Why The Republicans Will Never Win Another National Election

Interesting OP. Interesting. I don't really like the electoral voting system we have. It should just be total votes. It would be much better that way.

I agree that there isn't much difference between Hillary and Bush, except for the small details. Like LGBT rights...Hillary is different than Bush there. Environmental issues and Global Warming...Hillary is different than Bush there as well.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Her past is rapidly catching up with her, and the almost daily hits will take a toll. Like I posted, lotsa time left for the voters to view her as a liability rather than asset:

www.realclearpolitics.com...

nypost.com...

www.salon.com...

Have you ever reviewed George Bush's past before he was elected....He had an illegal sale of his energy company before it went bankrupt....Daddy became president and poof that went away....I don't want to type it all but if interested take a peak into his past and tell me it is half of what Hillary is going through...

Point being? Their past doesn't matter.....The only thing that would condemn her is if she was arrested and that isn't happening...

I guess the past doesn't matter to low-info voters, whether buying into the Donald's blather or BHO's promises in 08' and 12'. The same argument has been made by countless posters in reference to BHO, that attempt to justify his actions with the standard: "Bush did it!". Is that the current accepted criteria for POTUS hopefuls? The ability to gloss over past snafus, cover up misdeeds?

Clinton is slimy as hell, but is seen as a viable candidate due to her gender, not past performance. Without made-up witch hunts by the right, HRC is and will be exposed for the charlatan she is. Once the facade is stripped, and her past associations and actions laid bare, the public will voice their opinion, and vote accordingly.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Sorry I think you are mistaking me saying that as a defense for Hillary......There is 1 and ONLY 1 time I would vote for Hillary....If it is a Bush/Hillary ticket and I was FORCED to vote.....Because I will stay home instead if those are my choices....

Sorry if I am coming off as defending her, I am saying nothing will happen (legally).....Pretty significant difference in my eyes really

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: roadgravel

Jeb needs to get in so he can bomb Iraq some more.

Obama beat him to it already.

And their hating him because he isn't doing more of it. He's is a bad man because he didn't keep enough of our boys in Iraq after every cried that they needed to be brought home.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Her past is rapidly catching up with her, and the almost daily hits will take a toll. Like I posted, lotsa time left for the voters to view her as a liability rather than asset:

www.realclearpolitics.com...

nypost.com...

www.salon.com...

Have you ever reviewed George Bush's past before he was elected....He had an illegal sale of his energy company before it went bankrupt....Daddy became president and poof that went away....I don't want to type it all but if interested take a peak into his past and tell me it is half of what Hillary is going through...

Point being? Their past doesn't matter.....The only thing that would condemn her is if she was arrested and that isn't happening...

I guess the past doesn't matter to low-info voters, whether buying into the Donald's blather or BHO's promises in 08' and 12'. The same argument has been made by countless posters in reference to BHO, that attempt to justify his actions with the standard: "Bush did it!". Is that the current accepted criteria for POTUS hopefuls? The ability to gloss over past snafus, cover up misdeeds?

Clinton is slimy as hell, but is seen as a viable candidate due to her gender, not past performance. Without made-up witch hunts by the right, HRC is and will be exposed for the charlatan she is. Once the facade is stripped, and her past associations and actions laid bare, the public will voice their opinion, and vote accordingly.

Based on this post, I'm assuming your republican. I always like the ad-hominem argument of low-info voter. All because it goes against your party. I guess we should just start calling people like you ignorant-voters and before you assume I side with Democrats, I hate all politicians equally.

a reply to: introvert

The prblem I see is that too many are locked into voting "red" or "blue" without giving any thought to why.

A better person would cross all ideologies and parties.

But we don't nominate a better person.

We nominate someone who will appeal to their own specific ideology.

I expect 8 more years of the same.

A poor economy, a terrible foreign policy, high unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, more dependent on government dole.

And people will cheer, and celebrate.

And other will weep.

And nothing ever changes.

Every State is both Blue and Red no matter what the national maps show, and in many, it's much closer than the Reds are comfortable with. Demographics are shifting.

But given the current well-organized gerrymandering efforts of the Republicans (REDMAP) with nothing to thrwart that on the Democratic side (because they seem to believe that there is something wrong with actually organizing at the State level, /sigh), I expect the Reds to keep a majority at the local level and the Blues to keep it nationally at least for the next decade.

That is, unless the Reds figure out a way to monkey with the Electoral College ... then all bets are off.

You can bet you'll hear more in coming years about the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment; the Reds would love to have their stacked State Houses elect our Senate.


Who knows, though? I still fear that the US is just psychotic enough to put Trump in office ...

Despite all the drum-banging from the little Reds here, a Hillary Presidency will be a win for the "Defense" industry, big banks, and most of the large corporations ... which looks a lot like a Bush III Presidency, a Walker Presidency (wait a minute, I've got to quit laughing so hard I can't type), et. al.

At worst, in a Hillary Presidency, the Right might have to give up an Equal Opportunity measure nationally restricting discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity.

I expect not a lot more than Status Quo all round.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I am in total agreement on the Bush/Clinton option. No apologies necessary, and I too think she will continue to legally evade any repercussions. When I look at the assembled current candidates, I see retreads, never-have-beens, and out of touch opportunists. IMO, Sanders and Carson are the only people that seem sincere in their vision for a improved Country, and seem to have a connection with everyday Joes like myself. One things for sure: based on the last debate, the Republicans will provide much entertainment in the months to come.

BTW--the discussion we had isn't a possibility on many forums, as it would have devolved into slurs and name-calling. Thanks!

The current Democrat party is all about race and gender. Bernie is an economic issue candidate. Hillary knows how to beat that other drum.

The Republicans are all over the place. It'll shake out to maybe, 8 candidates by real primary time, early 2016. At this point it's like the Indy 500 only not only has the race not started yet, the drivers aren't at the track. So, early is an understatement.

If I was handicapping, I still like Jeb for the long-haul and Carly as VP. She can play that attack dog mode very well, and that's what the VP candidate role typically is, allowing the top of the ticket to remain above the real mud.

Trump is beholden to no one, and sooner or later people are going to blink and say, "Hey, wait a minute. This guy is beholden to nobody. He can be all-in for himself and no one else and oh my God, that greedy bastard with free rein?"

I think he fades.

I still see Jeb bush winning the president seat and keep on the obama,bush,clinton policies.

The Republicans have been working at the grass-roots level on the Black vote for years, and have seen some success.

The strongest wedge issue they have now is Christianity, and that's actually, even I have to admit, an amazing strategy.

The GOP is working to resolve its internal squeamishness over Blacks and Catholics, but I think the Latino issue is just too much for them.

Guess what the fastest growing demographic STILL is.

I do, however, expect to see Sinclair Lewis declared a prophet any day now. Religion is a very powerful political force (which is why the Founders tried to restrict its effect on the state.)

a reply to: amicktd

You assume wrong. It always cracks me up when voters that are entranced with false promises and shell appearances are tagged with that moniker, and offense is taken. I vote for the best candidate for the position, based on previous voting history, platform, and bio. I take the responsibility of voting seriously, researching and voting across party lines. If that's your definition of an ignorant-voter, you would be in the minority.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

After reviewing your post again, I feel I read it wrong so I apologize. But, I still feel the low-info voter argument is a bunch of hogwash.

originally posted by: amicktd
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

After reviewing your post again, I feel I read it wrong so I apologize. But, I still feel the low-info voter argument is a bunch of hogwash.

No worries--you, as I are here posting our opinions on the subject. I understand your vehemence with the tag of low-info voter, but I felt it apt when describing voters swayed by superficial candidate promises, partisan voting, or voting solely on race or gender. I am of the opinion if the voting populace performed due diligence of all candidates, we might elect those who truly seek what is best for this country. It might be naive on my part, but one can hope, no?

a reply to: Gryphon66


I don't have much faith in the electoral process anymore. All those hanging chads beat it out of me.

And with the advent of early voting on Diebold e-machines; Jeb has it in the bag....

I do, however, expect to see Sinclair Lewis declared a prophet any day now. Religion is a very powerful political force (which is why the Founders tried to restrict its effect on the state.)

The reference probably goes over most members heads....

a reply to: beezzer

The prblem I see is that too many are locked into voting "red" or "blue" without giving any thought to why.

That seems to be how the majority vote in my area. They vote for a party because they listen to the propaganda from some talking heads. Ask them why they dislike a politician and they can't say why or something that is actually true.

God (the right one), war and hating the less fortunate are the way it is meant to be with them.

a reply to: olaru12

Oh, I hear you. Whether one likes Al Gore or not ... 500,000 more American citizens voted for him instead of GW Bush.

Sinclair Lewis reference: Yes, I know, but I am hopeful that a few might Google and learn something.

a reply to: roadgravel

That seems to be how the majority vote in my area. They vote for a party because they listen to the propaganda from some talking heads. Ask them why they dislike a politician and they can't say why or something that is actually true.

I've experienced this quite a bit as well.

Too many people are mis/under-informed.

originally posted by: Daedal
At this point I don't think it much matters who the president is, either democrat or republican.

Some time ago someone created a thread called 'Same crap, different shovel'...

Nothing else to say really.

Often times I wonder when I see a post such as yours with only one star.

How is it possible that on a forum such as ATS, so many appear to be completely oblivious to reality?

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Joseph Stalin

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer

Yes, you are wrong. I just said that I'd like both parties to get their tickets handed to them, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

well no you said you wanted hillary and all the republicans stomped....sounds like you want a bernie win so a democrat leadership AGAIN after the last disastrous 8 years?