Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not since the 1850's Whig implosion have we seen a major US party tear itself apart

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I'm having more fun not looking at this than taking part, but once in a while I have to say something, especially with the posts from TaC to Phil up above.

    What about job performance?
    Don't you think that (for everyone watching this Govt) that results count, that an approval rating in the single digits would eventually leave a stain on everyone in Congress & the Senate? Even for a good guy like Cruz?

    When all is said and done, it is results that count. Not demographics or any of this philosophical theorizing.

    This is why uprisings always catch the Aristocrats by surprise, they can't see the forest for the trees.

    As for me, I have never been so glad that I don't watch TV anymore....

    Leave a comment:


  • phil74501
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    I tend to agree with you there. I think that it's not a case of the "Republican" voter base growing, but rather how the moderate to conservative voter base tends to behave.

    Progressive-Leftists basically have three voter sets in the bag:

    -College Students.....overwhelmingly Progressive Leftists, courtesy of intellectual immaturity and brainwashing.

    -Urban Poor. The Rural Poor, be they on welfare or not, are a bit of a mixed bag. The Urban poor are almost entirely Left voting.

    -Specific Minorities. You have certain specific minorities, like the Gay Vote. You also have certain racial groups like the Black Caucus. Some of this is due to stance. Honestly some of it is due to peer pressure on a crushing scale.....some of my co-workers have said that if they don't vote Democrat they'll be expelled from their church when I asked them why they vote Democrat even though every stance they have on every issue is literally Republican Party Line.

    The problem that the Progressive-Leftists have is that the first two groups are notorious no-shows. College Students will attend rallies and stump for candidates, but what they don't do reliably is show up and vote. The Urban Poor will do what a lot of poor people do everywhere, which is bitch.....but they won't show up to vote unless they are very specifically motivated. The last group will reliably vote, but they're a mixed bag on the appearance. Some minorities show up en masse, others just don't unless they have a specific reason to (For instance Obama running for President caused the Black vote to spike to historic levels).

    What this means is that for a Presidential election, and sometimes for Congressional elections, the Progressive-Leftists can get the sort of voter turnout that swings elections. However, mid-terms.......and local/state elections just don't tend to bring their big groups out en masse. A lot of their groups don't stay directly informed on their local candidates, so they wind up not voting in non-partisan and local elections, and not showing up for the smaller elections that occur every cycle.

    Moderates and Conservatives overall stay better informed on local candidates, especially Moderates as they take the time to actually decide race by race on candidates. So while they aren't in the Republicans pocket........they tend to show up more consistently, and tend to vote in all elections. Hence Moderate and Conservative candidates tend to win in the mid-terms and other elections in the cycle, and Progressive Leftists tend to ride a wave of support every 4 years when there's a non-stop election news cycle and a Presidential candidate to support.
    I remember hearing something back after the last Presidential election. I don't recall who it was, just one of the political talking heads on tv. But, the person made what I thought was a good point.

    If you look at Prez elections since WWII there were 5 big states, with lots of electoral votes, that the Republicans could count on almost every election...California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. With those 5 states the Republican candidate would get over half the necessary electoral votes needed. Now California has become a lock for the Democrats. Florida has become a Dem state. Pennsylvania and Ohio have become toss up/Democrat leaning states, leaving only Texas as a sold Republican state. But even with Texas, it's becoming more hispanic all the time, the implication being that it will become more Democrat.

    If all of that holds true, the Republican's long term prospects for winning the White House are going to suffer. I think we may be in the midst of a switch from historical trends. It used to be that the Republicans won the White House, and the Democrats had the houses of Congress. I think in the future that's going to flip. The Democrats will win the White House more than not, and the Republicans will more than not have control of Congress.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    I tend to agree with you there. I think that it's not a case of the "Republican" voter base growing, but rather how the moderate to conservative voter base tends to behave.
    A lot snipped for space. Overall I agree with you, but have a few quibbles. I think Collegiate voting trends tend to be more the result of youthfull naivete and peer pressure than any degree of brainwashing. Quite frankly most students care less about what their professors believe, and generally are annoyed when profs go "off topic" and discuss politics.

    The second quibble is over midterms. With few exceptions the mid-terms are more favorable for the party who does not hold the Presidency. George Bush bucked the trend in 2002, but that was a rare case. The GWOT helped, but probably not enough. At the time people saw him as effective, and most importantly he campaigned rigorously for GOP candidates across the country. Something most sitting presidents are hesitant to do.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    I would disagree with one thing you've said. I see the opposite happening. The Democrats power structure is based upon taking money from one segment of the society, and using it to buy the votes of the other segment. If you look at Democratic voters, 2/3rds of them are receiving some sort of check from Uncle Sam. The number of people drawing some kind of check from some governmental entity somewhere is increasing all the time. With every new check recipient, that makes for one more, potential, Democrat voter.
    I tend to agree with you there. I think that it's not a case of the "Republican" voter base growing, but rather how the moderate to conservative voter base tends to behave.

    Progressive-Leftists basically have three voter sets in the bag:

    -College Students.....overwhelmingly Progressive Leftists, courtesy of intellectual immaturity and brainwashing.

    -Urban Poor. The Rural Poor, be they on welfare or not, are a bit of a mixed bag. The Urban poor are almost entirely Left voting.

    -Specific Minorities. You have certain specific minorities, like the Gay Vote. You also have certain racial groups like the Black Caucus. Some of this is due to stance. Honestly some of it is due to peer pressure on a crushing scale.....some of my co-workers have said that if they don't vote Democrat they'll be expelled from their church when I asked them why they vote Democrat even though every stance they have on every issue is literally Republican Party Line.

    The problem that the Progressive-Leftists have is that the first two groups are notorious no-shows. College Students will attend rallies and stump for candidates, but what they don't do reliably is show up and vote. The Urban Poor will do what a lot of poor people do everywhere, which is bitch.....but they won't show up to vote unless they are very specifically motivated. The last group will reliably vote, but they're a mixed bag on the appearance. Some minorities show up en masse, others just don't unless they have a specific reason to (For instance Obama running for President caused the Black vote to spike to historic levels).

    What this means is that for a Presidential election, and sometimes for Congressional elections, the Progressive-Leftists can get the sort of voter turnout that swings elections. However, mid-terms.......and local/state elections just don't tend to bring their big groups out en masse. A lot of their groups don't stay directly informed on their local candidates, so they wind up not voting in non-partisan and local elections, and not showing up for the smaller elections that occur every cycle.

    Moderates and Conservatives overall stay better informed on local candidates, especially Moderates as they take the time to actually decide race by race on candidates. So while they aren't in the Republicans pocket........they tend to show up more consistently, and tend to vote in all elections. Hence Moderate and Conservative candidates tend to win in the mid-terms and other elections in the cycle, and Progressive Leftists tend to ride a wave of support every 4 years when there's a non-stop election news cycle and a Presidential candidate to support.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Part of the package, I think. He's wearing a rug, but a rug that's obviously fake. Which suggests he doesn't take it seriously.
    Actually a plus to me. Shows that he doesn't take himself too seriously......he understands that his hair is a gimmick and plays with it. I find lots of faults in Trump, but at this point Rubio won't get the nomination and Cruz would doom the election. Trump is better than a Felon or a Communist, and he might be the breath of air that DC needs to put a massive shake on things. I'd personally love to see a lot of Executive Branch lifers walk into the Oval Office to President Trump saying "You're Fired".

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    It's OK to get government money if you pay taxes--if you don't pay taxes then it's a sin to get it. And it's especially respectable, even laudable, to get back way more than you pay in for the Big Dogs.
    I'm not much for handouts - especially ones given to economic institutions who should be competing in a free market. But that's just me.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    [FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]I think Lodestar's analysis is flawed. At this stage, the Reps want someone in the White House more than anythin
    In more ways than one.
    You can see the parallel with 1912 more clearly than with 1853. Its the very same thing.

    Trump has support because everyone knows that the GOP/Washington DC elite are out of touch and have zero interest or respect for the People they are supposed to REPRESENT.
    And there they are proving it; going all-out to demolish the front-runner instead of trying to win the election vs the Democrats.
    They would rather have Hillary in the White House than Trump.
    How freaking brilliant is that?

    And now we have 2-time loser and ultra-RINO Romney downing Trump. Heh heh, how sweet is that? Watch the numbers swing even more in favor of Trump now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    There is something to be said for many conservatives complaining about welfare while collecting it themselves. I remember an acquaintance of mine whose farmer-father used to rail about welfare and its evils, and then grew furious when his son pointed out that his large farming subsidies were just another form of welfare.
    A good Friend of mine is a farmer here in my county and one should see his nose get out of joint when I remind him that he is very much government dependent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    It's OK to get government money if you pay taxes--if you don't pay taxes then it's a sin to get it. And it's especially respectable, even laudable, to get back way more than you pay in for the Big Dogs.
    So only people who can afford welfare should receive welfare? Got it.

    BTW, *everybody* pays taxes just not necessarily Fed. Income Tax.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    There is something to be said for many conservatives complaining about welfare while collecting it themselves. I remember an acquaintance of mine whose farmer-father used to rail about welfare and its evils, and then grew furious when his son pointed out that his large farming subsidies were just another form of welfare.

    Though considering how incompetent liberals are with anything remotely economic, one might be able to excuse such conservative hypocrisy.
    It's OK to get government money if you pay taxes--if you don't pay taxes then it's a sin to get it. And it's especially respectable, even laudable, to get back way more than you pay in for the Big Dogs.
    Last edited by Jannie; 03 Mar 16, 03:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Talking about wigs - anyone believe that's his real hair ?

    Or hers for that matter ?
    I have a friend who dyes her hair purple. A sister in law does hers in a reddish pink darker than Trump’s hair. I think coloring your hair for older folks is sort of like tattoos with the younger bunch. It’s almost universally done nowadays, and not just in a blue rinse! But then I also know a lady who has tattooed eyebrows and lashes. Fake is very in. And Gray is sooooo aging!

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    I get the impression from my readings of American political commentary that a great many conservative Americans believe the line that all welfare is some kind of unprincipled bribe by the progressive side to garner votes.
    There is something to be said for many conservatives complaining about welfare while collecting it themselves. I remember an acquaintance of mine whose farmer-father used to rail about welfare and its evils, and then grew furious when his son pointed out that his large farming subsidies were just another form of welfare.

    Though considering how incompetent liberals are with anything remotely economic, one might be able to excuse such conservative hypocrisy.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    I get the impression from my readings of American political commentary that a great many conservative Americans believe the line that all welfare is some kind of unprincipled bribe by the progressive side to garner votes.

    Are you seriously suggesting there are no mortgaged, well-paid, tax-paying democrats?

    Regards lodestar
    Well, the Progressives, like Economist Naomi Klein say it is. In fact, she advocates turning owners into renters as a way to increase Progressive Leftist support.

    Of course there are mortgaged, well-paid, Democrats. But, they are what's usually called "limousine liberals." That is, they can afford to be Progressive because they aren't generally effected by idiotic massive government policy. They have sufficient money to not feel its effects on the whole.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Republicans and Democrats

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Poor old Barney might really be surprised by how negatively many Hispanics see the Democrats once they actually start making money and paying taxes. Nothing makes a Democrat into a Republican faster than getting a mortgage, owning a home, and having a decent paying job.
    I'll give that the majority of the non-career criminal / gangster illegals really want exactly that and when they can get it they'll go Middle Class Conservative in a heartbeat.

    The only way to get them to vote Progressive Democrat is to turn the US into a failed Socialist mediocre state like Mexico is. Do that and they go home after sending enough cash there to live like kings.
    I get the impression from my readings of American political commentary that a great many conservative Americans believe the line that all welfare is some kind of unprincipled bribe by the progressive side to garner votes.

    Are you seriously suggesting there are no mortgaged, well-paid, tax-paying democrats?

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    I would disagree with one thing you've said. I see the opposite happening. The Democrats power structure is based upon taking money from one segment of the society, and using it to buy the votes of the other segment. If you look at Democratic voters, 2/3rds of them are receiving some sort of check from Uncle Sam. The number of people drawing some kind of check from some governmental entity somewhere is increasing all the time. With every new check recipient, that makes for one more, potential, Democrat voter.

    Then you add into the mix all the illegal aliens flooding over the border, that the Dems want to turn into full blown citizens, and therefore Democrat voters, you have a combination that is going to be almost unbeatable. Barney Frank has said that their reason for letting all those illegals in is to create a voting block that can never be beaten. Look at states that used to be Republican locks for Electoral votes, Texas, Florida, California, that have either become toss up states because of the increasing Hispanic vote, or are going to become more and more Hispanic, and by extension of that, become more Democrat every election.
    Poor old Barney might really be surprised by how negatively many Hispanics see the Democrats once they actually start making money and paying taxes. Nothing makes a Democrat into a Republican faster than getting a mortgage, owning a home, and having a decent paying job.
    I'll give that the majority of the non-career criminal / gangster illegals really want exactly that and when they can get it they'll go Middle Class Conservative in a heartbeat.

    The only way to get them to vote Progressive Democrat is to turn the US into a failed Socialist mediocre state like Mexico is. Do that and they go home after sending enough cash there to live like kings.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X