• 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.

The NYT declares the Republicans a lost cause.

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven't figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama* administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.
Click to expand...



*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...


Oh wow, 1980 huh? Carter huh?

Welcome to 2012. A closer comparison would be to 2004 with the Democrats in their confidence that they could unseat Bush with an empty suit like Kerry. Maybe the right is the one that needs to pay closer attention to history in their pursuit to put an empty suit like Romney and Santorum up.
 
TheNextEra said:
Oh wow, 1980 huh? Carter huh?

Welcome to 2012. A closer comparison would be to 2004 with the Democrats in their confidence that they could unseat Bush with an empty suit like Kerry. Maybe the right is the one that needs to pay closer attention to history in their pursuit to put an empty suit like Romney and Santorum up.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it's a "closer" comparison? The conditions of the election season far more closely match conditions in 1980 than they do those of 2004. The country is in a much more similar place to 1980.
 
Harshaw said:
What makes you think it's a "closer" comparison? The conditions of the election season far more closely match conditions in 1980 than they do those of 2004. The country is in a much more similar place to 1980.
Click to expand...


Not even close when you take into considerations things like technology, partisan divides, etc.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I try and make the point fairly often that 8 months out from the election, any one who is saying it is going one way or another is being silly.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, I try and make the point fairly often that 8 months out from the election, any one who is saying it is going one way or another is being silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, correct.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not even close when you take into considerations things like technology, partisan divides, etc.
Click to expand...

Technology has little to do with it, and following the Nixon Administration, partisan rancor was at a fever pitch in 1980.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, definitely shows that educated predictions can be wrong, kind of like Truman's famous photo. However predictions are finicky in that many predictions exist and they all can't be right, for example many people think Obama is a shoe in and many people think he's going to lose to anyone. So instead of judging the conclusion of the prediction alone, I'd judge the whole process as to how that conclusion was arrived upon to see if it was done intelligently and reasonably after all a prediction can be intelligent and reasonable but ultimately be wrong once the event occurred.

Now when discussing Obama there's good intelligent reasonable reasons to think Obama will both lose and win the election, plus there's still all the unknown of the future before election. So you're right that no one should be certain the election is going to turn out one way or another so early.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

An excellent point, exceeded only by the point that Romney/Gingrich/Santorium ain't no Reagan.
 
upsideguy said:
An excellent point, exceeded only by the point that Romney/Gingrich/Santorium ain't no Reagan.
Click to expand...

And Obama ain't no Carter, and last time I checked there were no American hostages in Iran.
 
Harshaw said:
Technology has little to do with it, and following the Nixon Administration, partisan rancor was at a fever pitch in 1980.
Click to expand...

Technology has a lot to do with it. More cover time for the candidates on anything they do. Yes, newspapers did some of that in the 80's but not to the extent we have now. Also partisanship, partially due to the increase in technology, has increased that divide greatly especially over the last 11 years.

No, I think I will stick to my original statement that this is close to the 04 elections and not 1980 thank you. I am sure in the long run I will be proven correctly, are you?
 
TheNextEra said:
Technology has a lot to do with it. More cover time for the candidates on anything they do. Yes, newspapers did some of that in the 80's but not to the extent we have now. Also partisanship, partially due to the increase in technology, has increased that divide greatly especially over the last 11 years.
Click to expand...

The partisanship is little different now than it was 1980; the only difference is that the Internet allows more screechers to get their screeches out to wider audiences. It doesn't mean people in general think any differently. It's not like the screechers sway anyone.

No, I think I will stick to my original statement that this is close to the 04 elections and not 1980 thank you. I am sure in the long run I will be proven correctly, are you?
Click to expand...

How do you "prove" that the electoral conditions are more like 2004 than 1980? What objective measure do you suggest?

Are you referring to the result? I've made no prediction at all.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

you think Carter was as strong as Obama...and the Republicans in 1980 were as clueless & disorganized & slaves to the extreme...as today?

haaa!!!

Obama is going to win, and ALL the Republicans who were 110% sure of Obama's defeat, are gonna eat it. And I will smile.
 
AdamT said:
And Obama ain't no Carter
Click to expand...

No, you're right; he's presided over a much more disastrous term.


and last time I checked there were no American hostages in Iran.
Click to expand...

Sure, 'coz Iran has been quiet for 30 years and there's no tension whatsoever going on with them at all these days.
 
The Republican Party IS a lost cause. It was in 1980 and continues to be today. The fact that Reagan, Romney, and Santorum are even considered viable candidates by the party shows that. NONE of those three are Conservatives, and until the Republican Party returns to its Conservative roots it will not win another Presidential election.
 
Harshaw said:
The partisanship is little different now than it was 1980; the only difference is that the Internet allows more screechers to get their screeches out to wider audiences. It doesn't mean people in general think any differently. It's not like the screechers sway anyone.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, I happen to think they do.

Harshaw said:
How do you "prove" that the electoral conditions are more like 2004 than 1980? What objective measure do you suggest?

Are you referring to the result? I've made no prediction at all.
Click to expand...

By an Obama win, it will prove the conditions were more like 2004 than 1980.
 
Tigger said:
The Republican Party IS a lost cause. It was in 1980 and continues to be today. The fact that Reagan, Romney, and Santorum are even considered viable candidates by the party shows that. NONE of those three are Conservatives....
Click to expand...

that's because you view a TRUE Conservative, as being a right-wing Authoritarian.
 
Harshaw said:
*Except this was published on February 29, 1980, and the word used was actually "Carter."

Something to keep in mind when declaring an Obama shoo-in re-election.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that none of the GOP candidates that are running is a Ronald Reagan.
 
TheNextEra said:
That is your opinion, I happen to think they do.
Click to expand...

Why, yes, it IS my opinion. Fancy that.


By an Obama win, it will prove the conditions were more like 2004 than 1980.
Click to expand...

OK, so any time an incumbent wins, then conditions in those years were the same. This is your argument.
 
Tigger said:
The Republican Party IS a lost cause. It was in 1980 and continues to be today. The fact that Reagan, Romney, and Santorum are even considered viable candidates by the party shows that. NONE of those three are Conservatives, and until the Republican Party returns to its Conservative roots it will not win another Presidential election.
Click to expand...


Tigger, there are not going to be any authoritarian candidates running soon. And by soon I mean in the next 50 years. Given that fact, I don't think you are ever going to be satisfied.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, so any time an incumbent wins, then conditions in those years were the same. This is your argument.
Click to expand...

I have already shown why I think the conditions are the same. With an Obama win, the conditions would not be the same as yours. If they were the same as you claim, Obama would lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom