In this interesting article from the Washington Post, just love those pretty maps and displays, it reveals a 'checkmate' scenario for the GOP, an outcome of which there is a little chance of escape.
All those 'troublesome' Minority voters are tipping the scales. Their demographic percentages are increasing and they have trended toward voting in larger numbers since 2004. When I combine that with recent court rulings forcing the GOP to back away from supressing the vote, I will witness the great pachyderm fall.
It was also notice that under the 'electoral college', Democrats have a structural advantage, that is not going to be dislodged anytime soon.
I guess that the GOP will have to do some serious soul searching, since nothing is left in the bag of tricks, or become a much diminished influence in AMERICAN politics.
Hope that you all are having a great day!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … /#comments
Voter Suppression... Hrmph! We've been down that road, but I do agree that the GOP has structural problems that look deadly.
Even as a fan of the Electoral College, I can see the problems pointed out. You damn Democrats all flock together. But just consider what we would have without it - mob rule. I also agree it is more than the current GOP can fix. But... will 2020's GOP be 2016's GOP?
My crystal ball says the revolution spoken of by many strongly right-wing folks, will be in their party, not American streets. That is what I think their "soul-searchng" will find. I can see a 2020 GOP that could be more attractive to larger segments of minorities, and, speak to the center right moderates the 2016 GOP threw away. But 2020 sure won't be your father's GOP.
Good that you can clearly see the writing on the wall.
While I am not necesarily keen on the flyover regions of America (with the exception of COLORADO, of course) they have a right to fair representation. As the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, took in population as well as regional concerns as part of the electoral process. Without the Electoral College, why should candidates waste their time campaigning in sparsely populated regions?
Of course, well educated, culturally diverse people are more likely than not, Democrats.
There is a role for a 'conservative party' to balance the excesses on the other side. The current reactionary standard of the GOP is not making it. A considerable reorientation will be necessary if the party is to survive into the future.
The GOP can be successful with minorities as it was with AFRICAN-Americans up to 70 years after the Civil War. They can do it again if they want to by making themselves relevant and taking seriously the concerns of people that they have been undermining.
I would welcome back a source of responsible leadership as a father would welcome a wayward son back into the fold.
A fair statement, and I agree that the GOP will do some soul searching and emerge as a different party, although I don't know if it will happen as quickly as 2020.
Yes, while I do not want Democratic voters to become complacent and stay away from the polls, there are not many realistic scenarios where Donald can win. The demographics are just too daunting and the current GOP has actually lost ground in that regard.
*yawn* Same old, same old. "We will WIN!" (cheers) "Because I"M THE BEST!!" (cheers) "And my opponent has BAD HAIR!" (cheers) "And the AMERICAN PEOPLE want ME!" (cheers) "And nobody would ever vote for my opponent!" (cheers)
Stating just the fact,Sir, just the facts. I am sure that even Fox News and breitbart are aware of the GOP and its moribund state.
Sounds more like desperation than facts to me. With her polls falling, the last ditch effort to convince people to follow the mob to Clinton, without the mob actually being there.
Just another political ploy, then, to manipulate an electorate that doesn't care enough to actually question empty political rhetoric. You should have been at the convention (either one); this kind of thing is all that is produced there, either.
Actually , you might be wrong , the Clintons are very close to the "mob ."
Oh , sorry , you meant the other mob didn't you .
I thought you were from Idaho, not Missouri. I guess that you will have to see for yourself, this coming November.
Wow, do you have a factual rebuttal at all? I would think this map would make Democrats more complacent and less likely to flock to the polls to support Hillary, as it makes it appear the election is in the bag for the Dems.
A rebuttal to what? Empty and meaningless political rhetoric?
But let me ask you - do you see people mostly rooting for the underdog? Or for what they perceive as a winner, thus making themselves one of the winning group? What does that say about the tactic of declaring winners long before the race is run as nothing but another political ploy?
People vote based on how the hair is combed, on which is the better looking, on the basis of skin color or sex - what makes you think they won't vote for a "winner" if the alternative is wasting their vote on a "loser"?
Honestly, PP, everything I hear from the candidates and a great deal of what I see on these forums is nothing but that - empty political rhetoric. Coupled with unwarranted insinuations and outright lies, of course.
The lies are sickening. It's making it much easier to stomach Trump.
I find the insinuations and innuendoes nearly as bad. They are being said for no more reason than to convince people that something is true, when it either isn't or the truth isn't known.
As such they are as much lie as a bold faced one.
Like I said, cold feet, huh?
It's been so obvious lately.
If you care to elaborate, I'm listening.
If you are simply posting drivel for drivel's sake; let me know so I can stop listening.
Now that is official, you're changing your tune.
Are you an alter ego for Alternative Prime? Your posts are just as nonsensical. But void of caps. That's something to be thankful for, i guess.
That is a completely unfair comment. We are talking actual facts, statistics, demographics. No one mentioned anything frivolous or trivial.
If, Hillary wins the election, will this be the last so called election we have? The Democrats openly stole the primary from Bernie followers, he should have been the nominee because he actually won the populous vote.
I think it will be more like the American Soviet Union style.
Flashback: Hillary susperdelegate bragged about DNC plan to steal nomination months ago.
Why your vote doesn't count Democrats
Listen to the Hillary super-delegate talk about how the system is rigged.
You kind of left the link out in your reply to me PP.
While there is evidence that the DNC favored Hillary, there is no evidence of actual illegal activity, at least not that I have seen so far. To say that Hillary "stole" the election is not borne out by any evidence.
BREAKING NEWS: The evidence from the hacked DNC emails was published by Wikileaks.
Lol, then please show me the evidence of a crime.
Who was talking about a "crime"?
I said, "The evidence from the hacked DNC emails was published by Wikileaks." Go find the information mainstream media seems to want to hide. It cannot be that hard for you to find the Wikileaks DNC emails.
She stole the populous votes. In the election law they were robbed and the delegates were robbed, because of Hillary's super-delegates. Bernie (Benedict Arnold) was controlled opposition right from the start. I feel for the Bernie followers getting robbed. It was rigged!
You asserted that she stole the election from Bernie. It is incumbent upon you to be able to back that up. I have seen evidence that the DNC favored Hillary. I have seen no evidence that the DNC or Hillary stole the election from Bernie. If you have, please provide it.
Who knows what the outcome might have been but once a cheater, always a cheater. The fact that Sanders laid down and took it is the only surprise.
You know, I never doubted for a minute that he wouldn't "stand down" and do what was needed to unify Democrats in the fall. The mark of a leader and great human being. Somebody might ask that of Ted Cruz?
Sad, isn't it? That the #1 priority is to unify Democrats and maintain the power of the hidden faces in the shadows. The talking head out front is only secondary; what matters is the party leaders. Not even the country matters compared to those shadows, the movers and shakers behind the Democratic Party.
And this is what we term "leadership".
Your cynicism doesn't allow you to see that Bernie effected a pretty dramatic shift to the left in Hillary's policies and in the Democratic platform. Policies that will help people, if we can get them implemented. That wouldn't have happened iif he had stubbornly refused to negotiate with the Hillary campaign. His endorsement was not automatic and it was not a capitulation.
You misunderstand. It's not sad that he threw his weight behind Clinton (I don't know why he did it, but that's irrelevant). It's that it is automatically assumed that he will. That a great leader will, after having the machinery of the party directed against him in violation of everything they stand for, still maintain a loyalty to the party regardless of their actions. It's the assumption that every great leader is stupid enough to do this, stupid enough to blindly follow those shadow figures without reason, stupid enough to be completely and automatically partisan, that is sad.
I understand what you are saying, and in a typical election year, it might be valid. But, the vast majority of us on the left see Donald as such a horrendous and horrifying candidate that we would throw our weight behind pretty much any candidate to keep Donald away from the oval office. Well, I can't speak for others but that's what I think. I could be wrong.
You could very well be right: I will vote for Trump (unless things change) just to keep Clinton away from the White House. But that's a reason to endorse Clinton, not a reason to simply assume that every leader will become no more than another party flak after the party completely violates their every ethical stance towards that candidate. It's the assumption I find sad, not Bernie's actions. The assumption (true as it turned out) that it doesn't matter what the party does, it is still more important to aid those in the shadows that are controlling it.
And no - no matter what the opponent is or does that assumption should NEVER be a valid one. Should Trump suddenly become a mass murder in the hospital nursery it is not a reason to simply assume that Bernie would support a party that has done what his did.
No, the priority of the democrats and its adherents are to keep narcissist clowns like Donald Trump out of the White House, a noble undertaking to be sure.
There cannot possibly be a bigger narcissist, or anyone with a bigger ego, than Hillary Clinton. The only real difference there is that is skilled enough in political skills to hide from those that don't care anyway.
That is your opinion, but to each, his or her own......
I don't claim to be a professor of English grammar. But my interpretation of the correct use of that phrase is supported here..
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde … 428AAfy3V3
LOL. LOL. And, OMG OMG.
Are you serious? That's the mark of a leader?
No. That is the mark of a person who puts party above ideals. Who puts party before conscience.
Not someone I can respect. I don't respect Ted Cruz, but I do respect the fact that he would not 'step in line'. What type of an a** does that? Oh, yeah. Bernie. I guy I once respected.
Leaders work with the opposition to effect change. Did you miss the part where Clinton and the Dems adopted more progressive policies in response to Bernie and his supporters?
Did you miss Terry McCauliff's statement? That, in and of itself, should make you aware that Hillary will say absolutely anything she thinks you want to hear, in order to garner your vote and then do exactly the opposite, if elected.
Party before common sense. That's the democrats way it seems.
Ah, well, we each have our principles, as you say. Sure, some are holding their noses and voting for Hillary because they believe her to be less stinky than the alternative. You are excoriating Dems for doing precisely the same thing as many Republicans. Including yourself.
LOL. Keep telling yourself that if it helps you stomach what the DNC has done and who Hillary Clinton is.
Back atcha with regard to Donald. Sorry, but you cannot legitimately claim to be making a more noble choice.
I am so horrified by the actions of the DNC that I am still reeling. I am flabbergasted that the chairmen, instead of being punished, was rewarded. It's disgusting and it simply shows Hillary's disdain for decency, honesty and moral behavior.
More noble to vote for Drumpf? No. A safer choice? Yes. Hillary is a liar. She has proven it over and over and over again.
Well, I must say, if you are "reeling" from the disclosure of corruption in the DNC then perhaps you need to take a break from following politics. This corruption is unacceptable but it didn't result in a stolen election or anything that dramatic as far as we know.
As for Debbie, she did not get rewarded. You might want to read snopes to find out what it means to be an honorary campaign chair. Maybe it will stop you from reeling.
L to L, we all know what happens when Donald Trump is elected, no greater fate can be contemplated. All Dems MUST unite to prevent that possibility. The needs of the nation and its proper direction is more important than the ego of any single individual.
But stubborn do-mothing Cruz has her respect!
Yes, all the GOP standard bearers that are not supporting Trump do not see that they are making it less likely that Trump will win in the Fall ?
I would rather see someone stay true to their beliefs than sacrifice them at the altar of politics.
With that attitude, you condemn yourselves and conservative politics to 4 years of 'that weasel', Hillary Clinton. Is that what you really want?
I think the majority should decide. Not political machines who have no respect for the average voter.
So, is not the GOP central command a machine? Why can't so much of the rank and file not get in line with the fact that Trump is their standard bearer?
Yes they are a machine. Haven't you figured it out yet? Most people who sway Republican are more independent. Not like most people who sway Democrat. Republicans don't have rings in their noses pulled by the party machine.
Trump, for all of his faults, is not a politician. That, the party can't stand. But, at least the Republican party let the people make their own choice. Can't say that for the Democrats. And what do people who lean Democrat do? They just swallow it.
I need to see evidence that the more independent voter leans GOP and to what extent. To accuse Democrats of marching to some drums, while Republicans do not is questionable in my opinion. With such a large percentage of voters defining themselves as independent, it is interesting that Obama could win in 2008 and 2012.
I KNOW what Trump is and he is unacceptable, period. I stand with the Panther on that assessment. We will see how the general electorate stands next November. I know that you would not want to miss it.
The GOP acquiesced in allowing the people to have their choice in Trump, there was plenty of rumble about alternative approaches that did not work out.
Rumble about alternative choices? You betcha. But, they consistently backed off because they knew it was wrong.
I simply cannot believe anyone can gloss over Hillary's disdain for fairness and decency as is being done on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, L to L, I prefer not to have to choose between the wicked witch of the east, and Frankentrump but the latter poses more of a threat to progressive values than the former, it is just that simple.
I wanted Bernie and I did not get him. But when he so gracefully set the example as to how to step down among his supporters, it encouraged his supporters to fight for the real objective, keeping Trump away from the White House, even if we have work with a tainted HC to obtain that objective.
You are way over stating what happened at the DNC. Bernie lost because he didn't get enough votes. The people chose.
I've never liked Trump but I don't think the traits I find distasteful in him can be as detrimental to the country as the ones I know to exist in her.
Telling yourself why is ok to vote for Trump?
Seems not too long ago when...
ahorseback p.2? Don't please, don't.
One has to be intelligence enough to truly understand the political process in order to be political mature, hence the evolving in intelligence enough in changing ones mind as to a candidate .
For you of unbending immaturity , during the primaries , Trump beat out sixteen other lesser debaters to genuinely win this primary.
Clinton on the other hand had to bend , borrow and break the rules of the crooked DNC in order to "win' her party .Totally taxing her intelligence JUST to be out ONE old curmudgeon socialist !
Now , for those of the cool-aid party , it's okay to change your mind although unlikely for some of the mental midgets , How do I know this ? You all just might observe as Trumps poll numbers roll over Hillary's in the next five months as they are lately .
At which point , you CAN then follow your more disgruntled friends to the republican polls.
Islandbites , Intellectual elitists can laugh all they want and therein lies the elitism of the ivy league mentality . No? Some college educated elitist's suffer from a well defined shortage of maturity thus the assumptive thrill of intellectualism without true maturity , without wisdom , without a trace of a social maturity . How presumptive and pretentious to assume that intellect alone is the supreme gift of only the left and the ultimate shortage of Trumps !
But then hey , That IS the same democratic party in a nut shell party isn't it , who's intellectualism in 1960's chose the super delegate system to keep the likes of Jesse Jackson from being president ,[racism ] the same one that took a 46% popular vote of Sanders and from New Hampshire on gave the votes right to Hillary , of course right back to slavery issues of the 1840's and 50's where democrats fought emancipation , wherein the KKK was originated by democrats , the segregation issues of democrat George Wallace who ran as a democratic governor for the president 4 times , the democratic racially originated bussing .
Right up until to and including the present day inner cities of the most liberal , crime riddled , most violent ,democratically destroyed cesspools in America , Chicago , Detroit , Baltimore , New Orleans , Las Angeles , Philadelphia , Flint Michigan , and all their liberal intellectual elitisms , Yea........Lets talk about how Democrats love so much to talk down to the poor , working class Trump supporters ! Lets talk about the Ivy League mentality of Obama 's beer summits thus beginning the latest rounds of racial discourse in America , calling white cops stupid ,. Lets talk about Hillary's Ivy league mastery of the English language and ability to talk without saying a damned thing , she has learned the incredible art of being all things to all people and doing nothing for them as well .
There is a lot to say for liberal intellectual elitism , No ?
I wish a liberal intellectual could read a history book without the need to re-write one !
Maybe its true that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Yoko Ono was suppose to have said that she and Hillary had an affair in the 1970's. Swingers don't care? We all know Hillary is a pathological liar!
Hillary lying: https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/vi … 351880725/
"Birds of a feather flock together!"
Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin … llegations
Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
And, many more...
Not at the moment perhaps , after all she's running close , but in the past and in the future if she wins . The woman is a pathological liar , she comes from liars , she supported liars like Obama and her husband , just why that ALL of America cannot see her deception ? Who knows , naiveté ? She grew up being chauffeured in a limo and demands that service still.
She always rhetorically speaks to both sides of the issue . She speaks for BLM , she speaks for the police . She speaks for Israel and for those who hate Israel , She goes for the gays and for the bibe thumpers , I believe that her polls are going to slide incredibly .
I have made no bones about the fact that I don't like Donald Trump.
I have also made it clear, consistently, that Hillary was completely unsuited for the presidency. So, if you have two choices and one is a no go from the start......can you figure this one out or do I have to state it?
Figured I'd add an edit. Hillary has, throughout her campaign, displayed ample reason why she is unsuited for the office. An 'I Hate Donald' defense makes sense. There are only two sad choices here. Pretending she is qualified doesn't make sense.
I was under the impression that Trump was also a no from the go.
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1354 … s-not-them
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1352 … vs-hillary
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1353 … trump-case
But I guess you answer your own question. All it took was an official nomination.
Well, at the time I honestly didn't believe Trump would garner the nomination so couldn't imagine this current scenario.
Being here now, after the revelations of the dishonesty within the DNC during the nominating process....well, I have accepted that I can't swallow the thought of Hillary as president.
But I an flattered that you follow my comments Sooo closely and took the time and effort to make me aware of it.
Ok. If telling yourself that makes you feel better about backing the wicked witch of the west I understand. I simply think you are deceiving yourself, willfully.
I respect him standing firm to his principles. don't respect his opinions and would never have voted for him (unless his opponent was Hillary. Again, a trained monkey would do less damage than that conniving, back stabbing piece of work)
Yes. I agree that the needs of the nation come first. What the nation doesn't need is Hillary Clinton at the helm.
It's called "partisanship" - something the Dem's have hated so badly when applied against them. Vote the party line regardless of conscience or anything else. And a MAJOR problem in our government, but reasonable and useful when Democrats do it, eh?
Yes, but there so much difference between today's GOPand the Democrats, there is little of any we have in common as to best course for the nation's future. I guess you can call that 'partisan' if you wish.
If being partisan means that I don't have a lot of confidence in either the GOP or its platform or philosophy, then it's pretty clear what position I am going to take. When was the last you voted for a democratic candidate for President, was it FDR?
Oh, I think you've made your partisanship very clear! It's pretty bad when even those interpreting the law (SCOTUS) almost inevitably vote along party lines, don't you think? It's not that only one party has good ideas - it's that the party rules all.
How else to delineate between disparate ideas and the people who hold them gathering together as to how to go forward? Thus, the political party, around virtually since the founding of this republic. I would not vote for Donald Trump even if he were unaffiliated with any political party.
The court should be heads and shoulders above petty party politics, I agree. But, its members do hold ideological philosophies that may be more attractive to either liberals or conservatives. The political parties as they currently exist, align with either conservative or relatively liberal ideologies. Why else is McConnell holding up the show to replace Scalia? The GOP certainly are not ignorant to the importance of supporting their version of ideological integrity for the SC.
What in the world does ideology have to do with interpreting law? That's not supposed to be any part of the job!
But it is, isn't it? Follow the party line in all things. Good, bad or indifferent, vote the party platform. But how is it bad for Mcconnell to play the party game but not Democrats?
Oh yes. It's to keep the Republican candidate out of office. I forgot.
The Supreme Court is not composed of mathematicians. Making their rulings, their Constitutional function is 'to interpret the law'. Interpretation has a subjective component by its very nature. Ideology is part of that subjective component.
Sotamayor and Clearance Thomas can look at the identical same case and come down with differing rulings and outcomes.
My point is that everybody plays party games.
You are a conservative and I am not, do we not find like minded people supporting our respective point of view to enact our visions of what is and what should be from the legislature, the executive branch?
Political parties are unavoidable when you have groups with disparate opinions as to how we proceed. I think of JEFFERSON and Hamilton's opposed positions as to which direction the new nation should be oriented.
The only solution is compromise, and I have seen damn little of that in Washington, lately.
The Republican candidate do not reflect my ideals and I do not see their ideas as 'good' at this time
You must have mis-read what I said, read it again. I may not have exactly worded just right for you, but I said "Bernie followers".
"If, Hillary wins the election, will this be the last so called election we have? The Democrats openly stole the primary from Bernie followers, he should have been the nominee because he actually won the populous vote.
I think it will be more like the American Soviet Union style."
Talk about splitting hairs.
OMG, Bernie did not win the popular vote. Where in the heck did you get that false information, truth seeker that you claim to be?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … count.html
Part of GOP strategy is to attempt to play disaffected Sandernistas against Clinton. But all progressives know who is waiting on the other side of the ravine as the alternative, that is unifying in itself. So, it won't work.....
After seeing what complete disregard the establishment (both parties) has for the will of the people in this electoral process thus far it will be a curiosity to see what our collective disgust decides on come election day.
A rebuttal to the facts in the article. Honestly the rest of your rant is so unrelated to the article, I'm choosing not to respond to it.
GOP Republican CONervative "Post-Mortem"?
Next time, instead of another IMMORAL, Un-Ethical & Racist DISASTER like Trump, the GOP might wanna' just "DIG Up" the Remains of BERNIE Madoff, sweep em' into a Hermetically SEALED Jar, and send em' out on the CAMPAIGN Trail ~
At least it will have a CHANCE to win & his Big Uncontrollable Anti-American MOUTH won't have the opportunity to BURY him ~
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Who will WIN the American Presidency- Clinton OR Trump?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 17 months ago
Why won't some Americans realize that Trump is LOSING & Clinton is WINNING which is evidentby Republicans endorsing Clinton by leaps & bounds- one of the Bush daughters, Barbara is endorsing Clinton for President? Trump doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 23 months ago
Should there be a recount of votes for the 2016 election?Do you think the results of the presidential election would change? What should happen?
by Tony Lawrence 6 years ago
Ignorance - The best way to ensure that people vote GOP!http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/s … tion-plot/I especially love:"As you know, 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it. "Duh!
by Susie Lehto 23 months ago
It was declassified during the Frank Church Committee hearings in the late 1970's senate, that the CIA in the 60's developed the term "conspiracy theorists" to attack people if they challenged the 'official narrative' of the JFKennedy assassination. 100's of witnesses were...
by Audrey Selig 4 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|