Is the Republican Party a real party?

[the glowing carp]

Republicans don't seem to have a coherent strategy except to get stupider each day, just when they scrape the bottom of the barrel of stupid one of them finds a new spot.

Bachmann is proposing that America should be as Capitalist as .

The roll out of stupid suggests to me that the Republican party is not a Political entity, more a front, hence the employ of morons who can be easily manipulated.





The never ending Conga line of favorites is more suggestive of American Idol than politics.


Not wanting to distract from the Dem's role, but diversified take-over strategies are the ones that work.

[Mr. Perfect]

gc, the Republican party is America's party, and is the majority party, and will be the majority party for a very long time until a new party comes along. The Democrats will not unseat us except in the most bizarre of scenarios.

We have a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships (sizable), the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. We will take the Senate next election and get above 55 seats in 2014 (a functioning supermajority) and have a reasonable chance at the WH this election.

This all happened a mere two years after the worst President in history, a Republican, handed a supermajority over to the Democrats, who chose an anti-American Marxist as their candidate (reflecting their innermost beliefs), a political anti-Christ who is completely unelectable except for the fact he ran after GWB and the stock market crashed a few weeks before the election.

The carnival you see on the GOP side simply is symptomatic of a party recovering from near destruction under GWB. There were never going to be top tier candidates this year.

However the next election if we lose will have nearly a dozen potentially historic candidates. The GOP bench is wide and it is deep. Conversely, once Obama is done, this time or next time, there is not a single Democrat of national prominence in the wings. Not a single one.

The future belongs to the GOP.

gc, most of your opinions are formed by the content of left wing media product, which is usually steeped in ignorance and stupidity. Eg, they did not see Obama lead them straight into teabaggings of historic proportion and among many other things did not see that the calculus was going to lead to Obama swallowing whole a Satan Sandwich over the budget deal.

Since you only consume left wing media product which is of course loaded with anecdotes of Republicans saying silly things you blind yourself to other media product that shows Democrats doing the same and worse, they lead you into battle like a pawn who is easily mowed down, like you were over hft.

I hope this is helpful.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

As far as I know, there are more democrats in America than republicans

way more

Reps compensate this with dirty tricks

Not that I prefer democrats to Reps

No, I dont

.

[the glowing carp]

Every City is Democrat therefore there are far more D's than R's.

This means there is a Gerrymander in place.

[Ibrahim]

The Republican party does everything that a political party is supposed to do, and probably does it better than the Democratic party, which compensates for their demographic decline.


However, American politics in general and GOP candidates specifically are getting much more stupid at an alarming rate. I've written about this before.


But I don't think these two points are linked.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sorry fellas, wrong on every single count.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Polit ... ading.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150611/Democ ... -2008.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) D:R ratio: D 43%, R 40%. A couple of amazing things here, the number for the GOP is so high already coming off of Bush and the fact that Democrats are dramatically more likely to vote GOP than a Republican would vote for a Democrat, so a number this high for Republicans is really bad news for Democrats.

2) Liberals continue to be outnumbered by Conservatives by about 2:1

3) The Democrats captured their "demographic" market share some time ago, and will be playing defense in the future against candidates like Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal etc so there is no such thing as decline. If any one of the significant minority groups gives ground to the GOP the Democrats are doomed on the Demographic standards alone.

But the most important Demographic category, age, is favoring the GOP heavily.

[the glowing carp]

The only valid poll is Election day and City results show there are far more D' than R's as no City is governed by the R's.

R's will turn around and say "oh they are only poor people so they don't count" and is also patent bullshit as the Red states leach money of the Blue cities and if the Blue cities are giant slums how is this possible?

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't understand what you are saying gc, the left has been the ones attacking the poor of late (low income teabaggers) and you are right, the only poll that counts is the election booth. And at the election booth we have become the majority party.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[the glowing carp]

I'm saying the electoral system on a Federal level is Gerrymandered, as I think the Democratic numbers demonstrated in Cities contradict the Republican numbers on the Federal level, one of them is wrong.

[Mr. Perfect]

Our election system is an open book. The gerrymander issue is refuted over and over again by the GOP dominance of state governorships and legislatures.

[Tinker]

It would be funny if Gingrich got the nomination. I think Gingrich would debate Obama substantively, moreso than a lot of these morons.

Based upon my ,"Who do I want to see debate Obama the most?", scale, It's Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, I think.

[Demon of Undoing]

Well, hell, if that's gonna be the standard, the debates, I want Jesse Ventura. He's guaranteed to put more uncomfortable " FU" moments in the script than anybody. Plus, he might come in wearing Elton John sunglasses, a feather boa, and pumping " The Boys Are Back In Town" by Thin Lizzy.

[Ibrahim]

[Demon of Undoing]

[Tinker]

The Rock is the only one I'd propose. But if we are going to go for sheer competence, the one with the TRUE executive experience, I'd have to go with Kurt Angle.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Everyone's stupid when they don't agree with you. Got it.

The most interesting thing about the Republicans is how little their behavior has changed from their founding, even with the change in beliefs or constituents.

And no Mr. P, that is not a knock.

It's why the policies of the two parties ultimately are the same and why they are looking so similar today, there is a blurring between these traditional substructures (or temperaments) of the parties going on.

What makes a Republican?

- A periodic revolutionary frisson going back to its founding and seen periodically like when Grant successfully purged the Radical Republicans or Harding/Coolidge the Progressive, Goldwater the Northeastern Elite, Reagan the Isolationists...the Gringrich Contract with America was a failed revolution to purge the Christians

- Heresy and Non-Conformity are required. It's why so many Libertarians find a better home with the Republicans than the Democrats. And why the Republicans have so many dissenters who define themselves as Not-Democrats instead of Republicans. Something tells me this is Mr.P if you scratch that surface hard enough.

- At the same time, there is a lot more conflict about what is the actual party, and you can't be passive or conciliatory about it- if you got a position and you think it's the position the party should adopt, you must get in the ring and conquer. There is no pussyfooting, it's eat or be eaten. That's why the vacuous thought the the Republicans are monolithic gets thrown around. From the outside it looks like that but because they have some sort of Spartan mentality where they go to war with each other than go to war with the opposite party and you must be hearty to survive.

Sometimes, I look at Romney, and think that most of his problem is some sort of cultural remembrance of his father being essentially tossed from the party during the Goldwater purge. And since Romney isn't a fighter (though that temper is certainly unbecoming,) he is a viewed as a wimpy loser and an artifact.

- Which produces very empty politicians when it comes crunch time. None of these people could survive a Republican primary without saying outrageous things that have all the sound and fury of an idiot or trying to act iconic so they don't have to actually be anything. This last part is a very similar problem to the one Democrats have, though the steps leading up to it are slightly different because of the temperaments that the Democrats represent.

Look at how Mr.P talks about winning and losing elections like it's the Battle of the Bulge. These are life and death victories for the Republican, so he is more adept at changing strategies or acting rather Machivellian about actual beliefs. The general (politician) can give platitudes to the troops and be satisfied with it.

The Democrat? The Democrat talks about winning and losing elections like it's the white smoke coming out of the chimney at the Vatican. There is an orthodoxy that Democrats are supposed to follow which incorporates (to an extent where a candidate is expected to represented contrariety beliefs) but it allows for many nations (interest groups) to be blessed into the universal party. So when it is non-election time, you have a variety of groups with different beliefs who commune under the Democrat banner and then in theory they come together under their universal Kirks. Of course, Democrats, when dissatisfied, or don't feel placated enough, will stay home and the church suffers the loss of one of her children to apostasy.

[Colonel Sun]

[cincinnatus]

[Endovelico]

[the glowing carp]

At least when Rove was pulling the strings one could have some sort of confidence in consistancy, with this bag of ferrets one dare not go near on account of being bit.

The unanimity of Republicans passing 'Citizens for Guantanamo' shows there is a 'base' consistancy though, a ugly and frightening one.

The only non-ferret is Paul but the ease at which Senators voted for 'Citizens for Guantanamo' they seem miles away from him, hardly likely to support his candidacy.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well I admit there are some rough edges, but thankfully were going against the quackiest of all, Barack H.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1044.html

[Tinker]

[Azrael]