Are Republicans still a National Party?

[Lleauaric~EW]

Al Franken is a better more informed Senator than 90% of the GOP.

We live in a crazy world.

And Glenn Beck is frigging great. I mean... he reminds me of an actor from 50s or 60s. So emotive and over the top. Would anyone be really shocked if he started shouting out one day...

"SOLIENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!"

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

And Glenn Beck is frigging great. I mean... he reminds me of an actor from 50s or 60s. So emotive and over the top. Would anyone be really shocked if he started shouting out one day...

"SOLIENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!"

Glenn Beck's followers do not see him as a entertainer. They see him as a "truth seeker". I enjoy him for his acting but Republicans see him as the Messiah. The value add is that he is taking Republicans down a rabbit hole that they will never return from. The "outrage" over Obama speaking to school kids demonstrates what has become of the Republican party. He is also doing tremendous damage to Fox News' reputation outside of the wingnuts. He also is doing great damage to intelligent Conservatives like George Will. Republicans call George Will a "RINO" and "Marxist" because he is not like Beck or Limbaugh. Beck's damage of bringing idiots into the Republican party will come home to roost soon.

The Democrats can fuck up but they will always be seen as the grownups in comparison to the Republicans.

The craziness could actually lead to this:


Bachmann for President

America’s craziest member of Congress has hinted at running for the nation’s highest office, and who can blame her? Even her latest outbursts haven’t threatened her bulletproof status.

Michele Bachmann has always been on the far right of her right-wing party, but for the past year, her lunacy has been particularly vigorous. First was the McCarthyite demand for an investigation of “anti-American” members of Congress. Then came her fear that Obama was creating “re-education camps” via the AmeriCorps program (a program her son has since joined). There was her call for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” revolutionaries against cap-and-trade legislation and her paranoid opposition to the Census. And on Monday, railing against health-care reform in Colorado, she implored a crowd “to make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass.”

All this raises a question: Will Bachmann ever pay a political price for her fevered outbursts? In today’s GOP, is there such a thing as too crazy?

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Arative

2010 can't come soon enough, hopefully that huge ass losses the Republicans take will find bring them to their senses and we can get a real opposition party in the country instead of the retard parade that is the current Republican party.

The public is not pissed off at the republicans now, so the events of 2010 will most likely take the opposite turn.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

The public is not pissed off at the republicans now, so the events of 2010 will most likely take the opposite turn.

Just so we can avoid another 4 page, sad attempt at getting you to substantiate anything at all, just clear something up for me.

Are you saying this as just one of your many feelings, or do you have anything at all to back it up with?

[Sharmai]

People may be upset with democrats but I don't see anyone who voted for Obama suddenly wishing Palin was president.... err McCain. I have seen people complaining but no one has said that republicans have been trying to do a better job and so regret their vote.

Except for the extreme right nutjobs.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Nah Arbiter. The public just has nobody to contrast against Obama. Lets say tomorrow you made Romney the face of the party and pit him directly against Obama as the spokesman and all but nominated candidate, you would probably see Obamas numbers rise with the Independents.

When you see poll numbers, always ask yourself "Compared to what?"

Now.. Republicans are going to pick up 10-15 seats in the House, because there are a lot weak 1st term'ers in traditionally Republican districts. But, and don't take my word for it, do your own research, the Dems are just as likely to pick up seats in the Senate as to lose them, so its pretty much a push. There will be no Republican wave in 2010 as in '94.

[Sariden]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

Glen Beck is entertainingly insane. Moreso whe Olbermann gets in on it.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Someone just fell off the wagon, crack pipe in hand.

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Lleauaric~EW

Nah Arbiter. The public just has nobody to contrast against Obama. Lets say tomorrow you made Romney the face of the party and pit him directly against Obama as the spokesman and all but nominated candidate, you would probably see Obamas numbers rise with the Independents.

When you see poll numbers, always ask yourself "Compared to what?"

Now.. Republicans are going to pick up 10-15 seats in the House, because there are a lot weak 1st term'ers in traditionally Republican districts. But, and don't take my word for it, do your own research, the Dems are just as likely to pick up seats in the Senate as to lose them, so its pretty much a push. There will be no Republican wave in 2010 as in '94.

And obviously I disagree. Democrats pushed a party agenda back then that lost them power, then when Republicans took office back, our economy thrived.

I see the similarities right now, and I'm sure there are a lot of independents that are ashamed they voted who they voted for atm, because to get anything done economically it means we will have to revert back to a greater conservative base that is not worried about personal issues right now, as history has shown.

IMHO.

I'm sure there are many folks that would like to post graphs and charts and demand figures and all that, but just browsing history and looking at the current climate going into 9 months here, I don't see it any other way.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

And obviously I disagree. Democrats pushed a party agenda back then that lost them power, then when Republicans took office back, our economy thrived.

You mean when we elected a Democrat President, right? Which had more impact Arbiter? You made the connection that Republicans Taking Power=Economy Thrived. Is that more "IMHO"? Because IMHO, The economy thriving in the 90's had more to do with the rising dot bubble (Al Gore?...IMHO?) than anything done by either Clinton or Congress.

I'm sure you got a "HO" on it though.

Originally Posted by Arbiter

I'm sure there are many folks that would like to post graphs and charts and demand figures and all that, but just browsing history and looking at the current climate going into 9 months here, I don't see it any other way.

Well, IMHO you couldn't be more wrong. I was just "browsing history" and I came across some graphs and charts and figures and all that, and they prove you wrong...IMHO.

[Neferata]

Yeah I browsed history too and IMHO that's what it said. I agree with Screamfeeder and history on this one Arbiter IMO IMHO.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

And obviously I disagree. Democrats pushed a party agenda back then that lost them power, then when Republicans took office back, our economy thrived.

I see the similarities right now, and I'm sure there are a lot of independents that are ashamed they voted who they voted for atm, because to get anything done economically it means we will have to revert back to a greater conservative base that is not worried about personal issues right now, as history has shown.

IMHO.

I'm sure there are many folks that would like to post graphs and charts and demand figures and all that, but just browsing history and looking at the current climate going into 9 months here, I don't see it any other way.

You underestimate how dysfunctional the Republican Party has become. That is the wild card. Sure, the out of power party always has the advantage but the Republican Party is being taken over by the extreme Right Wing. That is not a winning scenario for them. To them, John McCain is a Communist.

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

And obviously I disagree. Democrats pushed a party agenda back then that lost them power, then when Republicans took office back, our economy thrived.

I see the similarities right now, and I'm sure there are a lot of independents that are ashamed they voted who they voted for atm, because to get anything done economically it means we will have to revert back to a greater conservative base that is not worried about personal issues right now, as history has shown.

IMHO.

I'm sure there are many folks that would like to post graphs and charts and demand figures and all that, but just browsing history and looking at the current climate going into 9 months here, I don't see it any other way.

There no fucking way independents who voted for Obama in '08 will vote for any tow-the-party-line Republican in '10. They will vote third-party or not at all. You don't go from crazy-train to the fail-boat just to hop back on board a crazy-train with no conductor. You look for something else, something less "special".

IMHO.

[Sariden]

Originally Posted by Knucklehead

There no fucking way independents who voted for Obama in '08 will vote for any tow-the-party-line Republican in '10. They will vote third-party or not at all. You don't go from crazy-train to the fail-boat just to hop back on board a crazy-train with no conductor. You look for something else, something less "special".

IMHO.

^^this. I think even the people who don't particularly like Obama are still far more inclined to vote for him than another potential Bush. I'd like to think that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that politicians should not be so focused on dictating our morals, but rather they should be working to make the government run in an effective and efficient manner. I really hope we never see another president who claims god talks to him, believes he has a divine mandate for ANYTHING, or who wants to 'bring back real Christian values'.

I think people would be surprised what would happen if we ever get a sane 3rd party in the running, and they're not locked out of things like televised debates.

[Sharmai]

^^^^^IMHO

[Lleauaric~EW]

And btw...

Clinton won in '92 because of Ross Perot. Plain and simple. There was a divided Republican vote. We were still pretty much a Reagan leaning country.

America in '94 isnt the same place as America in 2010. Nor do you have the leadership in the Republican Party to pull this off. You have nothing in New England.. seriously... nothing. And no bench. Republicans are fading away demographically in the Southwest and have done nothing to expand their base in any way.

10 - 15 seats in the House. Thats pretty much it.. And then comes the deluge in 2012. Good luck if you run Palin.. youll lose 2x what you will gain in '10.

IMHO