Apparently, the GOP is better off when all adhere to the orthodoxy on taxes, spending, abortion and so forth. How's that working out for you? Just fabulous in the Northeast almost any place with more than about 200,000 people, right?
About as well as it's working for the Dems on the other side, who now have just about zero appeal in rural America. Hard to believe that only 20-25 years ago, they controlled most of the state legislatures in the South. Now aside from black candidates in Southern cities, they win nothing.
Of course, the obvious fact is that both parties were strongest when they had a broad spectrum of ideas while most shared a few fundamental assumptions. And just like the GOP's fundamental principles are better advanced by John McCain or Mitt Romney than Barack Obama, the Dem's principles are far better served by John Bel Edwards than Bobby Jindal.
So, what you're talking about is election strategy. Yes, DEM have been doing a good job in creating their coalition. That's why you can see sharia law Muslims & liberals, pro-Israel Jewish & Palestine supporters, affirmative action victims East Asians & other minorities... all vote for democrat candidates, their belief or values are so different or even opposite though. But, for party, if there is no clearly-defined ideology & belief for a political organization, that organization will not be a party, strictly say.
It's not merely racism (though obviously that's part of it). But the south hasn't changed - it has always been extremely conservative. The parties have re-aligned.
The parties are now consistent more with region and race, not class. Not sure what that implies for the future, but that's the way it is for now.
There used to be room in the Democratic Party for conservatives. Much like the Repubs, who have purged all the liberals and nearly all of the moderates. Many would go back if the Dems tolerated dissent on issues like abortion, gay marriage and so forth. The economic issues aren't what turns off those voters and the polling has reflected for years that 2/3 or more of Americans support things like raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, placing higher tariffs on imports and so forth.
Dems don't speak their language. They completed ceded religion to the Repubs and they will pay for that. Bill gets it. Listen to Bill's speeches in the 90s and sometimes now, and you will hear language rife with religious tones. Consequently, you have someone who can carry Southern states. (Hillary will win a few she shouldn't just because her opponent is a complete moron.) Sooner or later, the Repubs will nominate someone from NY or California and the Dem nominee will be screwed. Then he/she will have to poach from states the Dems haven't won in years and years.
And he lost his own state by 22 points.
If they nominated someone from CA or NY, he would get beaten by the same margin.
Your analysis leaves off one big factor: democrats will attract most union voters.
The demographics are solidly against the GOP moving forward. The party will adjust, certainly, but it will make the LTs mad.
Utah was Romney's power base, I think.
best interest to vote Dem. The reason being the that the high ranking union officials benefitted, not the rank and file. I have not been active for a long time, but the last I saw was the rank and file voted 40% R in spite of the pressure and propaganda from the top of the union. The unions are not why Dems control NY and CA.
Yes, the Dems would win in CA and NY because of the ghettos.
And Massachusetts isn't NY or California. Osmosis doesn't really happen all that much in presidential races. If it did, Mondale would have won at least four more states.
Barring another Trump nomination disaster, the GOP nominee will capture the same states as Romney and McCain, and will gain 30+ to 50+ electoral votes. If it's that close, where a GOP nominee is up to 250-260 electoral votes, chances are more states will be in play elsewhere.
That's another of the Dem's major problems: they adhere to a model that is 40/50/60/70 years old. I love collective bargaining, but pining for a resurrection of big labor is something that should be left to the obscure books of academics in the social sciences.
Many of those former union voters are precisely the types the Dems have lost, again, because of the Dem's positions on "social issues."
The GOP has lost millenials, African americans, latinos, Asian Americans, Jews and women.
Good luck moving forward with the undereducated white guy vote.
The last two R candidates have not been good.
(no message)
No wonder this party is lost.
made by the Bushes in the SCOTUS. If Conservatives where seated by Bush 41, 43, Commiecare would be dead. Where is the big difference in tax policy?
I see the difference between a Conservative and HRC. That does not happen with Jeb.
Your assertion about Latinos is superficial. Dig deeper into their views on specific issues. It is a group that could easily swing to the GOP with the right nominee. Ditto women. The Aisan-American and Jewish votes are relatively small and aren't decisive.
And therefore I know that once people vote for a party three times, they rarely switch back.
Which means the GOP has big problems with latinos and millenials.
And since I also understand demographics, I know this means big problems for its future.
welcome. So, the Dems are the far left radicals that used to be moderates, and the Rs are the moderates that used to be Dems.
Name a RINO and let's examine his/her record. Jeb? Let's examine his record. You people are so ignorant.
Perhaps the best way is for you to lay out the positions that render someone a "RINO" and let's compare various politicians. Including Ronnie.
BTW, the tradition of the GOP includes Lincoln, TR, Ike, Nixon. By any of the standards I've seen you deplorables set, they were "RINOs." In fact, you guys are the "RINOs" because you are seeking to change the party into this mix of Randian libertarianism, Trump-style nationalist fascism and just a smidge of Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell on abortion and gays. You are most certainly outside the tradition of the GOP. But like most Americans, you have no real knowledge nor interest in history, so when an AM radio talk show host tells you that your brand of Republicanism is the tradition, you lap it up just like you lap up everything else they tell you. You might call it "Def-Con 4 Ignorance."
your Commie types are not mature enough to admit when your are wrong, which is most of the time.
First of all, RR made a huge mistake with his amnesty program. You would not understand why, so I have to explain for you.
1) He made the mistake of trusting the Dems who said, amnesty first and then we will secure the border. He trusted the Dems. Bad mistake.
2) That mistake opened the door for the illegal invader problem we have now.
Jeb is for open borders and amnesty, nuff said. That makes him a RINO.
Ike sent the illegals home.
It is the lefty radicals like you that tune into the LWRM and fall for their propaganda believing that it is news.
As a Christian, I am pro-life, something you would not understand and I do not apologize for. You don't like it, tough shit, Commie.
At our daughters wedding last year 3 of the 8 seated at our immediate family table were gay or lesbian, 1 couple, 1 sans partner. Again, you show your ignorance. You know nothing about me or the world we live in. All you know is what your feeble mind is fed by the LWRM.
What you live in is a world LWRM ignorance and care or understand nothing of our nation's history or the effect of the BS that you slurping up from the Commies.
If. anyone is deplorable it is you and Commies like you that hate the USA. Again, just put on your hammer and sickle dunce cap and sit in the corner where you and your Commie friends belong.
Obviously, your single digit IQ makes it difficult for you to comprehend this post. Perhaps a friend can help you? As Gruber said, It is mental midgets like you (the politically illiterate) that we depend on to pass our agenda. Most, but folks like you know what that agenda was. Seek help, and you can learn too.
You're incapable of debating, thus you fabricate positions I haven't taken. Your brain can't comprehend someone who doesn't conform to your simplistic, binary classifications: "you're either like me or you're a communist."
Ah, Ronnie was fooled by them wily Dems! Oh, that poor Ronnie. See, he wasn't no lib'rul!
Love the contortions, LT.
By your standards, Ronnie was indeed a "RINO." Thank you for acknowledging that in spite of your weaseling.
said that he made a mistake by trusting the Dems. No weaseling, just stating a fact. Don't trust Dems as RR did. I said Jeb was a RINO, you named him as person to discuss.
I understand your frustrations and inability to debate the issues.
Don't blame me for the label, you always side with the Commies. You earned the title, I did not invent it.
You weaseled by implying that Reagan was "fooled" into signing an amnesty bill. It's obvious to everyone why you weaseled.
Please explain my voting record. For which specific "communists" have I voted? For that matter, which "communists" have I expressed support here?
Jeb was consistently pro-life as governor. In contrast to Donnie, he was consistent throughout all those years. If amnesty rules him out, then it rules out Ronnie, among many others. You're just making this up as you go along. How about if I say that permissiveness on homosexuality, like what you're about to do, renders one a "RINO?" How does that suit you?
politics at the time, you would know that the hand shake agreement was that the amnesty was passed and signed and that the secure border was to follow. RR lived up to his end and the Dems lied. They have blocked all attempts to secure the border ever since. You are hard up to make a case.
I know nothing of your voting record, nor do I care what it is. However, your postings leave no doubt as to your allegiance. You seem to support Commies on this board.
Abortion is only one issue. You cannot be a Conservative and be for amnesty and open borders as is Jeb.
Permissiveness on gay issues covers many topics.
"Like I am about to do." You know nothing about what I am about to do or say regarding the issues.
Typical.
Where do you stand on gay marriage? How about civil partnerships? What about gay adoption?
don't mind sharing my views on those matters, but they are not relevant to the basic concept of the original debate. You are failing in a weak a attempt to steer the debate which you should know by now that you cannot win.
Gay marriage: It is the law of the land as of now. Until that changes, I respect that.
I believe that civil partnerships are legit.
I do not agree with gay couples adopting.
None of this is relative to the OP.
a position on immigration, a position that THE right-wing president-god differed upon, regardless your weaseling to make his position something else.
And to top it off, you now weasel out of an answer on gay marriage. Abortion rights are also the "law of the land." Why do you not employ the same weasel words on that issue?
Should gay marriage be legal? Should it be legal for gays to adopt? Let's see if you're capable of giving straight (pardon the pun) answers. Your membership in the conservative Republican group depends upon it.
know that is hard for you to comprehend.
The border issue is a no brainer. No Conservative or a sensible person would allow open borders and amnesty. No need to go further with a person with those views. Gay issues are grey. Is that over your head too?
Practice your reading: I clearly said gay marriage is legal, period.
I also said that I did not agree with gay adoption, so why do you ask again? Can't you read?
Again, I weaseled out of nothing. I gave honest answers and you have no valid response.
I do not care about Conservative R status. Conservatives have no voice in the R party.
Are you intoxicated or high?
I am not referring to any one person's view other than 2 you raised, RR and Jeb.