. With gay marriage, the GOP can shift it's beliefs not necessarily to pro gay marriage, but to a stance of "we still oppose it, but we can't constitutionally bar it". That's an easy fix. As far as immigration, Sen Rubio can simply take the lead on that and win the public's favor. Anyway, that's my opinion. What say you?
 
I cant see the poll Marine. But for the record I believe they Repubs are coming around, some are starting to talk openly about allowing same sex marriage and others. If they do moderate their position on the social agenda I dont think they will lose much. If they fail to adjust their hard line positions I think the party will die out.
 
No, but not for the reasons you claim. The reason I doubt it will happen is that it would take flipping too many seats.
 
it has to.

in the scheme of things the dems need to have their chance at bat.

the world is watching and is ticked off and they believe the republicans are some bad guy thwarting every move of Obama the Saviour of America.

i think the economy will have righted itself by the end of obama's term.

it will be a democratic congress..

in reality at this point and time the republican party is totally bereft of sanity...some still think McCain and Palin would have been great in the white house.

so the dems will get another 8 years after obama and then through natural selection and survival the Republican party should produce viable politicians that will no longer be insane.
 
Dr.who I think you have a very good chance of being correct.
 
other
We still do not have any election and campaign reform - so elections can still be bought and sold.
And the conservatives have the money...so I see little to no change.
The DGA wants money from me , I have none to give away...into a corrupt process.
 
No. The districts are still shaped in their favor. Bottling all the Democrats up in urban areas has really been of benefit to the Right. Also, counting non-voting prisoners shipped in from urban centers towards a rural district's population isn't hurting the GOP either.
 
Since districts have been gerrymandered for 7 more years of sure seats, I doubt it.

It seems as though common sense has taken a hiatus, vacation, destroyed, whatever... in this country.

I guess we will have to be on our backs before unity isn't a dirty word.
 
earthworm said:
other
We still do not have any election and campaign reform - so elections can still be bought and sold.
And the conservatives have the money...so I see little to no change.
The DGA wants money from me , I have none to give away...into a corrupt process.
Click to expand...

Rural whites are scared to death of urban multiculturalism. No amount of money in the world will change that.
 
it's too early to predict, but my guess is no. i think they have something like a 33 seat majority, and with gerrymandering, it's becoming more and more difficult to dump an incumbent. generally, the only time a seat changes hands is when voters defeat an incumbent in the primary and replace him or her with an extreme partisan who ends up being unelectable.
 
~Dr.Who~ said:
it has to.

in the scheme of things the dems need to have their chance at bat.

the world is watching and is ticked off and they believe the republicans are some bad guy thwarting every move of Obama the Saviour of America.

i think the economy will have righted itself by the end of obama's term.

it will be a democratic congress..

in reality at this point and time the republican party is totally bereft of sanity...some still think McCain and Palin would have been great in the white house.

so the dems will get another 8 years after obama and then through natural selection and survival the Republican party should produce viable politicians that will no longer be insane.
Click to expand...
The Dems had their chance at bat the first 2 years of Pres Obama's first term. Obviously the American people didn't like what they saw and decided not to give that a second chance. Plus, that would mean we have to look at Pelosi's face all the time :2sick1:
 
calamity said:
Rural whites are scared to death of urban multiculturalism. No amount of money in the world will change that.
Click to expand...
You take multiculturalism out of that statement and put in crime, this would be an accurate statement.
 
I voted No. I believe they'll gain a few seats further cementing their house majority. They may even pick up enough to take the senate if they get their message in order. They used to be very good at that, message management.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The Dems had their chance at bat the first 2 years of Pres Obama's first term. Obviously the American people didn't like what they saw and decided not to give that a second chance. Plus, that would mean we have to look at Pelosi's face all the time :2sick1:
Click to expand...
yeah and they will learn by their mistakes and do what they want like drunken sailors on shore leave...

mark my words...they will get the congress they want and run free.....


personally i think it will be cool to watch...for the republican public will demand saner more informed republican politicians...

it's good for everyone...

the state of the republican mess is a horror...like i said people still think Mccain and Palin were good choices.

then you have the tea party....my god man....there is a thread on sterilization you should read...
 
Since I tend to look at politicians through a a lens which places fiscal policy first, and given my own views on the subject....

In general I tend to consider the democrats bad, the republicans only slightly better (very slight), and then the various 3rd parties and independents on a more individual basis.


Social policy is really a low-importance issue for me...But even so, some of the stances that politicians (on BOTH sides) take on such issues are off-putting to me.
 
I don't think so. The House closer represents the people. So unlike say in IL where Cook county and Peoria alone can sway Senatorial and Presidential outcomes for almost exclusively Democratic candidates, the House allows individual districts to get their GOP'er candidates in office.
 
MarineTpartier said:
You take multiculturalism out of that statement and put in crime, this would be an accurate statement.
Click to expand...

That per capita crime is higher in urban areas is kind of true, but misleading.

Here's a detailed study.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993-98
Highlights:

From 1993 to 1998 the trends in violent and property crime for urban and suburban areas were similar. For both urban and suburban areas, violent and property crime trends during this period decreased at a greater rate than in rural areas.

The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.

Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females.

Although most violent crimes in urban (60%), suburban (68%), and rural (70%) areas were committed without a weapon, firearm usage in the commission of a violent crime was higher in urban areas when compared to suburban or rural areas (12% urban versus 9% suburban and 8% rural).

Between 1993 and 1998, 19 in 20 suburban and rural households owned motor vehicles; however, in suburban households the theft of motor vehicles (13 per 1,000 households) was twice the rural rate (6 per 1,000 households) during this period.

Property crimes were generally completed at higher rates against urban households than against suburban or rural households.

Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger (respectively, 53%, 47%, and 34% of violent crime victims).
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
I voted No. I believe they'll gain a few seats further cementing their house majority. They may even pick up enough to take the senate if they get their message in order. They used to be very good at that, message management.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you on that. The Dems tax hike talk is going to hurt them, I believe. This is just my opinion, but I don't believe American people in general are listening to the "it's the Republican's fault" mantra anymore. The Senate doesn't pass a budget for 4 years and then when they do it proposes $1 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years lol. That kind of stuff doesn't fly when people are already hurting. And it definitley doesn't fly when the American people see us sending millions to Egypt in foreign aid the very day the sequestration hits. Or when Sen Coburn (R) in OK comes out with his annual "Wastebook" and they see mechanical squirrels and Moroccan pottery being funded.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e
 
MarineTpartier said:
I actually agree with you on that. The Dems tax hike talk is going to hurt them, I believe. This is just my opinion, but I don't believe American people in general are listening to the "it's the Republican's fault" mantra anymore. The Senate doesn't pass a budget for 4 years and then when they do it proposes $1 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years lol. That kind of stuff doesn't fly when people are already hurting. And it definitley doesn't fly when the American people see us sending millions to Egypt in foreign aid the very day the sequestration hits. Or when Sen Coburn (R) in OK comes out with his annual "Wastebook" and they see mechanical squirrels and Moroccan pottery being funded.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e
Click to expand...

Congress spends the money and levies the taxes. So they, at the very least deserve half the blame.
 
The Mark said:
Since I tend to look at politicians through a a lens which places fiscal policy first, and given my own views on the subject....

In general I tend to consider the democrats bad, the republicans only slightly better (very slight), and then the various 3rd parties and independents on a more individual basis.


Social policy is really a low-importance issue for me...But even so, some of the stances that politicians (on BOTH sides) take on such issues are off-putting to me.
Click to expand...

i find this post interesting.

i agree with you and feel your honesty towards social policy frightening though.

If the government is not active in social policy so many people will continue to fall through the cracks in our way life and find them selves in a plethora of various horrid conditions....

who should make social policy then...

which would actually affect people's lives..

i realize wealth neutralizes the needs for social safety nets...but then again do you really want all this near zombie filth people wandering around
 
~Dr.Who~ said:
i find this post interesting.

i agree with you and feel your honesty towards social policy frightening though.

If the government is not active in social policy so many people will continue to fall through the cracks in our way life and find them selves in a plethora of various horrid conditions....

who should make social policy then...

which would actually affect people's lives..

i realize wealth neutralizes the needs for social safety nets...but then again do you really want all this near zombie filth people wandering around
Click to expand...
It's not that I consider social policies completely unimportant.

Rather, I consider fiscal issues MORE important. And in fact, I'd say that social policies should be tailored to fit in the limitations of fiscal issues.


In my perfect (and probably completely impossible) world, there would be no significant social policy, because in my perfect world, social policy is more or less formed by Libertarians.

Basically, in my perfect world, social policy is "do whatever the **** you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else....but then you can start into a discussion of what precisely "hurt someone else" is defined as.

The problem is that when you have programs which involve providing monitary suppot and such to people for various things, some of their activities could in theory be considered as harming someone else.
For example you could in theory consider the poor eating habits of a person on government provided health care to be harming the person who pays for their care (assuming they are also unemployed here).

As with most issues, their is never a simple answer, and IMO most of the "fixes" that politicians propose and implement probably cause more harm than good.


I sometimes have the thought that leaving things the **** alone would be a better solution...only it's too late for that now, since they've been ****ing **** up for decades.
 
Never say never, but I don't see how this may happen. "Will the Dems lose their majority in the Senate?" would be a better question.

(One possible scenario could be: moderates and libertarians in the GOP get into a real fight with the "socially conservative" and anti-immigration factions, and whoever loses refuses to vote for the winners. But for that to happen, Democrats need to appear non-threatening, centrist and overall acceptable as an alternative - and they had been moving to the left fast and deep in the recent years).
 
only time will tell.
 
Possible, but if I had to lay money one way or another it'd be on them keeping the majority.
 
Considering the districts these people come from...not a chance. They are fully bright red and the people within those districts would vote anyone with a big "R" next to their names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom