Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Seekster:
I don't carry water for the Republicans I just tend to agree with them more based on ideology. It is funny though that people on here accuse me of being a Republican agent while people on a Conservative Forum accuse me of being a liberal or at least a RINO (which I can't be because I'm not even a Republican so I can't be a Republican in Name Only).

That sounds like a forum I'd last about three minutes on.

recruit00:

I have never seen you say that they are lousy. You, maybe. But arbane, I have never EVER seen him dislike the Democrats but every chance he gets he attacks the Republicans. I will agree that the Republicans are worse on the partisanship but when you compare Seekster and arbane, there is no comparison on who is the more partisan.

I wasn't "comparing Seekster and Arbane." YOU brought up Arbane, for some reason.

Every chance I get I attack the Republicans too, because I find them to be utterly abhorrent. However, last I checked there was no such thing as a Partisan Meter, so arguing who is "more partisan" is an utterly pointless exercise.

Seekster:
I don't carry water for the Republicans I just tend to agree with them more based on ideology. It is funny though that people on here accuse me of being a Republican agent while people on a Conservative Forum accuse me of being a liberal or at least a RINO (which I can't be because I'm not even a Republican so I can't be a Republican in Name Only).

Although I don't agree with you all the time, you get a bad rep which you don't deserve simply because you are one of the few conservatives on here besides me and I am more moderate than you are. It just disappoints me that people like Tyler and arbane never do real debating and just criticize you. Rarely do you have really stupid debates.

Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

recruit00:
Although I don't agree with you all the time, you get a bad rep which you don't deserve simply because you are one of the few conservatives on here besides me and I am more moderate than you are. It just disappoints me that people like Tyler and arbane never do real debating and just criticize you. Rarely do you have really stupid debates.

Oh, stop making shit up. I "do real debating" all the fucking time, and the fact that you'd sit there and lie about it during your brave white-knighting for Seekster is complete bullshit.

recruit00:
Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

I wouldn't "admire his courage," I'd question his sanity.

I don't think it will "die," but I think it's definitely heading toward something. With every election cycle they are retreating farther and farther to the extreme right. They've nearly become cannibalistic, relying more and more on the Tea Party and extreme social conservatives to sail them by on the promises of making gay marriage, abortion and Obamacare illegal and touting those who don't join their little Party as not "real" conservatives.

I feel like with Mitt Romney getting the nomination (Newt won't get it, he just isn't ready to swallow his pride just yet) something is going to have to change. They can't very well work against his more centered views, splitting the party will eliminate ANY chances they have of winning the election. So it will be interesting to see how many decide to calm down and how many retreat even more into the black pit of extreme conservatism. And eventually even those fellows will hit a singularity and they'll have to attempt the bridges they've so religiously been burning for the last decade or so.

In regards to the OP, I don't think we'll see an 'extinction' per se with the Republican party. I think it'll be more like a split, the more forward thinking conservative-moderates forming a separate party away from the Republican name, while the die-hard regressive thinkers remain using the Republican moniker. And then we'll see a decline in Republicans as the regressive thinkers lose traction with the US citizens, since said citizens would see their agendas and actions with growing disgust and either go democrat or follow the conservative/moderate party instead.

Tyler Perry:

recruit00:
Although I don't agree with you all the time, you get a bad rep which you don't deserve simply because you are one of the few conservatives on here besides me and I am more moderate than you are. It just disappoints me that people like Tyler and arbane never do real debating and just criticize you. Rarely do you have really stupid debates.

Oh, stop making shit up. I "do real debating" all the fucking time, and the fact that you'd sit there and lie about it during your brave white-knighting for Seekster is complete bullshit.

recruit00:
Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

I wouldn't "admire his courage," I'd question his sanity.

Alright well my time with you is done. I'm just reporting and moving on. If you aren't going to act mature, I'm done.

recruit00:

Tyler Perry:

recruit00:
Although I don't agree with you all the time, you get a bad rep which you don't deserve simply because you are one of the few conservatives on here besides me and I am more moderate than you are. It just disappoints me that people like Tyler and arbane never do real debating and just criticize you. Rarely do you have really stupid debates.

Oh, stop making shit up. I "do real debating" all the fucking time, and the fact that you'd sit there and lie about it during your brave white-knighting for Seekster is complete bullshit.

recruit00:
Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

I wouldn't "admire his courage," I'd question his sanity.

Alright well my time with you is done. I'm just reporting and moving on. If you aren't going to act mature, I'm done.

Pointing out that you are blatantly lying about me is "not acting mature"? And now you're going to run to Mommy Moderator?

Welcome to my ignore list. Good riddance.

It's dying, but it will be reborn. The Democrat party already died once (it used to be the Southern Conservative Jim Crow Dixie party), but it got taken over by the labor movement about a hundred years ago and recreated itself.

The Republican party is gradually reforming. All the fundamentalists couldn't stop a Mormon from being their candidate, a republican governor from signing gay marriage into law, or keep Schwarzeneggar from endorsing green energy. I don't what it will become; we'll have to see what happens after Romney implodes.

Skeleon:
Even if their continued move towards the far right causes them to suffer, I doubt the Republican party is "dying". It may suffer some devastating defeats here and there and then bounce back towards the center eventually. That said, Mitt Romney's candidacy is already a sign that the far-right elements are losing out somewhat. People like Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and the other extremists failed and the candidate is a comparatively moderate Republican extremist sellout rather than an absolute theocrat.

Right now, its all about economics. In many ways, the "extremists" you write of are to the economic left of Romney. Perry did throw out some boob bate for bubba (get rid of the Department of Education) but if elected, it never would have happened and he'd have gone along to get along and spent, I think, more than Romney.

If, on economics, the right seem so... purposeful?... it is because, as I've writte elsewhere, the base knows its elected official want to betray them. They want to tax and spend. Doing so provides power and wealth to their friends, family and people they owe favors to. The Republican base has that much more work to do than the Democratic party base as our dog, so to speak, is a lot harder to keep on the porch.

A great pic from recent events at universities from Obama and Romney.

image

This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

pyrate:
A great pic from recent events at universities from Obama and Romney.

image

This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

Cute photoshop job but I am sure the same set up could be done to show the reverse effect with similar photos so again, cute, but it has no value in an argument.

While I will grant you that Obama will win more of the youth vote than Romney will (just as the elderly mostly vote for the Republican candidate, the young mostly vote for the Democratic candidate), the enthusiasm for Obama is not NEARLY what it was in 2008. A lot of those first time voters from last time are likely going to stay home.

I've said it before and I will say it again, the 2012 US Presidential Election will be close, anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or is too blinded by partisanship to either see and/or admit what should be obvious.

Seekster:

pyrate:
A great pic from recent events at universities from Obama and Romney.

image

This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

Cute photoshop job but I am sure the same set up could be done to show the reverse effect with similar photos so again, cute, but it has no value in an argument.

While I will grant you that Obama will win more of the youth vote than Romney will (just as the elderly mostly vote for the Republican candidate, the young mostly vote for the Democratic candidate), the enthusiasm for Obama is not NEARLY what it was in 2008. A lot of those first time voters from last time are likely going to stay home.

I've said it before and I will say it again, the 2012 US Presidential Election will be close, anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or is too blinded by partisanship to either see and/or admit what should be obvious.

In what way is it shopped (other than the red circles). Are you saying they put in fake crowds?

The point of the pic is that the young people behind Obama actually look like they want to be there. The people behind Romney are half asleep, they would rather be doing something else. This thread is about the future of the Republicans, and the future is the youth of today.

Try to find one picture of an enthusiastic group of young people with Republicans, you cannot do it. This is the problem the Republicans face in the future. Most of these people are going to live their lives voting Democrat. In 30 years time all the current Republican voters will be dead and in their place will be the people who are overwhelmingly Democrats.

To those saying they're mostly absorbed by other parties. I WAS going to have a poll option with multiple choices like "Yes soon" or "No it'll just break up or be absorbed", but unfortunately it looks like the Escapist ate most of my poll so the only options were "Yes" "Yes" "It's" "It's" "It's".

Anyways

recruit00:
Don't they know that Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most loved Republicans, was a progressive and a very good president or is he a "RINO communist"?

From what I recall, a few Republicans still do despise Roosevelt, especially the more conservative ones. "How dare he try and force Big Trusts to be regulated!"

farson135:
You do not like the GOP so you think they are going to fall and your enemy will die.

They are not my enemy, I oppose the Republicans on almost all issues and hate the party itself, but the Republicans themselves were never my enemy. My grandparents happen to be republican (though they're disappointed with the direction the party is headed) and I don't hate them for it. In fact, I have to say that my grandparents are part of the reason I think the Republican party is going to die off; for years, since me and my cousins were children, they tried to convince us to support the Republican party (despite my parents being Democrats and my cousins being mostly third party/independent). They took us to the Ronald Reagan Library, and talked about all the great things the Republicans did over the years... But they still couldn't convince us to join. Because as soon as we had even the slightest thoughts about it, we heard about the newest law or legislation republicans were trying to pass that just made them seem to be going back away from their roots, we were children at the time and didn't put much thought to politics back then, but as we grew older, it seemed the Republicans grew more and more crazy, until eventually we wouldn't want to be seen anywhere near a Republican National Convention.

I think the GOP will fall quite simply because they are offering nothing that attracts young people. Most youths are pretty lax when it comes to Gay Marriage "Live and let live", even those who don't fully support it seem to at least have enough respect to keep quiet about it and don't yell anything like "Them queers can't get murried! That's only fir men and women!" However, the parties constant "keep the gays out!" legislation IS known, and it just pushes young people away from them. Add in the fact that some of the chief "faces" of the Republican party in media happen to be people like Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart who've worked up QUITE a reputation as being angry, bigoted, and cruel men, then there isn't really any reason most young people would want to be a Republican other than it being "Family Tradition" or something along those lines. I think it's almost a guarantee that you will NOT see a great many people decide of their own volition that they really want to be a part of the Republican Party.

pyrate:

Seekster:

pyrate:
A great pic from recent events at universities from Obama and Romney.

image

This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

Cute photoshop job but I am sure the same set up could be done to show the reverse effect with similar photos so again, cute, but it has no value in an argument.

While I will grant you that Obama will win more of the youth vote than Romney will (just as the elderly mostly vote for the Republican candidate, the young mostly vote for the Democratic candidate), the enthusiasm for Obama is not NEARLY what it was in 2008. A lot of those first time voters from last time are likely going to stay home.

I've said it before and I will say it again, the 2012 US Presidential Election will be close, anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or is too blinded by partisanship to either see and/or admit what should be obvious.

In what way is it shopped (other than the red circles). Are you saying they put in fake crowds?

The point of the pic is that the young people behind Obama actually look like they want to be there. The people behind Romney are half asleep, they would rather be doing something else. This thread is about the future of the Republicans, and the future is the youth of today.

Try to find one picture of an enthusiastic group of young people with Republicans, you cannot do it. This is the problem the Republicans face in the future. Most of these people are going to live their lives voting Democrat. In 30 years time all the current Republican voters will be dead and in their place will be the people who are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Oh no the pictures are real enough I assume. I just meant that these pictures were selected deliberately and put side by side in a misleading attempt to make an invalid point.

I am sure if we looked we could find pictures of kids looking bored at an Obama speech, in fact I think I remember seeing some Conservatives joke about how some kid in the background at an Obama speech just looked bored out of his skull.

You see the problem with your argument is that it has generally been true of every generation. The younger members of society tend to adopt more...shall we say...permissive, views than the older members of society whose views, while once considered liberal, are now considered Conservative. In other words, today's liberals are likely tomorrows Conservatives.

Also if your proposal was correct then there would not be any Conservatives today and 40% of Americans most certainly would not be Conservatives (so yeah technically the silent majority is more a silent plurality but majority just sounds better).

Seekster:
I've said it before and I will say it again, the 2012 US Presidential Election will be close, anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or is too blinded by partisanship to either see and/or admit what should be obvious.

Presidential elections come down to the swing states. Republicans have [b]never[b] won a presidential election without Ohio. And Governor Kasich (R) is among the least approved of governors in the country. There are similar situations in other swing states, and in Florida.

The 2010 election will lose the Republicans the 2012 election unless the Obama campaign gaffes horribly.

Witty Name Here:
They are not my enemy, I oppose the Republicans on almost all issues and hate the party itself, but the Republicans themselves were never my enemy.

Which is why I said the GOP and not Republicans themselves.

My grandparents happen to be republican (though they're disappointed with the direction the party is headed) and I don't hate them for it. In fact, I have to say that my grandparents are part of the reason I think the Republican party is going to die off; for years, since me and my cousins were children, they tried to convince us to support the Republican party (despite my parents being Democrats and my cousins being mostly third party/independent). They took us to the Ronald Reagan Library, and talked about all the great things the Republicans did over the years... But they still couldn't convince us to join. Because as soon as we had even the slightest thoughts about it, we heard about the newest law or legislation republicans were trying to pass that just made them seem to be going back away from their roots, we were children at the time and didn't put much thought to politics back then, but as we grew older, it seemed the Republicans grew more and more crazy, until eventually we wouldn't want to be seen anywhere near a Republican National Convention.

So you followed your parents and not your grandparents. That is very common. In fact I only know one person who follows the beliefs of his grandparents far more than that of his parents (I sure as hell have taken nothing from my grandfather's beliefs).

I think the GOP will fall quite simply because they are offering nothing that attracts young people.

Doesn't matter if they are attracted today. Today they don't vote.

Most youths are pretty lax when it comes to Gay Marriage "Live and let live", even those who don't fully support it seem to at least have enough respect to keep quiet about it and don't yell anything like "Them queers can't get murried! That's only fir men and women!" However, the parties constant "keep the gays out!" legislation IS known, and it just pushes young people away from them.

You think that issue is a deal breaker? Even for a libertarian (and Libertarian) like myself it is not a deal breaker. It is stupid but then again I know damn well that lots of members of the GOP don't follow the party line. Contrary to popular opinion, the moral majority does not rule the GOP.

Add in the fact that some of the chief "faces" of the Republican party in media happen to be people like Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart who've worked up QUITE a reputation as being angry, bigoted, and cruel men, then there isn't really any reason most young people would want to be a Republican other than it being "Family Tradition" or something along those lines. I think it's almost a guarantee that you will NOT see a great many people decide of their own volition that they really want to be a part of the Republican Party.

You know who else is a member of the GOP? My congressman-

Katatori-kun:

Another possibility is that the party melts down into two or more parties: a Tea Party, (a neo con party) and a true conservative party.

Don't forget the scary-beady-eyed self-righteous Christianist faction.

recruit00:
I have never seen you say that they are lousy. You, maybe. But arbane, I have never EVER seen him dislike the Democrats but every chance he gets he attacks the Republicans.

That's because every time I look at the Republicans, they're busy publicly befouling themselves in some new, horrible way. The Democrats at least manage to pretend to care about people who aren't them some of the time.

And if you haven't seen me badmouth the Democrats, sorry. It's hard for me to get worked up over the President using the wrong cultural markers or something when I'm being distracted by the Republicans' latest efforts to make all women indentured servants of their fertilized egg-cells, or privatize the Grand Canyon, or whatever hideous brainturd they're enacting this week. When I get mad at the Dems, and believe me, I do so QUITE often, you might be missing it because usually I'm mad at them for not being LIBERAL ENOUGH.

recruit00:

I will agree that the Republicans are worse on the partisanship but when you compare Seekster and arbane, there is no comparison on who is the more partisan.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Just maybe not in the direction you mean.

Tyler Perry:

recruit00:
Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

I wouldn't "admire his courage," I'd question his sanity.

I'd question their EXISTENCE. There is no place for blasphemy against the Gospel of Saint Ronnie in the Church of Republicanism...

Recruit00, did you actually have someone in mind, or is this question as hypothetical as it seems?

Gorfias:
They want to tax and spend. Doing so provides power and wealth to their friends, family and people they owe favors to.

It ALSO provides us with 'luxuries' like highways and an army, you anarchist.

pyrate:
This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

it's only a problem if they can't stop young people from voting, which seems to be their current plan. (Along with women and 'blah people', like they did in 2000.) Why try to win the game when you can just keep the other side's score from being counted?

arbane:

Gorfias:
They want to tax and spend. Doing so provides power and wealth to their friends, family and people they owe favors to.

It ALSO provides us with 'luxuries' like highways and an army, you anarchist.

So, you are in favor of totalitarianism? I mean, if you are going to polarize and you want to attack me for not wanting to fund government brothels in which women are to service strange men so men don't feel the need to have women in their lives, or maybe a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction, where you have to submit your wife to rape because, well, there are people that just think it is a Federal responsiblity to see that women are serviced by credentialed professionals, I guess I have to plead guilty: I don't want that.

Dags90:

Seekster:
I've said it before and I will say it again, the 2012 US Presidential Election will be close, anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or is too blinded by partisanship to either see and/or admit what should be obvious.

Presidential elections come down to the swing states. Republicans have [b]never[b] won a presidential election without Ohio. And Governor Kasich (R) is among the least approved of governors in the country. There are similar situations in other swing states, and in Florida.

The 2010 election will lose the Republicans the 2012 election unless the Obama campaign gaffes horribly.

If I recall a Republican who wins the South Carolina primary usually wins the nomination, so you see the significance of Ohio is not absolute. Besides I think Ohio will be close and ultimately the whole race will come down to who wins Ohio.

Seekster:
With rising stars like Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Haley, and others who most people havn't heard of yet, I believe the Republican party will not only survive but thrive in the future.

The flaw in the OP is its based on stereotypes not on facts. Then again I am sure the Republican Party would be happy to have the Democratic Party underestimate them.

Right on brother. Rubio/Ryan 2016. I'm calling it here and now. We've lost this one, let's let the kids stay in charge for now. I hope Rubio doesn't accept the VP pick, because it'll ruin him for the future.

Seekster:
If I recall a Republican who wins the South Carolina primary usually wins the nomination, so you see the significance of Ohio is not absolute. Besides I think Ohio will be close and ultimately the whole race will come down to who wins Ohio.

South Carolina has been having GOP primaries for a good while less than Ohio has been deciding whether or not Republicans win or not. Moreover, the mechanism behind Ohio is twofold. It's remained a purple state for a long time, and so is generally representative of where the deciding moderates are swinging. And it's also worth a good deal of votes. It's important as an indicator, but it's also important in it's own right for the votes.

Romney's stance on the auto bailout could be extremely damaging in Ohio. Right now Ohio is a bit close, but the fact that Obama has been there weeks before Romney and has tried to salvage the American auto industry are both major factors.

Gorfias:

arbane:

Gorfias:
They want to tax and spend. Doing so provides power and wealth to their friends, family and people they owe favors to.

It ALSO provides us with 'luxuries' like highways and an army, you anarchist.

So, you are in favor of totalitarianism? I mean, if you are going to polarize and you want to attack me for not wanting to fund government brothels in which women are to service strange men so men don't feel the need to have women in their lives, or maybe a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction, where you have to submit your wife to rape because, well, there are people that just think it is a Federal responsiblity to see that women are serviced by credentialed professionals, I guess I have to plead guilty: I don't want that.

man what

arbane:

Gorfias:

arbane:

It ALSO provides us with 'luxuries' like highways and an army, you anarchist.

So, you are in favor of totalitarianism? I mean, if you are going to polarize and you want to attack me for not wanting to fund government brothels in which women are to service strange men so men don't feel the need to have women in their lives, or maybe a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction, where you have to submit your wife to rape because, well, there are people that just think it is a Federal responsiblity to see that women are serviced by credentialed professionals, I guess I have to plead guilty: I don't want that.

man what

You called me an anarchist (In magenta letters!!!!) for having the unmittigated gall to suggest government sometimes spends more than necessary in order to curry favor with certain groups. If you want to throw around such polarized statements we can do that.

arbane:

Tyler Perry:

recruit00:
Oh also, for arbane or Tyler, what is your opinion of a liberal in the Republican party? Will your hatred of the Republican party prevail or will you admire his courage?

I wouldn't "admire his courage," I'd question his sanity.

I'd question their EXISTENCE. There is no place for blasphemy against the Gospel of Saint Ronnie in the Church of Republicanism...

Recruit00, did you actually have someone in mind, or is this question as hypothetical as it seems?

Gorfias:
They want to tax and spend. Doing so provides power and wealth to their friends, family and people they owe favors to.

It ALSO provides us with 'luxuries' like highways and an army, you anarchist.

pyrate:
This is the problem for Republicans. You can have all the elderly voters you want, but that is not going to mean success in the future if you cannot win the votes of the youth. Most people vote for the same party for their entire lives, you win them while they are young and you keep them for life.

it's only a problem if they can't stop young people from voting, which seems to be their current plan. (Along with women and 'blah people', like they did in 2000.) Why try to win the game when you can just keep the other side's score from being counted?

Yeah it was a hypothetical question. I was just curious. I do like Tyler's answer of whether they are sane or not. That probably makes the most sense, along with the existence. As for the attacking the Republicans more, I can understand that. I just don't usually see you attacking the Dems that much but that makes plenty of sense.

Gorfias:
...a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction...

I remember you using that particular talking point quite a long while back, too (months ago). Now, like then, I wonder where you got this idea even from. Is that a fear that commonly circulates among American "small government" conservatives?

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
...a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction...

I remember you using that particular talking point quite a long while back, too (months ago). Now, like then, I wonder where you got this idea even from. Is that a fear that commonly circulates among American "small government" conservatives?

I'm writing hypothetically. Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should. So my reasonable implied question: Is there anything the government can do or spend on to which a reasonable person could object without being called an anarchist?

I think it was Al Sharpton that was asked in a nomination debate if there is any limit on what the Federal Government had limited authority. His reply was, "civility." That is a pretty weak limit. Given his answer, you really could have an FBSS.

Gorfias:
I'm writing hypothetically. Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should. So my reasonable implied question: Is there anything the government can do or spend on to which a reasonable person could object without being called an anarchist?

I get that and I'm not getting into that discussion, I'm just asking where you got that particular idea from since you've used it before, too, and it's not exactly something one comes up with out of the blue (especially not using that specific phrasing which you've used back then, too, if my memory serves; I'm pretty sure what you said then was "Federal [something] of spousal satisfaction", either Bureau also or Office or something).

harmonic:

Seekster:
With rising stars like Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Haley, and others who most people havn't heard of yet, I believe the Republican party will not only survive but thrive in the future.

The flaw in the OP is its based on stereotypes not on facts. Then again I am sure the Republican Party would be happy to have the Democratic Party underestimate them.

Right on brother. Rubio/Ryan 2016. I'm calling it here and now. We've lost this one, let's let the kids stay in charge for now. I hope Rubio doesn't accept the VP pick, because it'll ruin him for the future.

I don't know, Romney has about a 50-50 shot. But yeah someday Marco Rubio is going to be President most likely.

Dags90:

Seekster:
If I recall a Republican who wins the South Carolina primary usually wins the nomination, so you see the significance of Ohio is not absolute. Besides I think Ohio will be close and ultimately the whole race will come down to who wins Ohio.

South Carolina has been having GOP primaries for a good while less than Ohio has been deciding whether or not Republicans win or not. Moreover, the mechanism behind Ohio is twofold. It's remained a purple state for a long time, and so is generally representative of where the deciding moderates are swinging. And it's also worth a good deal of votes. It's important as an indicator, but it's also important in it's own right for the votes.

Romney's stance on the auto bailout could be extremely damaging in Ohio. Right now Ohio is a bit close, but the fact that Obama has been there weeks before Romney and has tried to salvage the American auto industry are both major factors.

I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

If the Republicans loose 2012, don't get a lot of people in Congress in 2014, and doesn't win 2016, then I can assure you they will break up. It would probably be for the best. It will be because the Tea Party and Neocons keep dragging the party to the right, while the Moderate and True Fiscal Conservatives will be sick and tired of it, and will completely abandon the Neo's and Tea Partiers.

Seekster:

I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

Because Detroit, is in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win Michigan.

Mr.Mattress:
If the Republicans loose 2012, don't get a lot of people in Congress in 2014, and doesn't win 2016, then I can assure you they will break up. It would probably be for the best. It will be because the Tea Party and Neocons keep dragging the party to the right, while the Moderate and True Fiscal Conservatives will be sick and tired of it, and will completely abandon the Neo's and Tea Partiers.

Seekster:

I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

Because Detroit, is in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win Michigan.

While they are almost guaranteed to win one of those 3, even if they lose all three why would they break up? A party doesnt break up just because it loses a lot of elections. There has to be another party that steals the support away from one of the two major parties.

Speaking as someone who used to be a card-carrying member of the Republican party, I don't think you have much basis for your claim.

And yeah chances are Obama will win Michigain but Ohio is going to be close no matter who wins it.

Seekster:
I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

The ads haven't yet begun in Ohio. The Obama admin has just been doing the base work, setting up offices and whatnot in Ohio.

Dags90:

Seekster:
I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

The ads haven't yet begun in Ohio. The Obama admin has just been doing the base work, setting up offices and whatnot in Ohio.

Thats not the point, he is the incumbent so he should be ahead by a bit more than he currently is. Besides Romney hasnt really started campaigning in earnest either, his popularity is only going to go up. The question is, how much.

Seekster:

Mr.Mattress:
If the Republicans loose 2012, don't get a lot of people in Congress in 2014, and doesn't win 2016, then I can assure you they will break up. It would probably be for the best. It will be because the Tea Party and Neocons keep dragging the party to the right, while the Moderate and True Fiscal Conservatives will be sick and tired of it, and will completely abandon the Neo's and Tea Partiers.

Seekster:

I would argue that if Romney's stance on the auto bailout were so damaging then Obama would have that state all but sewn up right now but Ohio remains close.

Because Detroit, is in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win Michigan.

While they are almost guaranteed to win one of those 3, even if they lose all three why would they break up? A party doesnt break up just because it loses a lot of elections. There has to be another party that steals the support away from one of the two major parties.

Speaking as someone who used to be a card-carrying member of the Republican party, I don't think you have much basis for your claim.

And yeah chances are Obama will win Michigain but Ohio is going to be close no matter who wins it.

Well, actually, I would like to call Bull on the whole "There needs to be another party to take over". We've had two times where a party has fallen and there wasn't an immediate replacement; The Federalists broke up because of the Dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the Election of 1834 was 4 Democratic-Republican Party contestants. The Whigs broke up in 1852 with their division over slavery, and in The Election of 1856 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860]The Election of 1860[/url], no one knew what party was staying and what party was going. The Point Being, you don't need a party that is ready to take over for a party to die off. One just sort of happens to take over.

And I have 3 Party Candidates that can easily take over; The Most Obvious is the The Libertarian Party of America, the 3rd largest and fastest growing third party in America, which is where all the Real Conservatives. Another Candidate, obvious though not as appealing, is The Green Party of America, on the Off chance that all the Republicans join the Democrats, they could take over the Democrats job. Lastly, the least likely candidate, The Modern Whig Party of America, could take in the Neocons and Tea Partiers, if all the Fiscal and Moderate Republicans went to the Democrat Party.

Lastly, in our Election Driven Society, you don't think loosing election after election would hurt a major party? You don't think if the Democrats kept loosing election after election, they would eventually disband?

Mr.Mattress:

Seekster:

Mr.Mattress:
If the Republicans loose 2012, don't get a lot of people in Congress in 2014, and doesn't win 2016, then I can assure you they will break up. It would probably be for the best. It will be because the Tea Party and Neocons keep dragging the party to the right, while the Moderate and True Fiscal Conservatives will be sick and tired of it, and will completely abandon the Neo's and Tea Partiers.

Because Detroit, is in Michigan, and I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win Michigan.

While they are almost guaranteed to win one of those 3, even if they lose all three why would they break up? A party doesnt break up just because it loses a lot of elections. There has to be another party that steals the support away from one of the two major parties.

Speaking as someone who used to be a card-carrying member of the Republican party, I don't think you have much basis for your claim.

And yeah chances are Obama will win Michigain but Ohio is going to be close no matter who wins it.

Well, actually, I would like to call Bull on the whole "There needs to be another party to take over". We've had two times where a party has fallen and there wasn't an immediate replacement; The Federalists broke up because of the Dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the Election of 1834 was 4 Democratic-Republican Party contestants. The Whigs broke up in 1852 with their division over slavery, and in The Election of 1856 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860]The Election of 1860[/url], no one knew what party was staying and what party was going. The Point Being, you don't need a party that is ready to take over for a party to die off. One just sort of happens to take over.

And I have 3 Party Candidates that can easily take over; The Most Obvious is the The Libertarian Party of America, the 3rd largest and fastest growing third party in America, which is where all the Real Conservatives. Another Candidate, obvious though not as appealing, is The Green Party of America, on the Off chance that all the Republicans join the Democrats, they could take over the Democrats job. Lastly, the least likely candidate, The Modern Whig Party of America, could take in the Neocons and Tea Partiers, if all the Fiscal and Moderate Republicans went to the Democrat Party.

Lastly, in our Election Driven Society, you don't think loosing election after election would hurt a major party? You don't think if the Democrats kept loosing election after election, they would eventually disband?

Its not without precedent no but there were special situations in those cases that led to those outcomes. I don't think there is a situation right now that would lead to one of the two major parties dying off without another party to quickly rise up and steal its support.

Finally, the Republican party lost a lot of elections from Eisenhower through to the 90s and in fact after Ike was President they didnt hold the House until Gingrich became Speaker and only held the Senate during Reagan's admin prior to the 90s. So yeah a party can lose a lot and still survive.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked