• 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!

Is the GOP a viable national political party……..

is the GOP a viable national party?

is the Pope catholic?

does the bear **** in the woods?

are progressives and liberals throwing **** at walls hoping something will stick?

better question.....are you scared yet?


well we must thank you for your thought provoking post......:roll:
 
……or has become a gaggle of a loose collection of single issue groups………. made up mostly of old white men who believe anyone who does not hold to what they believe are subversives and not quality material for the GOP....


The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party’s demise
The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party?s demise - Salon.com

ahhhh, the "old white man" argument. Let's see...

Biden
Sanders
Reid
Clinton (Bill)
Gore
Durbin
Schumer
Tester
Frankin (still can't believe he actually got elected)
Feinstein (prove I'm wrong) lol
 
........many professional would disagree with you..........

BTW have you made any effort in researching the issue?.......as in backing up what you believe and hope is true

Of course. Differing opinions are what makes the world go round. Why would I have to back up an opinion? Opinions are just....well...opinions.
 
……or has become a gaggle of a loose collection of single issue groups………. made up mostly of old white men who believe anyone who does not hold to what they believe are subversives and not quality material for the GOP....


The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party’s demise
The GOP is digging its own grave: How their debate tantrum hastens the party?s demise - Salon.com

After the ass kicking the GOP recieved in the 2014 Midterms I think its obvious the GOP is not a " viable " party....

Wait. That's not right. The GOP cleaned the Democats clock

It was allot of fun to watch. The Democrats had to pretend Obama's signature legislation didn't exist. They couldnt brag about the economy, or foreign policy or healthcare, so they ran on a bunch of insusbstantial wedge issues.

The Democrats were going to turn my State ( Texas ) Blue ! Lol !!
 
The GOP is quite clearly a viable party. They hold the Senate, they hold the House, they hold most state legislatures. They won two of the last four presidential elections and were close in the last one. Polls show the next one is likely to be close as well.


As a matter of fact I have studied the now for several years and am surprised no one (to date) does not understand/heard of the issue and see it more so as who is political currently….

In general the discussion has been about the decline in number of GOP voters and the party’s inability to attract new members

Also the increasing tendency of GOP strength concentrated in select areas of the US rather than being represented throughout the country….

Resulting in the GOP a sectional rather than national political force/party……

And in short……. given the current demographic trends the GOP will be hard pressed to muster enough to win a national election……

I have included below a few links discussing the trend….

Liberals at Odds over the Republican Party's Demographics
Liberals at Odds Over the Republican Party's Demographics - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Republicans Are Not on the Edge of Extinction
The GOP is an aging party, but it isn’t about to die out.
Republican Party isn’t dying out: The GOP is an aging party, but it can adapt to America’s changing demographics.

A Daunting Demographic Challenge for the GOP in 2016
Whit Ayres: A Daunting Demographic Challenge for the GOP in 2016 - WSJ

Changing Demographics and the GOP Read more at: Changing Demographics and the GOP | National Review Online

The demographics of 2016 look brutal for Republicans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...graphics-of-2016-look-brutal-for-republicans/

The Republican Road to the White House
http://www.fwd.us/gopfuture

Study: Demographics point to Democrat domination
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/study-demographics-point-to-democrat-domination/
 
.

.....................The Democrats were going to turn my State ( Texas ) Blue ! Lol !!

Don't be to fast to laugh my friend............ It has been predicted it will happen in the near future...........

Don't you read you local newspapers/media sources............................they have been discussing the issue for several years now


What Polls Say About the Probability of Texas Turning Purple
http:/texasmonthly.com/politics/what-polls-say-about-the-probability-of-texas-turning-purple/#sthash.abPn1m2M.dpuf

Demographic tides may turn Texas purple or blue GOP support eroding in minority areas
Demographic tides may turn Texas purple or blue - Houston Chronicle
 
After the ass kicking the GOP recieved in the 2014 Midterms I think its obvious the GOP is not a " viable " party....

Wait. That's not right. The GOP cleaned the Democats clock

It was allot of fun to watch. The Democrats had to pretend Obama's signature legislation didn't exist. They couldnt brag about the economy, or foreign policy or healthcare, so they ran on a bunch of insusbstantial wedge issues.

The Democrats were going to turn my State ( Texas ) Blue ! Lol !!

It happens when people play dirty politics and engage in gerrymandering.
 
The Republican Party is an effective vote getting machine, run for the rich and supported by angry whites who are not rich, who never will be rich, and who dislike various changes that have happened in the United States since 1963.

The rich folks who control the Republican Party have every reason to like changes in the United States since 1980. They are paying lower taxes on higher incomes, and no longer have to contend with powerful labor unions.

There are hardly any lower income non white Republicans. Lower income white Republicans view the economy as a force of nature that is somehow beyond politics. When a lower income white Republican loses a well paying job and has to take a job that pays less he either accepts it stoically, or directs his anger horizontally and downward, at non whites, welfare recipients, and liberals.

When I tell him that a white plutocracy, with the help of the Republican Party, is enriching itself at his expense, he either does not understand what I am talking about, or he gets angry at me.
 
The GOP is quite clearly a viable party. They hold the Senate, they hold the House, they hold most state legislatures. They won two of the last four presidential elections and were close in the last one. Polls show the next one is likely to be close as well.

Actually, in five of the last six presidential elections, the GOP nominee won less votes from the American people than the Democratic candidate did. And that is not a good trend for the party.

However, you did wisely point out the wins of the Republican party despite their inability to win presidential elections. And a great deal of that is due to two factors, the first being that voter turnout is higher in presidential elections and that hurts the Republicans while conversely - the benefit in non presidential elections. Second, because the census is taken in years ending in zero, new district maps are also drawn from legislatures that are elected in that year meaning elections that have lower turnouts and benefit Republicans. The result is purposely gerrymandered districts that benefit Republicans.

For example, I worked in the Michigan legislature in 2011 through all of 2013 and saw how this process worked. 53% of voters in Michigan cast their ballots for a Democratic candidate for the State House - but 54% of the seats ended up controlled by Republicans because of gerrymandered districts drawn by a Republican controlled legislature.

So yes, the Republican Party is viable on many levels because of these factors. But they still have a big problem capturing the White House.
 
Actually, in five of the last six presidential elections, the GOP nominee won less votes from the American people than the Democratic candidate did. And that is not a good trend for the party.

However, you did wisely point out the wins of the Republican party despite their inability to win presidential elections. And a great deal of that is due to two factors, the first being that voter turnout is higher in presidential elections and that hurts the Republicans while conversely - the benefit in non presidential elections. Second, because the census is taken in years ending in zero, new district maps are also drawn from legislatures that are elected in that year meaning elections that have lower turnouts and benefit Republicans. The result is purposely gerrymandered districts that benefit Republicans.

For example, I worked in the Michigan legislature in 2011 through all of 2013 and saw how this process worked. 53% of voters in Michigan cast their ballots for a Democratic candidate for the State House - but 54% of the seats ended up controlled by Republicans because of gerrymandered districts drawn by a Republican controlled legislature.

So yes, the Republican Party is viable on many levels because of these factors. But they still have a big problem capturing the White House.

Turnout does of course have an impact on elections but it's not the be all end all. Democratic turnout is depressed during midterms, but it only matters so much. 2014's turnout was roughly equal to 2006's (36.4% to 36.8%) but there was a strong difference in how people voted. Even if turnout was up to the mid 50s that it was in 2012 there's no way that Democrats would've actually won more votes. Obama's disapproval had a double digit deficit. While turnout did not of course help Democrats, it wasn't the only cause of why they lost.

Gerrymandering of course is another factor of why the Democrats do so poorly with the house. With all the governorships and state legislatures they won, the GOP could gerrymander several of the most important states, which they most assuredly did. However, the effect of gerrymandering in Republicans favor is often overestimated. This is because a fair map has the distinction of being Republican friendly. The vast majority of Democratic support lies concentrated in cities. Drawing contiguous, compact districts, which IMO is how they should be drawn and how the non-partisan committees and computers draw them in states where they have those, tends to isolate the Democratic cities in one or two congressional districts while the rest of it is spread out. And the spread out suburban and rural districts favor Republicans but to a lesser extent than the cities favor Democrats.

In Michigan for example, it is impossible to draw districts where if Democrats get 55% of the vote and Republicans get 45% overall the Republicans don't have at least a one seat advantage unless you draw the districts with several gerrymandered tendrils reaching into Detroit.

And while the Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections, I don't think that at all means they are not a viable national party. Those 6 elections are a pretty small sample size that have definitely been held at favorable points for Democrats. For example, if a presidential election was held at any point in 2014 it is extremely unlikely Obama would've won it considering his approval rating hovering around 40% the entire year. Instead, it was held at the end of 2012 one of the only points in the last four years where its been positive.

There's no doubt Democrats have some strong advantages in presidential voting. The demographic shifts are going their way, especially in firewall states like Colorado and Virginia. To win the Presidential election next year the Republican candidate will likely have to win the popular vote by about 2.5%. But I don't think it's improbable enough to happen that the Republicans are not considered nationally viable. And I think the Republicans have a distinct natural advantage in the Senate and House which itself should be considered in national viability.
 
Turnout does of course have an impact on elections but it's not the be all end all. Democratic turnout is depressed during midterms, but it only matters so much. 2014's turnout was roughly equal to 2006's (36.4% to 36.8%) but there was a strong difference in how people voted. Even if turnout was up to the mid 50s that it was in 2012 there's no way that Democrats would've actually won more votes. Obama's disapproval had a double digit deficit. While turnout did not of course help Democrats, it wasn't the only cause of why they lost.

Gerrymandering of course is another factor of why the Democrats do so poorly with the house. With all the governorships and state legislatures they won, the GOP could gerrymander several of the most important states, which they most assuredly did. However, the effect of gerrymandering in Republicans favor is often overestimated. This is because a fair map has the distinction of being Republican friendly.

Gerrymandering is the key factor and its those mid term elections that make it possible since the GOP wins in the years ending in zero giving them control of state legislatures.

I was in the Michigan state legislature working in 2011 and saw lots of competing maps that would have provided the Dems winning the State House if districts had been drawn more fairly and not making 80 to 90% democratic districts in big cities - but including neighboring suburbs.

There's no doubt Democrats have some strong advantages in presidential voting. The demographic shifts are going their way, especially in firewall states like Colorado and Virginia. To win the Presidential election next year the Republican candidate will likely have to win the popular vote by about 2.5%. But I don't think it's improbable enough to happen that the Republicans are not considered nationally viable. And I think the Republicans have a distinct natural advantage in the Senate and House which itself should be considered in national viability.

They will probably lose the Senate from the 2016 vote - especially if they pick a fringe candidate like Trump, Carson or Fiorina. That so called natural advantage will be flushed away as wasted opportunity.

In the end those demographics you mentioned will kill them as the nation becomes less white and less male and less dominated by right wing ideology.
 
Last edited:
Gerrymandering is the key factor and its those mid term elections that make it possible since the GOP wins in the years ending in zero giving them control of state legislatures.

I was in the Michigan state legislature working in 2011 and saw lots of competing maps that would have provided the Dems winning the State House if districts had been drawn more fairly and not making 80 to 90% democratic districts in big cities - but including neighboring suburbs.

Perhaps for state legislature maps where there is a greater number of seats there could've been a way to draw them in Michigan fairly that actually gave Democrats a lead. Although I would still think drawing districts compactly would give the Republicans an inherent advantage because of the concentration of Democratic votes in cities. But for U.S. House seats it IS impossible to draw the districts where Democrats actually have more seats without ridiculously gerrymandering them by tendrilling several of them into Detroit.

They will probably lose the Senate from the 2016 vote - especially if they pick a fringe candidate like Trump, Carson or Fiorina. That so called natural advantage will be flushed away as wasted opportunity.

In the end those demographics you mentioned will kill them as the nation becomes less white and less male and less dominated by right wing ideology.

There's certainly the possibility they win the Senate next year, although I wouldn't say probably at this point unless the GOP nominates someone like Trump, which I believe they will not. They certainly have the advantage in Wisconsin and Illinois, but they still have to win 2-3 of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire depending on who wins the Presidency. They also have to hold Nevada against Joe Heck, a good candidate who's been strong in a 50-50 House district the last few cycles. But it's certainly possible.

That will probably only last 2 years though as Democrats start out as underdogs in Indiana and Missouri and 50-50 at best in West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana. And Democrats have an inherent disadvantage in the Senate as Republican states have shown no problem throwing out otherwise entrenched Democratic candidates for Federal seats like Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln and other strong incumbents like Kay Hagan and Mark Begich. On the other hand Maine has shown no qualms about repeatedly electing Susan Collins and other slightly democratic states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Iowa have elected several Republican Senators.
 
Perhaps for state legislature maps where there is a greater number of seats there could've been a way to draw them in Michigan fairly that actually gave Democrats a lead. Although I would still think drawing districts compactly would give the Republicans an inherent advantage because of the concentration of Democratic votes in cities. But for U.S. House seats it IS impossible to draw the districts where Democrats actually have more seats without ridiculously gerrymandering them by tendrilling several of them into Detroit.



There's certainly the possibility they win the Senate next year, although I wouldn't say probably at this point unless the GOP nominates someone like Trump, which I believe they will not. They certainly have the advantage in Wisconsin and Illinois, but they still have to win 2-3 of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire depending on who wins the Presidency. They also have to hold Nevada against Joe Heck, a good candidate who's been strong in a 50-50 House district the last few cycles. But it's certainly possible.

That will probably only last 2 years though as Democrats start out as underdogs in Indiana and Missouri and 50-50 at best in West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana. And Democrats have an inherent disadvantage in the Senate as Republican states have shown no problem throwing out otherwise entrenched Democratic candidates for Federal seats like Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln and other strong incumbents like Kay Hagan and Mark Begich. On the other hand Maine has shown no qualms about repeatedly electing Susan Collins and other slightly democratic states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Iowa have elected several Republican Senators.

The solution that should be tried is what some states have adopted: taking the power away from the legislature itself and giving it to a fair, balanced and independent group of citizens who create districts which are competitive.

Yes, there probably will be some that are impossible to design so that they are not sure Dem or GOP seats. But those should be kept to the absolute minimum with the overwhelming majority of seats competitive. And that would be both on a state and federal level.
 
The solution that should be tried is what some states have adopted: taking the power away from the legislature itself and giving it to a fair, balanced and independent group of citizens who create districts which are competitive.

Yes, there probably will be some that are impossible to design so that they are not sure Dem or GOP seats. But those should be kept to the absolute minimum with the overwhelming majority of seats competitive. And that would be both on a state and federal level.

I'd rather have a computer program designed not to take a districts likely voting pattern into account at all.

Trying to create only competitive districts would create two problems I think. For one, the districts would not keep communities together at all. They would have to be ridiculously stretched and tendrilled to do that. To have only competitive districts would necessitate most of them to have some access to a big city and some segments of rural or suburban voters. But people aren't located in a way to make that viable.

The bigger problem I think would be that a party winning a national election 53-47 would have a gigantic veto proof majority most likely. That gives an undue influence to a party with only a sliver more support than the other.
 
I'd rather have a computer program designed not to take a districts likely voting pattern into account at all.

Trying to create only competitive districts would create two problems I think. For one, the districts would not keep communities together at all. They would have to be ridiculously stretched and tendrilled to do that. To have only competitive districts would necessitate most of them to have some access to a big city and some segments of rural or suburban voters. But people aren't located in a way to make that viable.

The bigger problem I think would be that a party winning a national election 53-47 would have a gigantic veto proof majority most likely. That gives an undue influence to a party with only a sliver more support than the other.

I think it is more than worth a try. As in most things, the devil is in the details and you have brought up some good points. But one thing is clear and that is the present system stinks where we let the legislature do a job that citizens should do. Politicians should not pick their voters - the voters should pick them.

When I worked in the legislature I saw several plans that would do what I suggest without the tendrils districts you mentioned. Its really not that difficult as long as you do not create phony barriers like insisting that big cities be kept intact.
 
Back
Top Bottom