Are Republicans "trying" to lose the 2016 presidential race?

[rightwinger]

So far I've learned that if the republicans ever want to win another election they have to become democrats. I hope the GOP utilizes this insightful and helpful advice.

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

 

[JoeB131]

It sure seems that way. Of course the "conservatives" will tell you the reason they keep losing is because they haven't been "conservative" enough...a position not borne out by a single poll, but I think they should go with that plan anyway. Be MORE conservative. That'll do it!

I think the thing is, Conservatives have probably gotten tired of supporting "moderates" who end up losing anyway. Their only two successes in the last four decades have been guys who were unapologetically conservative - Reagan and Dubya Bush.

The reality is that you will always have that 47% that will vote Republican, that 47% that will always vote Democrat, and that 6% in the middle that votes not on idealogical ground, but on who they feel more comfortable with.

I submit Romney lost because he frequently came off as phony or insensitive, not because people rejected his idealogy.

McCain lost because he came off as the angry old guy who chases kids off his lawn.

Kerry Lost because he changed his positions so many time, you didn't know what he stood for.

Gore lost (or didn't win convincingly enough) because he came off as passionless.

And so on.

The Republicans run a likable guy who comes off as a leader, and Democrats nominate, oh, let's say, a shrill, 70 year old woman, they have a good chance of winning despite idealogy.

 

[Seawytch]

you mean like the black congressional caucus? Oh wait the feds gerrymandered it for them, never mind

That isn't a district darlin' that's a caucus like the Tea Party or progressive Caucus. Not at all the same thing.

its a collection of districts ( members);


The Congressional Black Caucus is an organization representing the black members of the United States Congress. Membership is exclusive to African-Americans,[1] and its chair in the 113th Congress is Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio.
Congressional Black Caucus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that represent districts that are apportioned safely African american due to the civil rights voting acts.......Hon.......

Show that those districts were gerrymandered into existence. Yes, gerrymandering has gone on by both parties. California used to one of the biggest gerrymandering states and it was done by Democrats...but no longer. California did something about its gerrymandering problem, taking the redistricting out of the hand of partisan politicians.

In the "both sides do it" category however, one side is a much worse offender.
Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth

And look, an article that expresses exactly what I said...Republicans may have gerrymandered themselves into a corner.

Has gerrymandering backfired on Republicans?

And maybe it hasn't backfired...maybe the GOP has given up ever winning the Presidency.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Being a reactionary is as nasty as being a liberal. A reactionary is an extreme conservative.

Reactionary From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re·ac·tion·ar·y (r-ksh-nr) adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative. n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative. reactionary - definition of reactionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession. Capitalism is “boring,” he told me. “Devoting your life to it,” as conservatives do, “is horrifying if only because it’s so repetitious. It’s like sex.” Since that conversation ten years ago, I’ve been asking what is conservatism and what’s at stake for its proponents. This book is my answer. From the French Revolution to the Tea Party, conservatism has been a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace. Book | Corey Robin

Thats an old definition and is not applicable to conservatives of today. No one wants to return to the past.

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish resorts to personal attack because he can't refute that he is a reactionary. He wants to the majority to embrace his political viewpoints that embrace a previous status quo and resists (reacts) to challenges from below by women, homosexuals, minorities, and immigrants. Those days of white euro-centric ultra protestant and masculine domination of the society are gone forever.

His problem, no one else.

I believe that mainstream Republicanism can get loose from the fetters of Redfish's vision of party and country in order to embrace positively the needs of all in our society.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish resorts to personal attack because he can't refute that he is a reactionary.

His problem, no one else.

I am not a reactionary by the definition that you posted. Neither are most conservatives. I know that you think you are a creative little wizard because you continue to use a word that has no meaning in the real world. But all it does is make you look like more of a partisan idiot than you usually do.

but keep it up, the party of the KKK appreciates your help, democrats like it when you post their lies and talking points. the only problem is that more and more americans are seeing though the fog of dem/lib bullshit.

 

[Dot Com]

Being a reactionary is as nasty as being a liberal. A reactionary is an extreme conservative.

Reactionary From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re·ac·tion·ar·y (r-ksh-nr) adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative. n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative. reactionary - definition of reactionary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession. Capitalism is “boring,” he told me. “Devoting your life to it,” as conservatives do, “is horrifying if only because it’s so repetitious. It’s like sex.” Since that conversation ten years ago, I’ve been asking what is conservatism and what’s at stake for its proponents. This book is my answer. From the French Revolution to the Tea Party, conservatism has been a reactionary movement, a defense of power and privilege against democratic challenges from below, particularly in the private spheres of the family and the workplace. Book | Corey Robin

Thats an old definition and is not applicable to conservatives of today. No one wants to return to the past.

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

It must be maddening for you to watch your party pander to the eXtreme Right KNOWING that it will sink them in the end because the demographics just aren't there to sustain that "hate-wing" of the party. Add to that the eXtreme RW cheerleaders on this site & its a recipe for disappointment.

 

[Redfish]

Thats an old definition and is not applicable to conservatives of today. No one wants to return to the past.

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

It must be maddening for you to watch your party pander to the eXtreme Right KNOWING that it will sink them in the end because the demographics just aren't there to sustain that "hate-wing" of the party. Add to that the eXtreme RW cheerleaders on this site & its a recipe for disappointment.

and exactly who are obama and holder pandering to as they try to find some way to punish zimmerman after the jury found him innocent? the middle? Nope, the far left and the race baiters.

those assholes don't give a shit about the legal system or whats right and wrong, its all about dividing the country and punishing anyone who does not kowtow to the marxists in DC.

 

[Dot Com]

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

It must be maddening for you to watch your party pander to the eXtreme Right KNOWING that it will sink them in the end because the demographics just aren't there to sustain that "hate-wing" of the party. Add to that the eXtreme RW cheerleaders on this site & its a recipe for disappointment.

and exactly who are obama and holder pandering to as they try to find some way to punish zimmerman after the jury found him innocent? the middle? Nope, the far left and the race baiters.

those assholes don't give a shit about the legal system or whats right and wrong, its all about dividing the country and punishing anyone who does not kowtow to the marxists in DC.

In case you hadn't noticed there smart guy, the Democrats are a coalition of people from all walks of life. The Republicans? Not so much (angry white guys and their "submissive" [Bachmann's (R) words ] women folk) who need men in the legislature to tell them what they can and can't do Want me to quote Lindsay Graham (R)?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thats an old definition and is not applicable to conservatives of today. No one wants to return to the past.

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

It must be maddening for you to watch your party pander to the eXtreme Right KNOWING that it will sink them in the end because the demographics just aren't there to sustain that "hate-wing" of the party. Add to that the eXtreme RW cheerleaders on this site & its a recipe for disappointment.

Not at all. A few steps each day to party sanity as we have been isolating and marginalizing the reactionary right. Part of the issue is that the neo-cons and corporatists have been funding the social traditionalists (their last hurrah being the votes that elected Bush), but that money has been slowing down.

The reactionaries will try one last time next year but will fall far short, and then in 2016 Christie and the mainstream will put an end to the crazies.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It sure seems that way. Of course the "conservatives" will tell you the reason they keep losing is because they haven't been "conservative" enough...a position not borne out by a single poll, but I think they should go with that plan anyway. Be MORE conservative. That'll do it!

I think the thing is, Conservatives have probably gotten tired of supporting "moderates" who end up losing anyway. Their only two successes in the last four decades have been guys who were unapologetically conservative - Reagan and Dubya Bush.

The reality is that you will always have that 47% that will vote Republican, that 47% that will always vote Democrat, and that 6% in the middle that votes not on idealogical ground, but on who they feel more comfortable with.

I submit Romney lost because he frequently came off as phony or insensitive, not because people rejected his idealogy.

McCain lost because he came off as the angry old guy who chases kids off his lawn.

Kerry Lost because he changed his positions so many time, you didn't know what he stood for.

Gore lost (or didn't win convincingly enough) because he came off as passionless.

And so on.

The Republicans run a likable guy who comes off as a leader, and Democrats nominate, oh, let's say, a shrill, 70 year old woman, they have a good chance of winning despite idealogy.

You may be right. It may be more about personality, charisma, looks, and perceptions than it is about ideology.

Maybe all the demographic polls are just a lot of hot air.

It's hard to swallow - but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

So far I've learned that if the republicans ever want to win another election they have to become democrats. I hope the GOP utilizes this insightful and helpful advice.

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Those are accurate definitions for our time that recognize a reactionary to be an extreme conservative with all the horrible baggage that goes with it, from the 18th to the 21st centuries.

You don't get to pick and choose your definitions. You are a reactionary. Embrace it.

It must be maddening for you to watch your party pander to the eXtreme Right KNOWING that it will sink them in the end because the demographics just aren't there to sustain that "hate-wing" of the party. Add to that the eXtreme RW cheerleaders on this site & its a recipe for disappointment.

Not at all. A few steps each day to party sanity as we have been isolating and marginalizing the reactionary right. Part of the issue is that the neo-cons and corporatists have been funding the social traditionalists (their last hurrah being the votes that elected Bush), but that money has been slowing down.

The reactionaries will try one last time next year but will fall far short, and then in 2016 Christie and the mainstream will put an end to the crazies.

Since 2004 - I've heard the "he lost because he's not conservative enough" excuse. I wish the GOP would just nominate Rand Paul, or Sarah Palin, or whoever they can find whose "conservative creditials" are beyond question. See what happens.

They will either take over the GOP completely (if they win) or disappear into irrelevance (if they get creamed). But just take away the excuse and be done with it.

 

[rightwinger]

Redfish resorts to personal attack because he can't refute that he is a reactionary.

His problem, no one else.

I am not a reactionary by the definition that you posted. Neither are most conservatives. I know that you think you are a creative little wizard because you continue to use a word that has no meaning in the real world. But all it does is make you look like more of a partisan idiot than you usually do.

but keep it up, the party of the KKK appreciates your help, democrats like it when you post their lies and talking points. the only problem is that more and more americans are seeing though the fog of dem/lib bullshit.

Democrats were the chosen party of most KKK members 50 years ago

Guess which party they prefer right now?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So far I've learned that if the republicans ever want to win another election they have to become democrats. I hope the GOP utilizes this insightful and helpful advice.

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

Grover Norquist, Vander Plaats, FreedomWorks, Susan B. Anthony List ... among the right wingers who demand GOP candidates sign pledges in return for their support. The far right has targeted GOP moderates and "primaried rhinos". They have become an increasingly intolerant group (the far right).

I haven't seen moderate democrats facing anywhere near the same kind of pressure from the far left.

 

[Flopper]

So far I've learned that if the republicans ever want to win another election they have to become democrats. I hope the GOP utilizes this insightful and helpful advice.

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

No one expects them to become Democrats. They just have to address the concerns of the people rather than just pursue a political ideology. In the last election, 73% of the Blacks, 71% of Latinos, and 55% of the women voted democrat. 60% of the younger voters group,18-29 went Democrat. If Republicans are to win presidential elections, they have to shed the image of a party dominated by older white males looking to turn the clock back.

 

[rightwinger]

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

No one expects them to become Democrats. They just have to address the concerns of the people rather than just pursue a political ideology. In the last election, 73% of the Blacks, 71% of Latinos, and 55% of the women voted democrat. 60% of the younger voters group,18-29 went Democrat. If Republicans are to win presidential elections, they have to shed the image of a party dominated by older white males looking to turn the clock back.

Republicans have shown every intention of continuing positions that are hostile to those groups

That is why their days are numbered

 

[Redfish]

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

No one expects them to become Democrats. They just have to address the concerns of the people rather than just pursue a political ideology. In the last election, 73% of the Blacks, 71% of Latinos, and 55% of the women voted democrat. 60% of the younger voters group,18-29 went Democrat. If Republicans are to win presidential elections, they have to shed the image of a party dominated by older white males looking to turn the clock back.

Republicans have shown every intention of continuing positions that are hostile to those groups

That is why their days are numbered

well, shit. lets just shut the party down then and give 100% control of the government to the progressive democrats. would that make you happy? dictatorial control of the entire govt by one party. Can you say third reich?

careful what you wish for RW

 

[Dot Com]

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

No one expects them to become Democrats. They just have to address the concerns of the people rather than just pursue a political ideology. In the last election, 73% of the Blacks, 71% of Latinos, and 55% of the women voted democrat. 60% of the younger voters group,18-29 went Democrat. If Republicans are to win presidential elections, they have to shed the image of a party dominated by older white males looking to turn the clock back.

Republicans have shown every intention of continuing positions that are hostile to those groups

That is why their days are numbered

Sadly, they have no choice. The only other people who'll vote for them are the wealthy & there are only so many of those. Can't win Presidential elections w/ just the wealthy & angry old white guys.

 

[Redfish]

More reason why Republicans can't win in 2016...

They have this childish criteria that if you do not agree with the Conservatives 100% then you are a democrat.

A Republican who supports Republican positions 8 out of 10 times is still Republican. Olympia Snowe was still a Republican, driving her out of office mean't a Democrat took her seat.

A Republican can believe in Global Warming and still be Republican
A Republican can support Healthcare reform and still be Republican
A Republican can support immigration reform and still be Republican

Driving out members who are willing to compromise only opens up opportunities for Democrats

This idea that if republicans don't turn into democrats then they will be replaced by democrats is certainly an interesting warning.
Republicans do support Healthcare reform (just not your version of it). Portable Health insurance, getting rid of government imposed payment rates, ect.
I don't know of one republican that doesn't support immigration reform (again, perhaps not your version of it).
As for global warming, I don't know of any elected republican being kicked out of their seats for their views on global warming. Actually, outside of a few far left "news" sites, nobody is talking about global warming.
Now, let's talk about the moderate democrats (blue dogs) that are being excoriated by their own president,party,media for disagreeing with the left's view on gun control. Two can play this game.

No one expects them to become Democrats. They just have to address the concerns of the people rather than just pursue a political ideology. In the last election, 73% of the Blacks, 71% of Latinos, and 55% of the women voted democrat. 60% of the younger voters group,18-29 went Democrat. If Republicans are to win presidential elections, they have to shed the image of a party dominated by older white males looking to turn the clock back.

what they need is a charasmatic candidate who is not afraid to tell the truth to the american voters.

strategically they need to learn to use social media and "profiling" like the dems did in order to get their message to the target groups.

the conservative small govt message is a good one. but they need to overcome the corrupt left wing media and drive the message home in spite of the media lies.