The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not

[Mithros]

Wishful thinking and a lame attempt at self- fulfilling prophesy.


I am still a registered Democrat. I used to proudly call myself a “Liberal”.


I would be proud still to be grouped together with the Liberals the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy.


But the radical Obama BLT / Socialist wing of the Democratic Party has moved way too far to the Left to get my support in any way. I’d sooner vote forever Republican than support these radicals.


If I don’t help defeat Obama and his ever increasing Government Institutionalize Racial Discrimination, I’ll find myself a hated and hunted “Designated Criminal” for my birth skin tone in my own country.


There is no future for any politician who supports Racial Preferences.


If there is a Political Party in 2012 which is in Civil War against itself, it is the Democrats.


-

What have they done in particular to move "even further to the left"? Universal health care where everyone must buy PRIVATE insurance or pay a fine equal to 70% of the average cost an uninsured individual costs the system?

That's not socialism. On health care, Obama is to the RIGHT of Nixon.

 

[Hairytic]

Why is the fact that the far left has taken over the democratic party never talked about? Ever since Pelosi won her battle to take over the house leadership in 2004 the party has gotten more and more extreme. This year's party platform calls for unrestricted abortion at any time for any reason regardless of ability to pay. Way out of the mainstream. Traditional marraige is now viewed by the party as extreme despite the fact that 32 states have voted against gay marraige. The Catholic Church is being forced to violate their beliefs and pay for sterilizations, abortifacients and contraception. When a republican president sat in the White House dem party leadership tried to sabotage Iraq war success.
As far as winning over Latinos they have definitely reached out and are making an effort. Both US Hispanic Governors are republican including the first Hispanic female governor. Rubio is one of only 2 Hispanic Senators and republicans had 5 new Hispanic Congressional members elected in 2010. The only female Hispanic Congressional member is a republican.

I hear people talking about Democrats being more liberal than Republicans all the time. On the issue of abortions, the party platform is about preserving a woman's right of choice because the GOP is trying to prevent women from having abortions. Gay marriage is logically something we should recognize in this country because we are a country that prides itself in our personal freedoms. It seems ironic that we don't allow grown adults gays to get married and have the same marriag benefits that heterosexuals do. Catholics are not being forced to pay for anything (Catholic Clergy Raises False Alarms About Birth Control Mandate). Don't blame Democrats for Bush failures.
You are clearly a party line voter, but the Democrats are not the bad guys any more than the Republicans. Some politicians work for the people and some do not dispite their party affiliation.

 

[jerry7]

There are some serious issues that the right is going to have to deal with. The first is the lesson from the first debate:

Romney didn't surge in the polls because he was a strong conservative voice in the first debate. Romney surged in the polls because he abandoned the strong conservative stance he had taken in the two years leading up to the debate. The country does not want right wing ideology, especially when it comes to social issues.

But the right wing refuses to acknowledge this. They sit in a self imposed ideological bubble and absolutely refuse to listen to anything that disagrees with what they believe in. They believe that everyone thinks like them because they don't listen to anyone who doesn't.

Put in economic terms, this is a positive reinforcing cycle. As the GOP becomes more extreme they continue to drop independents and moderates. As they drop independents and moderates, the extremists make up a bigger portion of the GOP, pushing the GOP even further to the right.

A large chunk of the democratic base believes in conservativism on social issues. The overwhelming black turnout in California for Obama insured the defeat of prop 8. Hispanics led the fight against gay marraige in NY state. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are Roman Catholics which teaches the immorality of abortion and homosexual marraige.
And Romney surged after the first debate for 2 reasons. The first is the country got to see that the billion dollar attempt by Obama to paint him as an extremist was a lie and Obama showed up for the debate stoned out of his mind. His behavior in that debate was bizarre. His behavior in the other 2 debates while not so extreme was unpresidential and unsettling.

 

[Kurmugeon]

What have they done in particular to move "even further to the left"? Universal health care where everyone must buy PRIVATE insurance or pay a fine equal to 70% of the average cost an uninsured individual costs the system?

That's not socialism. On health care, Obama is to the RIGHT of Nixon.

There are 26 Separate Racial Preference provisions in the rider ammendments to the ObamaCare bill, most having to do with a complete take over of higher education financing and putting the ability to deny any College or University the majority of its funding based on their meeting or not the demands of a "To Be Determined" appointed, not elected, official "Diversity Review Panel".


Why? Why does a Health Insurance Bill need 26 separate Racial Preference Provisions?


What? White People don't need Health Care or Health Care Jobs?


You can't tell if a Car needs an Oil Change by the color of the Paint-Job!

 

[choiceone]

Why is the fact that the far left has taken over the democratic party never talked about? Ever since Pelosi won her battle to take over the house leadership in 2004 the party has gotten more and more extreme. This year's party platform calls for unrestricted abortion at any time for any reason regardless of ability to pay. Way out of the mainstream. Traditional marraige is now viewed by the party as extreme despite the fact that 32 states have voted against gay marraige. The Catholic Church is being forced to violate their beliefs and pay for sterilizations, abortifacients and contraception. When a republican president sat in the White House dem party leadership tried to sabotage Iraq war success.
As far as winning over Latinos they have definitely reached out and are making an effort. Both US Hispanic Governors are republican including the first Hispanic female governor. Rubio is one of only 2 Hispanic Senators and republicans had 5 new Hispanic Congressional members elected in 2010. The only female Hispanic Congressional member is a republican.

Where on earth did you get this idea that the far left took over the Democratic Party? I'm sorry I'm unable to provide a link, but a couple of months ago, I was watching some MSNBC show in which the host had an academic guest who had been working on a project to test the claim that the major political parties had both become more and more extreme. They went back to about the mid-seventies and charted a number of key political topics and issues and the positions the two parties took on them every few years. They found that the Republican Party had moved increasingly to the right on all topics and issues, but the Democratic Party had moved toward the center on almost all topics and issues with the exception of gay rights issues.

The Catholic Church is not being forced to violate its beliefs at all. Catholic-founded organizations such as Catholic universities and hospitals are not the church - they are private businesses which ask their consumers to pay for non-religious services the businesses provide. Those private businesses have to offer health insurance to their employees, who are not even all Catholics, and the insurance companies have to offer to the individually insured people the option of services that the church thinks are wrong. So what? This has happened on the state level for years, and the church never complained. All the church has to do is tell the Catholic employees that it would be wrong for them to opt for those services.

The Dems never tried to sabotage success in the Iraq war - they just wanted to end that war by leaving Iraq because they believed that it had been morally wrong for the US to start that war by invading Iraq and that it had started solely because that Republican president had conned them into believing that there was sufficient intelligence evidence that there were WMDs stockpiled in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Hispanics prefer the Democrats to the Republicans for the same reason the Nuns on the Bus do - the economic policies of the Republican Party are heartless toward the poor. While Catholic priests focus almost all of morality on abortion and the unborn, nuns in the US and most lay people do not, because Jesus never said a single thing about abortion or the unborn, but he said quite a lot about loving the poor and being charitable toward the poor and the immorality of wealthy, powerful people who burdened the poor.

 

[choiceone]

Well, that was the heart of the discussion. A number of political scientists started taking polling data and other bits of analysis over Congress from the past several years and concluded that the moderates in both parties had nearly evaporated, leaving a dramatic number of self-identified partisans. The authors then make the argument it is hard to have much in the way of compromise without those moderates working to pull the poles closer together on certain issues. I think there is much to that, but there's other things that are left unexplained, particularly why we seem to think that things are "worse" than in the past, when they provide no real look at the past, nor do they really seem to explain what makes a "moderate" a moderate.

See my comments above. It is only the Republicans who have become more extreme. The Democrats have either stayed the same as in the seventies or moved closer to the center on every political issue measured except for gay rights. Hence, the Democrats have become more moderate. That's why most views of the Democratic Party coincide with the views which draw more than 50% support - sometimes reaching as much as 80% support - in popular polling.

 

[Fiddytree]

See my comments above. It is only the Republicans who have become more extreme. The Democrats have either stayed the same as in the seventies or moved closer to the center on every political issue measured except for gay rights. Hence, the Democrats have become more moderate. That's why most views of the Democratic Party coincide with the views which draw more than 50% support - sometimes reaching as much as 80% support - in popular polling.

I find it hard to believe that only the Republicans had eroded their moderates in Congress. There was a good attack on the Blue Dog coalition not long ago, and I remember it well. Both the Left and the Right attacked that segment of voters for not towing a line. Democrats wanted us to "not be Republicans" by having hesitations on the bill, and Republicans thought any vote "yes" on the Healthcare bill was tantamount to a non-starter. It is easy for one side to view the other as changing its perspective to being more radical, and not look inward. Conservatives do it frequently, and it's just as ridiculous and short-sighted. Many (not all) liberals want sherpa-conservatism and whine when they don't get it.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'm not a Christian, and I almost always vote for the GOP candidates.

Well if the gop takes control they will probably make a law requiring you to be christian to keep your citizenship.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well if the gop takes control they will probably make a law requiring you to be christian to keep your citizenship.

Of course they will. I'll bet that Jewish guy Eric Cantor will personally take it on.

 

[choiceone]

Wishful thinking and a lame attempt at self- fulfilling prophesy.


I am still a registered Democrat. I used to proudly call myself a “Liberal”.


I would be proud still to be grouped together with the Liberals the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy.


But the radical Obama BLT / Socialist wing of the Democratic Party has moved way too far to the Left to get my support in any way. I’d sooner vote forever Republican than support these radicals.


If I don’t help defeat Obama and his ever increasing Government Institutionalize Racial Discrimination, I’ll find myself a hated and hunted “Designated Criminal” for my birth skin tone in my own country.


There is no future for any politician who supports Racial Preferences.


If there is a Political Party in 2012 which is in Civil War against itself, it is the Democrats.


-

I'm not a registered Democrat. I'm an Independent. However, I do proudly call myself "Liberal." I do not understand why you people think that Obama is part of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party and call him radical. Please enlighten me. I live in a place where there are real radicals and socialists, and they certainly don't think Obama is one of themselves.

How does Obama support government racial discrimination or racial preferences. I truly do not understand you.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Wishful thinking and a lame attempt at self- fulfilling prophesy.


I am still a registered Democrat. I used to proudly call myself a “Liberal”.


I would be proud still to be grouped together with the Liberals the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy.


But the radical Obama BLT / Socialist wing of the Democratic Party has moved way too far to the Left to get my support in any way. I’d sooner vote forever Republican than support these radicals.


If I don’t help defeat Obama and his ever increasing Government Institutionalize Racial Discrimination, I’ll find myself a hated and hunted “Designated Criminal” for my birth skin tone in my own country.


There is no future for any politician who supports Racial Preferences.


If there is a Political Party in 2012 which is in Civil War against itself, it is the Democrats.


-

Oh one of the fake "democrats against obama". Geve me a ****ing break.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I'm not a registered Democrat. I'm an Independent. However, I do proudly call myself "Liberal." I do not understand why you people think that Obama is part of the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party and call him radical. Please enlighten me. I live in a place where there are real radicals and socialists, and they certainly don't think Obama is one of themselves.

How does Obama support government racial discrimination or racial preferences. I truly do not understand you.

What part of Robert Riech's statement, "We don't want these stimulus jobs going to White Men" don't you get?


What part of GM dealership closings based on the Owner's Race don't you get?


What part of creating a new "Department of Diversity" without congressional oversight and approval don't you get?


What part of the knee jerk race based judgement of the Gates arrest don't you get?


What part of Obama appointed officials denying Mortgage modifications based on RACE don't you get?


What part of Government Institutionalized RACIAL selection of Reductions In Force at the Department of Energy, giving $10K bonuses to manager who lay off whites don't you get?


What part of Government Control over Higher Education Financing via the ObamaCare rider bills and the new "Diversity Review Boards" don't you get?


Just how much blatant anti-white racism does Obama and his cronnies have to do before you get it?

 

[joko104]

Where on earth did you get this idea that the far left took over the Democratic Party? I'm sorry I'm unable to provide a link, but a couple of months ago, I was watching some MSNBC show in which the host had an academic guest who had been working on a project to test the claim that the major political parties had both become more and more extreme. They went back to about the mid-seventies and charted a number of key political topics and issues and the positions the two parties took on them every few years. They found that the Republican Party had moved increasingly to the right on all topics and issues, but the Democratic Party had moved toward the center on almost all topics and issues with the exception of gay rights issues.

The Catholic Church is not being forced to violate its beliefs at all. Catholic-founded organizations such as Catholic universities and hospitals are not the church - they are private businesses which ask their consumers to pay for non-religious services the businesses provide. Those private businesses have to offer health insurance to their employees, who are not even all Catholics, and the insurance companies have to offer to the individually insured people the option of services that the church thinks are wrong. So what? This has happened on the state level for years, and the church never complained. All the church has to do is tell the Catholic employees that it would be wrong for them to opt for those services.

The Dems never tried to sabotage success in the Iraq war - they just wanted to end that war by leaving Iraq because they believed that it had been morally wrong for the US to start that war by invading Iraq and that it had started solely because that Republican president had conned them into believing that there was sufficient intelligence evidence that there were WMDs stockpiled in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Hispanics prefer the Democrats to the Republicans for the same reason the Nuns on the Bus do - the economic policies of the Republican Party are heartless toward the poor. While Catholic priests focus almost all of morality on abortion and the unborn, nuns in the US and most lay people do not, because Jesus never said a single thing about abortion or the unborn, but he said quite a lot about loving the poor and being charitable toward the poor and the immorality of wealthy, powerful people who burdened the poor.

Link to the Nuns-on-a-bus support Obama poll please.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

What part of Robert Riech's statement, "We don't want these stimulus jobs going to White Men" don't you get?


What part of GM dealership closings based on the Owner's Race don't you get?


What part of creating a new "Department of Diversity" without congressional oversight and approval don't you get?


What part of the knee jerk race based judgement of the Gates arrest don't you get?


What part of Obama appointed officials denying Mortgage modifications based on RACE don't you get?


What part of Government Institutionalized RACIAL selection of Reductions In Force at the Department of Energy, giving $10K bonuses to manager who lay off whites don't you get?


What part of Government Control over Higher Education Financing via the ObamaCare rider bills and the new "Diversity Review Boards" don't you get?


Just how much blatant anti-white racism does Obama and his cronnies have to do before you get it?

I don't get any of those lies.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I don't get any of those lies.

I never expected someone blinded by a Ideaological Helmet to get it... Run along now and play with your toys, the adults are trying to have a serious discussion.

 

[choiceone]

A large chunk of the democratic base believes in conservativism on social issues. The overwhelming black turnout in California for Obama insured the defeat of prop 8. Hispanics led the fight against gay marraige in NY state. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are Roman Catholics which teaches the immorality of abortion and homosexual marraige.
And Romney surged after the first debate for 2 reasons. The first is the country got to see that the billion dollar attempt by Obama to paint him as an extremist was a lie and Obama showed up for the debate stoned out of his mind. His behavior in that debate was bizarre. His behavior in the other 2 debates while not so extreme was unpresidential and unsettling.

Don't bring up Hispanic Catholics and the immorality of abortion - quite a large percentage of the women in the US who have abortions are Catholic and some prominent Catholics, including the Republican former governor of New York, Pataki, and the Republican former mayor of New York City, Giuliani, have been pro-choice (Pataki was refused communion in his church for refusing to use his position as governor to promulgate the Catholic church's view). This is not an issue on which the church has significantly influenced political stands in its lay ranks.

Romney surged after the first debate because Obama was awful in the first debate. I don't know why you claim Obama was stoned - since he had had no time to adjust to the altitude before the debate, as Romney had, and had spent his whole life living in places at or close to sea level, it's far more likely that he experienced altitude sickness, which can include such symptoms as serious fatigue, headache, and mental confusion. Obama was neither unpresidential or strange in the other debates. No one has seen that Romney is not an extremist - all they have seen is a long list of self-contradictions or else refusals to be specific. Apparently, you think self-contradiction and obfuscation are presidential qualities.

 

[choiceone]

I find it hard to believe that only the Republicans had eroded their moderates in Congress. There was a good attack on the Blue Dog coalition not long ago, and I remember it well. Both the Left and the Right attacked that segment of voters for not towing a line. Democrats wanted us to "not be Republicans" by having hesitations on the bill, and Republicans thought any vote "yes" on the Healthcare bill was tantamount to a non-starter. It is easy for one side to view the other as changing its perspective to being more radical, and not look inward. Conservatives do it frequently, and it's just as ridiculous and short-sighted. Many (not all) liberals want sherpa-conservatism and whine when they don't get it.

The Blue-Dog Democrats were never considered real Democrats - most of their views have never coincided with the rest of the Democrats. The Democrats, including Obama, never actually wanted Obamacare - Obama specifically preferred the provision of optional single-payer national health insurance for those who did not want to or could not afford to purchase private health insurance, and he never claimed such insurance should cover everything. Japanese optional national health insurance was one of the models studied by Hillary and other Democrats. In fact, the only reason we got what we did was that Pelosi and some others insisted on vast coverage, and the Republicans sided with insurers claiming the insurance industry could not compete with such insurance. So what we got was basically a model that Republicans had favored since the mid-nineties, plus Pelosi's extra coverage. It was a compromise, even though Republicans did not give it many votes. I think it's horrible. The reform of the health care industry should have preceded any attempt at reforming health insurance or mandating insurance coverage. The insurance industry is a smaller problem than the health care industry and its outrageous prices, which make foreigners laugh at us as long as they do have insurance while here.

 

[choiceone]

Link to the Nuns-on-a-bus support Obama poll please.

I didn't say they supported Obama. I said they preferred the Democrats. Their whole point in their bus tours was to draw attention to the need for policies that provide relief for the poor. Since Paul Ryan's budget, which was criticized for its heartless cuts to programs of such relief even by the bishops, was the focus against which they protested that the government should not make drastic cuts to such programs, that certainly constitutes preference for Democratic Party positions on this issue.

 

[Fiddytree]

The Blue-Dog Democrats were never considered real Democrats - most of their views have never coincided with the rest of the Democrats. The Democrats, including Obama, never actually wanted Obamacare - Obama specifically preferred the provision of optional single-payer national health insurance for those who did not want to or could not afford to purchase private health insurance, and he never claimed such insurance should cover everything. Japanese optional national health insurance was one of the models studied by Hillary and other Democrats. In fact, the only reason we got what we did was that Pelosi and some others insisted on vast coverage, and the Republicans sided with insurers claiming the insurance industry could not compete with such insurance. So what we got was basically a model that Republicans had favored since the mid-nineties, plus Pelosi's extra coverage. It was a compromise, even though Republicans did not give it many votes. I think it's horrible. The reform of the health care industry should have preceded any attempt at reforming health insurance or mandating insurance coverage. The insurance industry is a smaller problem than the health care industry and its outrageous prices, which make foreigners laugh at us as long as they do have insurance while here.

Bull. They do frequently. You liberals just demean them like Republicans do with moderates, calling them RINOs. Your post demonstrates just that. Liberals didn't like that our Reps were not towing the Party line and felt compelled to cast them out.

 

[choiceone]

What part of Robert Riech's statement, "We don't want these stimulus jobs going to White Men" don't you get?


What part of GM dealership closings based on the Owner's Race don't you get?


What part of creating a new "Department of Diversity" without congressional oversight and approval don't you get?


What part of the knee jerk race based judgement of the Gates arrest don't you get?


What part of Obama appointed officials denying Mortgage modifications based on RACE don't you get?


What part of Government Institutionalized RACIAL selection of Reductions In Force at the Department of Energy, giving $10K bonuses to manager who lay off whites don't you get?


What part of Government Control over Higher Education Financing via the ObamaCare rider bills and the new "Diversity Review Boards" don't you get?


Just how much blatant anti-white racism does Obama and his cronnies have to do before you get it?

Will you please provide links to support your claims?

 

[choiceone]

Bull. They do frequently. You liberals just demean them like Republicans do with moderates, calling them RINOs. Your post demonstrates just that. Liberals didn't like that our Reps were not towing the Party line and felt compelled to cast them out.

I was not aware of that, not being a party girl. I just vote pro-choice.

 

[Fisher]

The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?

The more work Visa's they grant, the more low-wage employees for business which serves business and Hispanics; and the more black millionaires we have, the more will be GOP.

 

[David Watson]

The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, the struggle within the DEMOCRATIC PARTY between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-left, radical liberals). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the DEMOCRATIC PARTY survive in a 21st century climate? How can the DEMOCRATIC PARTY start winning over WHITE WORKING CLASS, CHRISTIANS, BELIEVERS and EUROPEAN AMERICANs (demographics that are the MAJORITY FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 50 YEARS)?


See how that works, bro?

 

[GarzaUK]

This Civil War has already been fought. The Far Right won, which is why there are no such creatures like 'moderate' Republicans. Moderate, to the Far Right, is a dirty word. They don't even use it any more. They prefer the term RINO, which applies to any Republican who believes in political compromise and who doesn't have a social agenda straight out of Leave It To Beaver.

Political Parties change and adapt, they all have to, or else they fade away. The GOP has a choice to make, not sure if the far right have won, but they are winning, 2010 mid-terms proved that.

There are some serious issues that the right is going to have to deal with. The first is the lesson from the first debate:

Romney didn't surge in the polls because he was a strong conservative voice in the first debate. Romney surged in the polls because he abandoned the strong conservative stance he had taken in the two years leading up to the debate. The country does not want right wing ideology, especially when it comes to social issues.

But the right wing refuses to acknowledge this. They sit in a self imposed ideological bubble and absolutely refuse to listen to anything that disagrees with what they believe in. They believe that everyone thinks like them because they don't listen to anyone who doesn't.

Put in economic terms, this is a positive reinforcing cycle. As the GOP becomes more extreme they continue to drop independents and moderates. As they drop independents and moderates, the extremists make up a bigger portion of the GOP, pushing the GOP even further to the right.

If the US political system was multi party, not two party, the GOP would be 2, maybe even 3 seperate parties. Democrats maybe two parties.

The Tea Party is probably the worse thing (regarding Presidential elections) that could happen to the GOP. The GOP should be coasting this election, but they aren't - they are just about gripping onto a embattled President.....and that is with a Republican moderate, they would be wiped out with someone far right.

The more work Visa's they grant, the more low-wage employees for business which serves business and Hispanics; and the more black millionaires we have, the more will be GOP.

Well that have to try something.

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, the struggle within the DEMOCRATIC PARTY between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-left, radical liberals). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the DEMOCRATIC PARTY survive in a 21st century climate? How can the DEMOCRATIC PARTY start winning over WHITE WORKING CLASS, CHRISTIANS, BELIEVERS and EUROPEAN AMERICANs (demographics that are the MAJORITY FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 50 YEARS)?


See how that works, bro?

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who support the Democrats in Presidential elections is increasing while for the GOP it is decreasing.

Think about it in the last 20 years, the Democrats have either won the White House or came within a state of winning the White House. The GOP needs a new emerging base....and fast. It can only get that by being moderate IMO.

 

[David Watson]

Political Parties change and adapt, they all have to, or else they fade away. The GOP has a choice to make, not sure if the far right have won, but they are winning, 2010 mid-terms proved that.



If the US political system was multi party, not two party, the GOP would be 2, maybe even 3 seperate parties. Democrats maybe two parties.

The Tea Party is probably the worse thing (regarding Presidential elections) that could happen to the GOP. The GOP should be coasting this election, but they aren't - they are just about gripping onto a embattled President.....and that is with a Republican moderate, they would be wiped out with someone far right.



Well that have to try something.



Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who support the Democrats in Presidential elections is increasing while for the GOP it is decreasing.

Think about it in the last 20 years, the Democrats have either won the White House or came within a state of winning the White House. The GOP needs a new emerging base....and fast. It can only get that by being moderate IMO.

Political Parties change and adapt, they all have to, or else they fade away. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY has a choice to make, not sure if the FAR LEFT have won, but they are winning, 2008 ELECTIONS proved that.



If the US political system was multi party, not two party, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY would be 2, maybe even 3 seperate parties. REPUBLICANS maybe two parties. (no evidence)

OCCUPY WALL STREET is probably the worse thing (regarding Presidential elections) that could happen to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY should be coasting this election, but they aren't - they are just about gripping onto a MEDIA HATED GOVERNOR.....and that is with a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, they would be wiped out with someone MORE RADICAL.



Well that have to try something.



Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who support the REPUBLICANS in Presidential elections is increasing while for the DEMOCRATS it is decreasing.

Think about it in the last 20 years, the REPUBLICANS have either won the White House or came within a state of winning the White House. The DEMOCRATS needs a new emerging base....and fast. It can only get that by being moderate IMO


yup... still works, bro