Jump to content

Alright, who else here is voting for THE DONALD?


Recommended Posts

Btw, the recent CNN and Monmouth polls had Trump up by even more with evangelicals.

 

Where have you been? The "Why are evangelicals supporting Trump and leaving Cruz?" has been a regular rotation news item for at least a few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kurgan laying down some motherf-cking TRUTH right here.   Preach it.

Good lord. Two threads, same comment. Let's slam Trump for the Duke thing. Who else is that guy gonna endorse?   If you force feed PC bullshit down American throats, Donald Trump is what you get.

Posted Images

Link?

Already posted one in this thread. If you couldn't be bothered to read that, I doubt you can be bothered to follow a second or third link. Plus, it's not not like Trump's inexplicable growing evangelical support hasn't already been covered by mainstream news sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, the recent CNN and Monmouth polls had Trump up by even more with evangelicals.

 

Where have you been? The "Why are evangelicals supporting Trump and leaving Cruz?" has been a regular rotation news item for at least a few weeks.

Well I guess I took Ender's post to mean that he was labeling Trump as the evangelical candidate, like he was "their guy." When that's not really the case, Carson was their guy, and then Cruz. Now it may be the case that evangelicals are finally getting to the point where they're abandoning Cruz, but that probably has less to do with issue support, and more with the natural tendency to support a winner and who has the momentum. Nobody wants to be the last man on a sinking ship, after all. It's the same thing as in 2012, Romney was killing it by late March, winning every state, and I don't think anyone would suggest he was the evangelical's standard bearer. Santorum was just done by then. The hard evangelical support is probably still sticking with Cruz, at least for the time being. Super Tuesday may be his last stand.

 

Also, why are you being so testy? Sorry, I missed your link... christ :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

How many more election cycles are we going to have to go through before the GOP abandons the evangelicals altogether. Unless you adhere to their narrow world view verbatim, they piss and moan how they will leave the GOP and form their own party. Talk about a loser of a voting block. It's makes about as much political sense to go after the evangelical vote in 2016 as as courting the Quaker and the Amish vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An article in support of Pong's words:

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/467366313/liar-liar-pants-on-fire-cruz-hopes-to-overcome-bitter-accusations-with-faith?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160219

 

 

But much to his frustration, Cruz is still competing with Donald Trump — the thrice-married billionaire with no problem cursing on the campaign trail — for white, born-again Christians. And the mudslinging between him and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio that has enveloped the race's final hours may also be denting Cruz as his rivals try to paint him as a liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many more election cycles are we going to have to go through before the GOP abandons the evangelicals altogether. Unless you adhere to their narrow world view verbatim, they piss and moan how they will leave the GOP and form their own party. Talk about a loser of a voting block. It's makes about as much political sense to go after the evangelical vote in 2016 as as courting the Quaker and the Amish vote.

I personally don't understand why the GOP clings to them. I assume it's because the leadership is still made up of old white rich Jesusy dudes. It's seemed blatantly obvious to me, (especially as I get older and make more money) that the Republicans could easily win any elections if they had a candidate that was fiscally responsible and socially progressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's seemed blatantly obvious to me, (especially as I get older and make more money) that the Republicans could easily win any elections if they had a candidate that was fiscally responsible and socially progressive.

I don't know the dynamics of East Coast elections, but I do know that at least right now, without a truly lucky break (spectacular candidate, celebrity power, a "throw all the bums out" election, etc.), even a socially moderate/progressive Republican can NOT win on the state level in Oregon or California, and to a lesser extent Washington.

 

Take, for example, Chris Dudley. He was a pro-choice, keep-the-government-out-of-your-bedroom, fiscally responsible Republican. He also had celebrity power (former NBA player -- including with the Portland Trailblazers), charm, and was able to articulate his positions in an appealing way with relative clarity.

 

Should be a slam dunk, right? No, he lost to a scandal-plagued retread of a governor (who eventually had to retire due to ethics violations), and the once popular sports figure was portrayed 24/7 as an anti-abortion, gay-hating extremist (lol! Guess he was just lying about his positions?) who wants your grandmother to die and your children to starve so he can line his fatcat buddy's pockets! Kitzhaber won, though it was closer than usual.

 

A common tagline after that election was "If Kitzhaber can win, is there any Democrat in Oregon who can lose?"

 

The Democratic machine is just too powerful, and the dominant culture too unified in hating Republicans for them to win outside of a perfect storm. Even a moderate is going to be portrayed as "secret Ted Cruz."

 

So if you want to win statewide or nationally, and you are a Republican, you have to go in knowing there are:

 

1) some places you are just not going to win unless you are a great candidate -- and -- get lucky.

2) some places you will win unless you are an absolutely terrible and unlucky candidate

3) places that you can win if you are a decent candidate and campaign hard, but only if you get support of the religious/social conservative crowd, since disdain, even hatred of you from the non-religious/socially liberal crowd means they will NEVER vote for you... so if you wanna win, you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

If some of the recent polls are to be believed, Trump may have unearthed a lost cache of the old "Reagan Democrats" who were thought to be extinct; but even so the demographic reality is that there are just a lot of places the GOP needs the Bible Thumper/Cleti blocs to vote if they want any hope of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

How many more election cycles are we going to have to go through before the GOP abandons the evangelicals altogether. Unless you adhere to their narrow world view verbatim, they piss and moan how they will leave the GOP and form their own party. Talk about a loser of a voting block. It's makes about as much political sense to go after the evangelical vote in 2016 as as courting the Quaker and the Amish vote.

I personally don't understand why the GOP clings to them. I assume it's because the leadership is still made up of old white rich Jesusy dudes. It's seemed blatantly obvious to me, (especially as I get older and make more money) that the Republicans could easily win any elections if they had a candidate that was fiscally responsible and socially progressive.

 

I totally agree. Evangelicals are a shrinking and aging group. If you want to take your political party into the future, you go with growing groups and trends, and change with the times. For a party that is supposed to be representative of business, it's odd that they don't seem to grasp that, the most basic of business models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's been no secret for awhile that even many in the GOP despise those people, but the fact is, they've painted themselves into a corner, and need to pander at least somewhat.

 

Because no matter how many teary-eyed manchildren Kasich hugs, no matter how many times he reassures voters he is not going to throw poor people out into the streets to die, no matter how often he touts his record, and even if he were pro-choice (he's not), there are a lot of people -- especially minorities and women -- who will never, ever vote for him, because of the GOP association with evangelicals -- so might as well make sure you are still palatable to the religious folk.

 

Generally speaking, Repubs are slowly but surely starting to creep away from social issues and they are at least acknowledging that they need to sidle up to other demographics, but IMO flat out dumping the Cleti bloc would require being OK with losing an election cycle or two -- and considering they have 31 governors to the Dem's 18, and they haven't had as big of a congressional majority as they do today in 85 years, why do that? Right now, for all the talk about how the GOP is "shrinking into oblivion" or "torn apart by ideological differences," the truth is, they're crushing it -- sadly, they just don't need our votes, so they don't need to adopt policies we'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what pong said, Tank. Most of us in the moneyed GOP class (minus some true believers in the South) don't believe in any of that crazy sh-t. In fact, most of us (as pong said) aren't even particularly coy about openly disliking the bible thumping mouth breathers. But at the end of the day, a little bit of coded language wins you those voters with minimum effort. Whereas not even the most reasonable GOP candidate in the world is going to win in some blue state areas (as pong brings up, Chris Dudley is a great example of this- I would add that he had not only a substantial fundraising advantage, but was also running against a freaking criminal for goodness' sake). The problem is simply things have gotten so polarized, some people in the country just will not vote for you in any circumstance whatsoever, since the GOP is not their "brand."

 

So might as well pick up the Cletus bloc. Basically see my signature quote from LBJ. It's simple and it works. That plus a few suburban areas in swing states is enough to win a national election, assuming a halfway decent candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing that pong brought up that I thought was interesting- I do think it might be more polarized on the West Coast than the East. You do see the right type of Republicans winning in the East- Charlie Baker in Massachusetts (2014), or Scott Brown earlier in 2010. Susan Collins in Maine (and Olympia Snowe before her). Speaking of Maine, Paul LePage. Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. Christie in NJ. Larry Hogan in Maryland. Even New York has a long history of GOP governors, senators and a fair number of mayors in NYC (although currently Dems- NY is probably the closest to being as polarized as the West). Trump to some degree is actually a decent example of this and the type of issue stances and style that could get you elected in NY (with some of the nativist themes toned down of course). It makes perfect sense that someone like Trump would come out NYC, but I could never see the same type of guy emerge out of say, Portland or Seattle. Too passive-aggressive in those areas for a guy like that to flourish there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get some of the people going around stating that it is the end of the GOP because Jeb dropped out. Sure he paraded his brother around SC but W. has basically withdrawn from society anyways. It's like they should be wearing black because it looks like Trump's locking this up.

 

I read somewhere something interesting concerning some typically Democratic voters crossing over because of Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Basically what pong said, Tank. Most of us in the moneyed GOP class (minus some true believers in the South) don't believe in any of that crazy sh-t. In fact, most of us (as pong said) aren't even particularly coy about openly disliking the bible thumping mouth breathers. But at the end of the day, a little bit of coded language wins you those voters with minimum effort. Whereas not even the most reasonable GOP candidate in the world is going to win in some blue state areas (as pong brings up, Chris Dudley is a great example of this- I would add that he had not only a substantial fundraising advantage, but was also running against a freaking criminal for goodness' sake). The problem is simply things have gotten so polarized, some people in the country just will not vote for you in any circumstance whatsoever, since the GOP is not their "brand."

 

So might as well pick up the Cletus bloc. Basically see my signature quote from LBJ. It's simple and it works. That plus a few suburban areas in swing states is enough to win a national election, assuming a halfway decent candidate.

That works in the here and now. However, what I am talking about is 30-50 years down the road, where the GOP is all but politically impotent (if it even exists at all by that point). Evangelicals are a shrinking as the US gets more secular year after year. In 50 years , whites will be the minority in key states that no president can win an election without, if not the nation as a whole. The GOP over years of mishandling have lost the African American vote forever, and likely have with the Latino vote. The evangelicals are becoming so obstinate that their all or nothing political views on abortion, gays, or immigration are causing them to either stay home or threaten to form their own party (IE did you ever think Limbaugh and Hannity especially since he's catholic would be bashing the Pope, simply because he is a liberal one?).

 

The simple fact is that the GOP needs to rip the band aid off now and disassociate themselves from the Jerry Fallwells, Pat Robertsons, the evangelicals, and racists they have been appealing to. It may cost them an election cycle or two, but if they wait too long, it will never make a difference. Now, at least, they have a shot of making a come back with those groups who won't vote GOP. The idea of "we might as well pick up the flat Earthers, evolution deniers, and KKK voting blocks with coded language since no one else will," is both self defeating, damages the long term survival. It legitimizes and gives voice to people who really don't need to have a voice, and it's literally like giving political legitimacy and voice to ISIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing that pong brought up that I thought was interesting- I do think it might be more polarized on the West Coast than the East. You do see the right type of Republicans winning in the East- Charlie Baker in Massachusetts (2014), or Scott Brown earlier in 2010. Susan Collins in Maine (and Olympia Snowe before her). Speaking of Maine, Paul LePage. Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. Christie in NJ. Larry Hogan in Maryland. Even New York has a long history of GOP governors, senators and a fair number of mayors in NYC (although currently Dems- NY is probably the closest to being as polarized as the West). Trump to some degree is actually a decent example of this and the type of issue stances and style that could get you elected in NY (with some of the nativist themes toned down of course). It makes perfect sense that someone like Trump would come out NYC, but I could never see the same type of guy emerge out of say, Portland or Seattle. Too passive-aggressive in those areas for a guy like that to flourish there.

The thing that's odd about the west coast is that we're actually pretty divided, we just have liberal mecca cities with populations and electoral votes that offset the countryside. I've lived in Seattle, Portland and now Los Angeles and all of them have been super liberal, even when I was a kid. Portland in the 80s was just as gay-friendly and arts oriented as it is famous for now.

 

But the second you leave the city-- and I don't even mean the proper country, I mean the suburbs past city limits, you may as well be in Arkansas. California desert and farm communities aren't much different.

 

And that's another thing that I still struggle to understand. My family, for example, that lives in eastern Washington. Farm family, low income, the nicest people you would ever meet-- not very well educated. They are casually racist, as in they are small town and skeert of those things that different from them-- but at the same time they aren't burning crosses on anyone's lawns. They all love the Jesus, but only go to church on Christmas. I wouldn't consider them deeply conservative or evangelical, and yet they ALWAYS vote Republican and HATE O'Bama and Clinton because REASONS.

 

The GOPs hold on low income ruralites fascinates me because they are the ones getting screwed the most by Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing that pong brought up that I thought was interesting- I do think it might be more polarized on the West Coast than the East. You do see the right type of Republicans winning in the East

Totally anecdotal, but my experience with East Coast Liberals backs this up, too -- I know a lot of people who don't like Republicans, but will at least check out a Republican candidate who seems socially moderate and capable. But generally speaking, West Coast Liberals will not even consider the possibility.

 

Again, this is just a sampling of politically active people I know, but it definitely jibes with your comment (and more objectively, some election outcomes).

 

That works in the here and now. However, what I am talking about is 30-50 years down the road, where the GOP is all but politically impotent (if it even exists at all by that point). Evangelicals are a shrinking as the US gets more secular year after year. In 50 years , whites will be the minority in key states that no president can win an election without, if not the nation as a whole.

Oh, they are very aware of demographics. Haven't you noticed how much less overt the GOP is with the social conservativism (and how they often try to temper it and/or mask it with buzzwords), and how they are starting to court minorities (even if it's somewhat clumsy)? It is no accident that Nikki Haley said "Take a picture of this!" when she, Rubio, Tim Scott, and Trey Gowdy took the stage: the current crop of conservatives -- at least conservative politicians and spokespeople -- is far less white and male than many people realize. It takes time for stereotypes to fade ("GOP = old white men") and there's a long way to go (when will they actually start seeing results at the ballot box?), but they have made a lot of progress in that department since 2008 (when event producers spent 50% of the time desperately trying to photograph the "diversity" of the 0.0001% of brown people who might actually vote for McCain).

 

On a side note, the "diversity problem," more than policy itself drives a lot of Republican fear/dislike of Trump, but that's for another convo.

The thing that's odd about the west coast is that we're actually pretty divided, we just have liberal mecca cities with populations and electoral votes that offset the countryside. I've lived in Seattle, Portland and now Los Angeles and all of them have been super liberal, even when I was a kid. Portland in the 80s was just as gay-friendly and arts oriented as it is famous for now.

But the second you leave the city-- and I don't even mean the proper country, I mean the suburbs past city limits, you may as well be in Arkansas. California desert and farm communities aren't much different.

 

And that's another thing that I still struggle to understand. My family, for example, that lives in eastern Washington. Farm family, low income, the nicest people you would ever meet-- not very well educated. They are casually racist, as in they are small town and skeert of those things that different from them-- but at the same time they aren't burning crosses on anyone's lawns. They all love the Jesus, but only go to church on Christmas. I wouldn't consider them deeply conservative or evangelical, and yet they ALWAYS vote Republican and HATE O'Bama and Clinton because REASONS.

 

The GOPs hold on low income ruralites fascinates me because they are the ones getting screwed the most by Republicans.

On the first part, I totally agree with you. I've been in some of the worst areas of many big American cities, but the only times I've truly felt fearful for my safety have been in rural Oregon.

 

As far as GOP and rural communities go -- I strongly disagree there. There's a reason people in rural communities tend to despise Democrats right now, and it goes way beyond facile "hicks just hate homogays and black presidents," explanations. If you own property in a rural area, the GOP may not really help you, but at least they generally leave you alone. Democrats, I suspect due to their more technocratic nature, the number of "educated idiots" among their ranks, and ties to the environmental/anti-gun lobby can make you downright miserable, even if they are doing their best to help. Their governing style is just better suited to larger cities; in rural areas, where there are fewer people to manage, more open spaces with nothing much to do, and less infrastructure to tinker with, they start looking for things to govern (not because they're bad people, just 'cause that's how they are), which often leads to frustration if not serious problems over silly/nonsensical regulations, fees, intrusions, etc.

 

Small business owners in population centers sometimes have the same issue with Democrats, but that is offset because they benefit in other ways and I suspect (because of urban/rural divide) they identify more with Democrats, so the grumbling is more tempered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a common complaint/issue with the left. The reason why rural people across the country vote Repub is because they don't want things forced on them. It's not that they're intolerant or racist, even though many of them are, the real gripe is that they just want to be left alone to make up their own minds about things, The problem with the left is that they try to guilt the world into thinking the way that they do and it just doesn't work on people who are comfortable with their lives.

 

It's a deep rooted thing that's never going away, and it goes all the way back to the founding of this country. The initial deal was that every state would be able to govern themselves independently, and when this country welched people got pissed about it. Frankly I kinda see their point.

 

We're talking about centuries of bad blood here. I don't agree with conservative BS but I totally understand why it exists and how Trump has been able to exploit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That works in the here and now. However, what I am talking about is 30-50 years down the road, where the GOP is all but politically impotent (if it even exists at all by that point). Evangelicals are a shrinking as the US gets more secular year after year. In 50 years , whites will be the minority in key states that no president can win an election without, if not the nation as a whole. The GOP over years of mishandling have lost the African American vote forever, and likely have with the Latino vote. The evangelicals are becoming so obstinate that their all or nothing political views on abortion, gays, or immigration are causing them to either stay home or threaten to form their own party (IE did you ever think Limbaugh and Hannity especially since he's catholic would be bashing the Pope, simply because he is a liberal one?).

 

The simple fact is that the GOP needs to rip the band aid off now and disassociate themselves from the Jerry Fallwells, Pat Robertsons, the evangelicals, and racists they have been appealing to. It may cost them an election cycle or two, but if they wait too long, it will never make a difference. Now, at least, they have a shot of making a come back with those groups who won't vote GOP. The idea of "we might as well pick up the flat Earthers, evolution deniers, and KKK voting blocks with coded language since no one else will," is both self defeating, damages the long term survival. It legitimizes and gives voice to people who really don't need to have a voice, and it's literally like giving political legitimacy and voice to ISIS.

 

OK well first off, comparing the Cletus bloc, as bad as they are, to ISIS, you know- the people who burn people alive in cages and behead them on youtube, is a little bit of an irresponsible comparison I think. Not to mention suggesting they shouldn't have the right to vote is a little authoritarian for you Chalup.

 

That being said, I get what you're saying about ripping the band aid off, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be. The problem with your analysis is, and you've often talked this way before, is that the GOP is not like one person that makes the decisions for everybody. You seem to always talk about it like it's one person. The party is made up of millions across the country, with many different factions, all with their own competing agendas and differing sets of beliefs. It's not like there's some evil secret GOP cabal in a conference room decorated like Dracula's castle, deciding the direction of the party. It doesn't exist, and even if it did, it can't just create candidates out of thin air or force people to vote a certain way. Many prominent establishment figures recognize the problem in 30 years, but contrary to what you may believe, they can't just snap their fingers, or wave a magic wand, and make a young, attractive, charismatic minority figure appear that can sell a moderate conservatism that appeals to the center. For some reason you seem to think that magic wand is there, and the GOP just doesn't want to pick it up. Well it doesn't work that way bud.

 

Fact of the matter is, the GOP is still competitive nationally. Maybe they won't be in 30 years, but taking a short term loss now won't do anything. The GOP could run the most reasonable people in the world, and they wouldn't win California against Clinton. Clinton could get an FBI indictment from the email thing, and California still wouldn't vote GOP. Sh-t, Clinton could be arrested on national TV and found guilty and CA would probably still vote Dem. It just doesn't matter Chalup.

 

Regrettably the GOP has to get a large chunk of electoral votes from the South, but it is what it is. The Dems had to deal with the same problem for most of its party history.. for over 100 years, they couldn't win elections without the South, at what I'm sure was the chagrin of party bosses in Chicago and NYC. It wasn't until the 60s that it began to change, and even up through the 90s, the Dems still only won with candidates that had appeal in the South (see, e.g., Carter, Clinton). It really wasn't until 2008 that the Dems won with someone that had no Southern appeal. So it took what... 30-40 years for the Dems to slowly build a new coalition from the old one?

 

No matter if you like it or not, the Southern states are part of the US and unless the country fractures, they are always going to be there and someone is always going to appeal to them to get those votes. Now, over time, demographics may change, even within the Southern states, but unless the GOP is torn apart by something, it will be a slow transition Chalup. And by torn apart, it has to be something serious. The last time a major party actually died was the Whigs in the 1850s, and that was over slavery, an issue that caused a freaking civil war. Intra-party fighting is at a pretty high level right now, the highest in my lifetime, and the emergence of Trump is probably the closest we've seen to a real fracture in the party, but it's still not to the critical point yet. So the GOP may not win a few presidential elections, so what? It's far from impotent. A little historical perspective please. Between 1868 and 1912, a period of 44 years, the GOP won 9 elections and the Dems won 2. The Dems were practically non-existent on the presidential level and yet, they survived. The GOP may be facing a similar situation but they'll be just fine. Still holding 31 governors, a majority in the Senate and the House.. I think you're exaggerating the degree to which the GOP is dying.

 

Again, a little perspective please. Ripping the band aid off, as you say (I'm not even sure what, exactly, this entails), will do little but cause the GOP to lose elections. The GOP will slowly transition over the next few decades. Until then, they'll likely struggle at the presidential level. So did the Dems in the 1800s. They survived and so will the GOP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The GOP will slowly transition over the next few decades.

Yeah, and they're doing it now, just not as fast as people like Chalupa or Driver (or me) would like -- though as we've both said, it's simply not good strategery atm.

 

Just seeing Kasich and Rubio speak articulately about how things like "driving while black" are real, even if you don't experience them yourself, and a general shift away from viewing drug addiction as a criminal issue but a tragedy on the personal level and a social/public safety on the community level has made my head spin at least a few times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

OK well first off, comparing the Cletus bloc, as bad as they are, to ISIS, you know- the people who burn people alive in cages and behead them on youtube, is a little bit of an irresponsible comparison I think. Not to mention suggesting they shouldn't have the right to vote is a little authoritarian for you Chalup.

I don't think it is irresponsible. Extremism is extremism. Now, I am not saying all of rural white America is at that level, but, when candidates from the GOP use coded racist lingo, who exactly do you think they are appealing to? The extreme right, that's who. The David Dukes of the party. In other words, the Klan, or other beer belly, white supremacist militiamen who crawl around with their shotguns in the muck on weekends in the Ozarks, and burning crosses. We are talking about 150 years of domestic terrorism, where they lynched, raped, and killed. It's those people (and those who idolize them) who I am talking about, and I think it is valid to compare them to ISIS.

 

And I am not saying even these people don't have the right to vote. Of course they do. What I am saying is why does the GOP have to legitimize this world view of theirs by courting them. The GOP can go after the same parts of the country, and most of the same vote (IE rural white america in the south), WITHOUT using coded language, or speaking out of both sides of their mouths and going after the most extremists with a wink and nod.

 

 

 

 

You seem to always talk about it like it's one person. The party is made up of millions across the country, with many different factions, all with their own competing agendas and differing sets of beliefs. It's not like there's some evil secret GOP cabal in a conference room decorated like Dracula's castle, deciding the direction of the party. It doesn't exist, and even if it did, it can't just create candidates out of thin air or force people to vote a certain way.

 

I understand that there is a whole spectrum of opinions in the GOP. I also understand that a republican from NYC is certainly not the same as republican from Arizona or Texas for that matter. However, there are pundits who espouse a certain world view, and a certain brand of conservatism that you hear on talk radio and see on Fox news. I'm talking about people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck, etc. These are people that hammer the same talking points day in and day out, year after year, and reach far more people than any single politician, or group of politicians can. They have been doing this for over 20 years now, and their rhetoric does become the de facto GOP monolith. So much so they have GOP politicians, some even part of the leadership, frequently on their shows and parroting their talking points. Some of these talking points include coded language that is prejudiced or even subliminally intolerant. So, given that, I think it is fair of me to paint the political right with a broad brush, at least when I am speaking in general terms.

 

 

 

Fact of the matter is, the GOP is still competitive nationally. Maybe they won't be in 30 years, but taking a short term loss now won't do anything. The GOP could run the most reasonable people in the world, and they wouldn't win California against Clinton. Clinton could get an FBI indictment from the email thing, and California still wouldn't vote GOP. Sh-t, Clinton could be arrested on national TV and found guilty and CA would probably still vote Dem. It just doesn't matter Chalup.

Regrettably the GOP has to get a large chunk of electoral votes from the South, but it is what it is. The Dems had to deal with the same problem for most of its party history.. for over 100 years, they couldn't win elections without the South, at what I'm sure was the chagrin of party bosses in Chicago and NYC. It wasn't until the 60s that it began to change, and even up through the 90s, the Dems still only won with candidates that had appeal in the South (see, e.g., Carter, Clinton). It really wasn't until 2008 that the Dems won with someone that had no Southern appeal. So it took what... 30-40 years for the Dems to slowly build a new coalition from the old one?

No matter if you like it or not, the Southern states are part of the US and unless the country fractures, they are always going to be there and someone is always going to appeal to them to get those votes. Now, over time, demographics may change, even within the Southern states, but unless the GOP is torn apart by something, it will be a slow transition Chalup. And by torn apart, it has to be something serious. The last time a major party actually died was the Whigs in the 1850s, and that was over slavery, an issue that caused a freaking civil war. Intra-party fighting is at a pretty high level right now, the highest in my lifetime, and the emergence of Trump is probably the closest we've seen to a real fracture in the party, but it's still not to the critical point yet. So the GOP may not win a few presidential elections, so what? It's far from impotent. A little historical perspective please. Between 1868 and 1912, a period of 44 years, the GOP won 9 elections and the Dems won 2. The Dems were practically non-existent on the presidential level and yet, they survived. The GOP may be facing a similar situation but they'll be just fine. Still holding 31 governors, a majority in the Senate and the House.. I think you're exaggerating the degree to which the GOP is dying.

Again, a little perspective please. Ripping the band aid off, as you say (I'm not even sure what, exactly, this entails), will do little but cause the GOP to lose elections. The GOP will slowly transition over the next few decades. Until then, they'll likely struggle at the presidential level. So did the Dems in the 1800s. They survived and so will the GOP.

 

 

I see what you are saying, but the thing is it does, or at least is SHOULD matter. If the GOP wants to appeal to Latinos, then they, as a party have to start somewhere. I am not necessarily condemning someone simply because they live in a rural area, or have a more conservative or christian world view. My problem lies squarely with those who practice and believe in hate. And I define that as the people who hear the stuff that Cruz or Trump say that some of us in this thread see as either pandering, or even trolling the voters, truly believe that garbage is genuinely a good idea.

 

Look at it this way. People on the right often criticize people in Islamic countries for sitting quiet while the most extremist terrorists in those countries grab political power and become a very vocal minority. It is then implied by the political right that because the more moderate Muslims do not speak up, then they must actually be complicit with the radicals. If we applied that logic to how the GOP seems to court the radical right, does that mean that they are also complicit with the same racist policies? They may not be, but it definitely seems so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...