|
Okay, so it's pretty clear that the GOP establishment is not going to get what it wants this time around. Jeb really is a hopeless nerd, and he ain't gonna win poo poo. All the other supposedly "electable" candidates who would be competitive in a general won't make it past the primary electorate, because the primary electorate are a bunch of delusional fuckwits who actively shun reality. I mean, we all know that Ben Carson and Donald Trump are the perfect expressions of the soft-spoken bible loony and guido-cum-mussolini archetypes that make up the American far-right fringe, but do they really have the institutional staying power that, let's say, a sitting Senator has? The past two election cycles we saw some brief flirtations with the loonies taking the reigns (i.e. Palin in 2008, and the whole peanut gallery in 2012), but this has been unprecedented in the time past the Reagan/Ford and Carter/Kennedy primaries. I seriously believe that when all is said and done, the Republican party will be irreparably harmed by this fight that has obviously grown beyond superficial differences. In their attempts to move on from the white elephant that is the Bush campaign, we see the plutocrat donor class trying to scramble and regroup behind the supposedly more savvy Marco Rubio - but he won't shut up about water bottles. John Kasich, on paper the dream combination of being both, popular, Republican, and the governor of Ohio, might as well be a bowl of tapioca pudding in a business suit for all the enthusiasm he fails to bring. Rand Paul can barely stop himself from blurting out about raw milk and mercury in your child's vaccines, which really limits him to unmedicated schizoids. And it goes on - Christie and Huckabee are too fat, Jindal's even nerdier and more turtle-like than Jeb,, Carly Fiorina is objectivfely bad at everything she has done on the public record, Rick Santorum can't be googled, and hahahahahaha *inhale* George Pataki. Now, who does that leave? Yes, that's right:  Ted "Motherfucking" Cruz. Truly, this man is the worst, lowest, most obviously and cartoonishly evil character that the GOP has to offer. The fact that he has no friends in Washington makes him the perfect outsider, and his status as a Senator grants him an organizaiton of staffers and consultants that other candidates are just now starting to get together (namely Trump). Cruz is suspiciously like Obama in ways: Harvard educated, masterful at debating, and he's a freshman senator with big designs on how to make himself known. What's more, he's positioned himself the entire way as a supplicant to either Trump or Carson, who command approximately 60% of the primary vote - which is insane, because they are absolutely going to crash and burn at some point. But, that's the genius of Ted Cruz: he's going to be the man to pick up all those tiny little insane pieces. God help us all. Again, I believe this will lead to the end of the GOP as we know it - because something will have to give when Ted Cruz is completely trounced in the general election. It'll force the sort of soul-searching and recalibration that the Democrats had to reckon with in the 1980s - except the Democrats never had such a radical faction to contend with - even the rowdiest house Dem of the time wouldn't have tried to hold America's full faith and credit hostage. Nonetheless, I believe that Cruz's impending ~400 EV blowout loss will force a reckoning between the far right "moral majority" Crazy Bloc and the less crazy aspiring aristocracy (the FYGM Caucus) that will most likely end in the splitting of the party. Maybe the crazies can be the new Know Nothing party, womp. But yeah, that's my doomsday prediction. Bernie Sanders could win this election in his sleep, because the GOP literally have nobody. MODS CURE JOKES fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Oct 29, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
People have been predicting the end of parties since elections began. What makes you think this is the actual big one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Nah this isn't the big one and the GOP isn't going to go away. It'll just change. There are really two scenarios that play out. 1. After a slow decline like Texas going blue and old people dying out in droves or a quick one like gerrymandering districts is abolished republicans are unelectable. After 4 to 16 years of Democratic dominance people are fed up with it and elect in a new rebranded much more moderate republican party. The cycle begins again. 2. In a last gasp fearing for their white privilege and scared at all the change that has come to the nation, Americans elect a populist hard right wing reactionary conservative president, congress, and senate who genuinely believe the poo poo they say who start to enact some protofascist to outright fascist poo poo. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
The GOP is still very strong at the local, state and especially federal levels. At this point it is likely that they'll control Congress through 2020. The fact that they'll lose the presidency to Hillary, or even Bernie, won't necessarily mean that they'll be hosed in general as long as they still hold political power over the Democrats in key areas. Any splits in the ranks will be limited by the fact that there isn't any money or easy power in a third party. That said, the GOP is somewhat unpredictable, so you might be onto something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
I think that, once this final rebuke is pushed into the fat little faces of these greedy ninnies, some big guys will officially jump ship and drag a bunch of state-level dudes with them. I imagine it will start in the deep south, and spread to the plains. Think George Wallace or Strom Thurmond - but i don't think they'll bother to fold back in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Venomous posted:The GOP is still very strong at the local, state and especially federal levels. At this point it is likely that they'll control Congress through 2020. The fact that they'll lose the presidency to Hillary, or even Bernie, won't necessarily mean that they'll be hosed in general as long as they still hold political power over the Democrats in key areas. Any splits in the ranks will be limited by the fact that there isn't any money or easy power in a third party. 40/60 odds GOP takes the White House if they can manage to pick Rubio. 40/60 odds Dems retake Senate even if the GOP picks Trump. The Dems will definitely not retake the House (but might make gains), and will have done nothing to fix their fundamental problem (retaking state legislatures and governorships to rebuild the electoral pipeline from local to state to federal positions). Barring something unforeseen (and there are a lot of unforeseen things that could happen), I don't see much changing from the status quo. EDIT: To put it another way: It was said that the GOP would have to have a wilderness period after losing to Obama in 2008. Then we had the Tea Party wave. It was said that the GOP would have to have a wilderness period after losing to Obama again in 2012. Then, despite having a government shutdown, we managed to elect the most Republican Congress since 1929. What makes you think that losing to Hillary in 2016 (supposing that they do) will do what losing twice to a black man didn't? ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
first off, as much as it pains me to say, cruz is not going to be the nominee. it will be hillary vs rubio, and hillary will win by a fairly slim margin. the Rs will be shut out of the presidency but will continue their insurgency at lower levels of government basically indefinitely
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
If Hillary wins the nomination, there's no chance of her winning the election. Put her against any Republican candidate and Democrats will sit on their hands while right-wingers come out in record numbers to make sure 'anybody-but-Hillary' wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
Yeah Americans sure hated the Clinton years after all
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If Hillary wins the nomination, there's no chance of her winning the election. Put her against any Republican candidate and Democrats will sit on their hands while right-wingers come out in record numbers to make sure 'anybody-but-Hillary' wins. Nah she's got a good shot at winning the election. Her electoral team isn't run by a sperger anymore. It's Obama's team. It really depends on the other candidate. If it's Rubio then I think it really will be a toss up. If it's in some fevered dream of ours; Donald Trump- then she'll walk in. If it's Jeb Bush I think the name recognition alone will be the deciding factor. Clinton vs Bush, who do you really think people will favor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah Americans sure hated the Clinton years after all Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. People aren't going to storm the polls for Hillary because their memories of Bill as president. Nelson Mandingo posted:It really depends on the other candidate. If it's Rubio then I think it really will be a toss up. If it's in some fevered dream of ours; Donald Trump- then she'll walk in. If it's Jeb Bush I think the name recognition alone will be the deciding factor. Clinton vs Bush, who do you really think people will favor? I honestly don't think that Jeb has a chance of getting the nomination. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. People aren't going to storm the polls for Hillary because their memories of Bill as president. Are you going to post in the presidential toxx thread if Hillary gets the nomination? There's no chance of her winning the general so
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you going to post in the presidential toxx thread if Hillary gets the nomination? There's no chance of her winning the general so why would I put my account on the line for nothing? Hillary is polarizing within her own party. Mix in an ungodly amount of attack ads and A) an actual political opponent with Rubio or B) a real-talking idiot with no political experience with Trump/Carson...and I don't see her winning. People assume that she'll win because she has a (D) next to her name but they thought the same thing about Rick Scott/Charlie Crist, Walker/Barrett, Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore and many other races. Republicans fell into the same trap with Obama/Romney. There has to be motivation for people to get out and vote besides 'not-a-republican'. What's the motivation with Hillary? Beyond the fact she's a woman and married to Bill Clinton. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
I'm not a superfan of her hawkish corporatist centrism, but after watching her in the Benghazi
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:why would I put my account on the line for nothing? I think the motivation with Hillary is that she inhabits the three-dimensional physical reality where we all live while all the potential Republican candidates inhabit a mystical fantasy land where the solution to every possible problem is to cut taxes on the .01%, running a company into the loving ground is actually doing an excellent job as CEO, taking money from and speaking glowingly about a "vitamin cure water" scam is not being affiliated with said scam, the media is a fiendish cabal of Marxists who sit around cackling and trying to destroy "real Americans," etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:40/60 odds GOP takes the White House if they can manage to pick Rubio. 40/60 odds Dems retake Senate even if the GOP picks Trump. The Dems will definitely not retake the House (but might make gains), and will have done nothing to fix their fundamental problem (retaking state legislatures and governorships to rebuild the electoral pipeline from local to state to federal positions). Barring something unforeseen (and there are a lot of unforeseen things that could happen), I don't see much changing from the status quo. I'm not entirely sure if you're referring to me or the OP, but I really don't, I was just accounting for all possibilities seeing as the Republican primary is up in the air at the moment. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. I can only see a Hillary presidency as nothing but beneficial to the GOP, as she'll be even more willing to capitulate to whatever neoliberal garbage they put forward than Obama has been thus far. I have no doubt that if Hillary wins they'll hold together for the next four years and easily win in 2020, which is why it's so essential that Bernie wins this time around. (I mean, he probably won't, but still.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
gently caress
WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
I don't know how a party that has the biggest monopoly of state governments in like 100 years and the biggest majority in the house in like 60 years is somehow on the verge of collapse. Lots of wishful thinking here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:why would I put my account on the line for nothing? Hillary Clinton is actually pretty popular in the Democratic party. Especially with non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't know how a party that has the biggest monopoly of state governments in like 100 years and the biggest majority in the house in like 60 years is somehow on the verge of collapse. Lots of wishful thinking here. is this just through gerrymandering/only old people turning out to vote for these elections?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Jose posted:is this just through gerrymandering/only old people turning out to vote for these elections? it's a combination of gerrymandering at the state and local level and the right being much more institutionally vigorous / old people voting more
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Hillary Clinton is actually pretty popular in the Democratic party. Especially with non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Nah this isn't the big one and the GOP isn't going to go away. It'll just change. There are really two scenarios that play out. Nope, there's option 3: The GOP gets stuck as the white supremacist party, goes away, and in a few years the Democratic Party splits again like they did 150 years ago. You don't hear anyone call themselves Whigs after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
OP just isn't ready for the almost inevitable trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Hillary is polarizing within her own party if you take "her own party" to mean 18-25 year old left leaning internet males.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
We'll see what happens when Trump blindsides Hillary by attacking her from the left in their first debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
All of the DNC canidates are even more unelectable than the GOP ones so lol at the basic premise of this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
i think the apathy among liberals for hillary (vs bernie) against the novelty of trump may turn out poorly for democratic voters. i'm not confident they can take the 5 seats needed to wrest control from the republican majority in the senate if there is a rep. pres. in 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:OP just isn't ready for the almost inevitable trump presidency. Some people just have trouble accepting that The United States can be great again. He can;t be blamed for pessimism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Just because they control the house and senate doesn't mean it's all rosy for the republican party. If you haven't noticed there's a rather large schism within the party regarding how to govern the country, and that tension shows no signs of abating. It wasn't that long ago that the republicans were notable for the party discipline, now look at them. Either one side is going to win or the party is going to split. The republican party will probably continue to exist, but in a form that isn't recognizable. It's not like huge realignments haven't happened before. It's already changed significantly in the last 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
What I'm getting at is that the party is too big. They're going to collapse under their own stupid weight, leaving two squabbling rightist parties and a unified Democratic party. As is, they're almost completely dysfunctional. I feel that the HFC will eventually grow their own leadership backbone if/when they believe they can more fully usurp Republican districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:and a unified Democratic party. Ahahahahahaha, you almost had me until this line. Too funny MODS CURE JOKES, too funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Hillary is polarizing within her own party if you take "her own party" to mean 18-25 year old left leaning internet males.  VR rallys are dope
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Just because they control the house and senate doesn't mean it's all rosy for the republican party. If you haven't noticed there's a rather large schism within the party regarding how to govern the country, and that tension shows no signs of abating. It wasn't that long ago that the republicans were notable for the party discipline, now look at them. Either one side is going to win or the party is going to split. The republican party will probably continue to exist, but in a form that isn't recognizable. It's not like huge realignments haven't happened before. It's already changed significantly in the last 8 years. It helps that inaction works to their advantage. Seriously being the party that says government sucks makes it so much easier to govern since bad results work in your favour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:It helps that inaction works to their advantage. Seriously being the party that says government sucks makes it so much easier to govern since bad results work in your favour. On the other hand, they fail to do anything their base wants such as: - Repeal Obamacare - Make abortion illegal - Kick out all the immigrants - Make gay marriage illegal again It will be harder and harder for them to rally the base when they haven't had a big conservative legislative "win" for over a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Republican candidates can get away with being most unelectable, because independent centrists have a hard-on for trying to equivocate between democrats and republicans. So A republican can be brain-dead or a loud-mouth, and they're a serious candidate. But if a democrat looks a little old/funny/rides in a tank and looks stupid, then they're not a serious choice. Democrats are held to way higher standards than Republicans. *one party wants to shut down the government completely and the other wants to raise taxes on the already rich by about 10-20%* Centrist: BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It will be harder and harder for them to rally the base when they haven't had a big conservative legislative "win" for over a decade. That does seem to be a constant refrain among some people in the base, that the lack of accomplishments is indicative of a "RINO," or the failure tars the one who made it as a false conservative. You see that rhetoric in a fair few places online, where they need to elect and support "real conservatives," not the particular failure(s) in question. It makes their most fervent supporters very volatile, I think, and is likely to cause a realignment or split in the very near future, particularly given some of the go-to conservative causes of the moment. Global warming is considered a hoax and sham, evidence of liberal overreach, and thus as less reactionary legislators and public figures move to deal with the reality of it, it'll make the neoconservative position on the topic increasingly difficult to hold. Some will try regardless. I wouldn't expect the GOP to die outright, but I would not be particularly surprised to see it splinter. Many of its leading lights have manufactured their own reality, and that reality is having a hard time contending with what's actually happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:On the other hand, they fail to do anything their base wants such as: These are mostly SCOTUS rulings, and I'd argue that 3 is happening about as much as it can:  Most of their victories are focused on the local and state level. All they have to do on the federal level is play defense and the states can handle the rest. Seriously, if you live in a middle ground state that's been taken over by the republicans, the difference is night and day. If you live in a red state, holy poo poo, things have been whacky. Gail Wynand posted:Hillary is polarizing within her own party if you take "her own party" to mean 18-25 year old left leaning internet males. The now dead Ted Kennedy disagreed heavily and got Obama elected as a result of using his political machine. There being no alternative campaign infrastructure patron this time around is a big reason why Bernie has effectively zero chance. Hillary is polarizing for the base though. Her 'dislikes' from both moderates and democrats are pretty profound. She'll still win, but she's not going to get democrats voting in huge numbers which is what they need for the legislature, which sucks because dems don't vote in local elections or interim elections without a presidential candidate on the bill (which interim elections wouldn't have...). Nelson Mandingo posted:1. After a slow decline like Texas going blue I will believe it when I see it. Most of the demo breakdowns I've seen don't account for political changes as people get older and have kids as well as how many people emigrate to the state from other red states. I'm fairly certain the source of most of the hub ub about Texas's glorious purple state status is from campaigners and PACs that have convinced the Democrats that it's totally worth it to hire people in Texas. mugrim fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:
When will Bernie be getting a blimp?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
mugrim posted:These are mostly SCOTUS rulings, and I'd argue that 3 is happening about as much as it can: Going from 08' 09' on is the general shift from red to blue a difference in who they are choosing to deport, or what pretense to do it under?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:41
|
|
