Skip to main content

That is the question being pondered  (along with Biblical readings and an analysis on using the ‘Abortion Barbie’ attack as a successful GOP strategy beyond Texas) over on Red State. The post uses a few serious, and some very telling questions which were posed before the last election and revisits them to see if conditions have improved. The writer concludes that things have only gotten worse for the red team. Follow below for the gloomy GOP outlook…..

So what is the problem with the GOP today?

1. Rapidly changing demographic trends that favor the Democrat Party.

(2014 update: In the 2012 presidential election Obama won 71 percent of Hispanics, 93 percent of African-Americans and 73 percent of Asians. But Obama only won 39 percent of Whites compared to 59 percent for Romney.)

Wow. That is actually a good point. I am shocked this is even allowed to be posted on RedState. But I am sure they feel the real problem here is getting that 59% number up.
2. An education system controlled by liberals that churns out young liberals.
Ummm… yeah. Because the growth of charter schools and the privatization of an education system that allows the teaching creationism and bible science is our only hope for survival. The real problem here is that regular schools tend to deal in facts and data. This is a big problem for the modern GOP as we will see later in this list.
3. A population with an ever- increasing dependence on government in the form of entitlements and subsidies.
So long as you ignore the every decreasing allocation of funds to support public services and entitlements. Didn’t we just get another cut on food stamps? Has’t welfare and SS been under attack for a decade? But maybe they mean subsidies to bankers, frackers, oil barrons and  industrial farms. But since those subsidies go to the biggest GOP backers, aren’t they good? I’m confused.
4. A mainstream media that is overwhelmingly comprised of journalists who are biased towards Democrats and liberal causes.
Ain’t that the truth! I mean just look at Fox news! Nothing but commie lovers, the lot of them! I remain baffled at how anyone can look the mainstream media and declare it to be overwhelmingly liberal. Actual liberal media pundits are now voices in the wilderness.
5. The influence of Hollywood, which makes it cool to be a liberal Democrat.
If we could just close down all the movies theaters for a full election cycle everything would be fine.
6. The growing power concentrated in local, state, and federal government worker unions, whose members actively campaign against Republicans on the taxpayer dime.
So long as you don’t consider the rapidly weakening power of Unions in local state and federal workplaces. Seriously, is there any debate at all over the fact that unions in the US have been rapidly declining in numbers and power for decades?
7. A culture where non-traditional social and sexual behavior has become mainstream.
Every time you smoke a joint, acknowledge the existence of a homosexual or talk about equality for women, a GOP angel loses his wings.
8. A hatred for Republicans in general and a tendency to blame the party for “the mess we’ve inherited.”

(2014 update: Obama has played the “blame Bush” and “blame Republicans” card like a champ throughout his presidency. Will Democrats subtly continue using this theme now applied to “class-warfare” economic issues as reasons not to elect a Republican in 2016?)

I can’t argue with this one at all. And yeah, there are pretty solid economic reasons not to vote republican, so pretty sure the Dems will go with that in 2016.
9. A Republican Party that is growing increasingly white, old, southern, and male, which alienates majorities of younger voters, Hispanics, African Americans, gays, teachers, young professionals, atheists, unmarried women, and even suburban married women.

(2014 update: Obama won women by 55 percent compared to 44 percent for Romney. In a recent Gallup poll, Republican voter identification was 25 percent; Democrats were at 31 percent and Independents 42 percent.)

Wow! This is pretty much the whole problem. I mean EVEN ‘suburban married women’?  How is this allowed to stay up on the RedState site?
10. The internet and the growing social media phenomenon that strongly tilts in favor of Democrats.

(2014 update: Democrats have mastered the technology of advanced data-gathering and successfully used it to cost-effectively identify voters and motivate them to cast ballots.)

The Dems use Data! Actual numbers and facts to support their arguments! And they use social media to share these numbers and facts! And they will do it again!


I wont post the link but brave souls can see it over on RS if they wish. Or HERE at Daily Beast. A really strange mix of insightful points that should cause some self-reflection (but won't I am sure), and alternate universe observations that have no basis in reality.

They hate their own party. They hate all the Democrats. They hate all the possible choices for GOP president. They hate the demographics of the country.  

But more than that I think that some of them, those with one foot in reality, are starting to feel very afraid.


One choice response to this post finds a new GOP target:

speaksoftly •
A political movement whose core "values" support abortion, homosexuality, and single women is a political movement that doesn't have a long-term future.
It's those damn spinsters that are ruining it for everyone!


UPDATE: Rec List? Well hot damn. It's my first one. Thanks folks, glad not to be the only one that finds the minds of GOP supporters fascinating....

UPDATE 2: I have added in the link to the version that was posted on Daily Beast. Thanks to Urban Space Cowboy for the suggestion and the link.


Originally posted to TwoSolitudes on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:14 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


Will there ever be another GOP President?

12%72 votes
3%19 votes
26%160 votes
57%344 votes

| 595 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (114+ / 0-)

    Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects. Lester B. Pearson

    by TwoSolitudes on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:14:27 AM PST

  •  I think as their relevance & influence wanes (35+ / 0-)

    due to their demographic irrelevance their tactics at electoral shenanigans will grow even more and more brazen in desperation.  They will, due to these tactics, continue to "win" some elections and possibly even another Presidency in the future.  Probably not with the current crop of Candidates if Hillary Runs, but if she doesn't - there's a slightly cracked-open window for another Bush-v-Gore-iike suicide slide across home plate on election day.

    But their biggest problem is and remains the fact that they believe way too much of their own bullshit, while more and more of the mainstream American public doesn't.

  •  Most likely but for a completely different reasons (13+ / 0-)

    Excluding Ike, the post WW 2 Presidential successes have relied entirely on either winning the Confederacy or denying those votes to the Democrats.

    Nixon started the "Southern Strategy" -- though to his credit, he did little to roll back civil rights. Reagan and the two Bushes made it clear to Dixie on whose side they were and did their best to impoverish African Americans and roll back their civil rights.

    However, with VA becoming almost a Blue State and NC becoming very competitive, that Southern Strategy no longer works.

    The GOP attempt to create other voting bank issues for their base (abortion, anti-gay) have not had the desired results.

    The 1%s are quickly finding out that money spent on GOOPER candidates in Presidential elections in money down the drain. And, if anything, the 1%s are in favor of illegal immigration, abortion, gay rights. They are not threatned or hold any resentment towards African American.s. Many are not even Christian. The 1% will focus on getting a Mark Warner (one of them who entered politics) elected President.

    •  The 1% encouraged Jim Crow back in the day (10+ / 0-)

      They don't have to be for abortion, racism, etc. in order to use them as political wedges to split up the poor and working classes.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:11:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly right... (8+ / 0-)

      "Excluding Ike, the post WW 2 Presidential successes have relied entirely on either winning the Confederacy or denying those votes to the Democrats."

      Reagan won California, New York, and Pennsylvania twice, and 49 of 50 states the second time.  He could have lost the entire South in 1984, and still won a landslide.  Liberals rewrite history when they write Reagan off as an extension of Nixonian strategy.  Reagan was the last truly popular GOP president, and he appealed to Democrats as well as Republicans - any other opinion is revisionist history, no more accurate than the GOP saying they were the party of blacks in the 1960's.

      That said, that was thirty years ago.  The country was a lot whiter and more conservative then.  Bush I was really only the third term that the American people wanted to give to Reagan, but couldn't.  Bush II was an eye-of-the-needle perfect storm of severe Clinton fatigue, robotic Gore incompetence/gaffes, Ralph Nader, and Florida's arcane election system.

      I think there will be another GOP president, sooner, rather than later.  But, its more likely to be because of inevitable Dem overreach/hubris, than because the GOP can fix any of the above circumstances, or adapt to co-exist with them.  

    •  Turn Texas Blue! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, isabelle hayes

      The GOP, RNC and The Tea Party cannot coexist with Facts!

      The Dems use Data! Actual numbers and facts to support their arguments!
      If Bush is the last GOP President, I may reexamine my thoughts about whether or not there is indeed a God, and whether she is loving, all-knowing and wise!

      My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

      by NM Ray on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:03:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Consider Georgia. We have a media superstar (4+ / 0-)

      with Michelle Nunn and a steady attractive candidate for governor with Carter.

      There's no reason to think that a Tea Party candidate will have a chance to win. More likely a 20% loss.

      We're going to hammer Obama's success against terrorism and who's been helped with Obamacare. Poaching older White voters gets Priority # 1.

      Georgia is going blue. Slower than Virginia, for the off-year elections faster than North Carolina.

      "I hesitate to agree with Ted Nugent...."

      by waterstreet2013 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:30:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does it matter? (28+ / 0-)

    An ever growing inability to win the WH with an (R) after one's name only means that we will continue to get ever more rightward leaning (D)'s in the WH.  Until another serious contender arises for the office, look for DINOs or Blue Dogs.

    And the Republicans will still call them socialists or marxists, no matter how many Republican policies they dust off and sell under the Democratic brand.

    •  Pretty (6+ / 0-)

      much what I was thinking Doc. Right now Hilary is the chosen one and if that's the way it pans out what do we really have?

      6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

      by fugwb on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:55:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have a wealthy plutocrat (31+ / 0-)

        who hails from a wealthy New York family with deep ties to the financial industry.

        Oh you're talking about Hillary Clinton?  I thought for a second you were talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

        Hillary is no FDR but neither was FDR.  What made FDR progressive was the fact that he had a very strong and progressive Congress which pulled him in that direction.  Hillary too can be much more progressive if we have a solid majority in the House and a 60+ seat (filibuster proof) majority in the Senate.  The person at the top is not as important as the legislators who write the laws and establish the budgets.  Some people get so hung up on Hillary that they forget the rest of our govt.

        I myself can live with Hillary so long as we have solid majorities in Congress and are replacing extremist judges with far more moderate ones.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:10:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget FDR also had a wife (5+ / 0-)

          who pushed him in the correct direction.

          •  FDR was also dealing with the Great Depression (9+ / 0-)

            and there were no realistic alternatives to liberal policies. So FDR would have had to run a liberal administration or end up like Hoover.
               HRC is highly unlikely to be another FDR. More like another Obama.

          •  Elanor didn't write any laws (14+ / 0-)

            So while she could have been his conscience, in the end he couldn't do too much without the approval of congress.  

            This is the problem I have with ALOT of lefties.  We completely miss the freaking forest because we're so fixated on one fucking tree.  CONGRESS.  CONGRESS.  CONGRESS.  If Bill Clinton has FDR's congress, guess what, he would have been the most progressive president in modern history.  If Barack Obama had 63 Democratic Senators in 2009-2011 there was over 400 pieces of progressive legislation passed by the House waiting for them to vote on so that Obama could sign into law.  Just for comparison:

            In 1933 FDR had 59 Dems to 36 GOP (+1 Farmer-Labor).  
            In 1935 FDR had 69 Dems to 25 GOP (+1 F-L and +1 Progressive) .
            In 1937 FDR had 76 Dems to 16 GOP plus 1+ GOP who went independent (+2 F-L, +1 Prog and +1 GOP who switched to Independent) .
            In 1939 Dems dropped down to 69 Dems to 23 GOP (+2 F-L, +1 Prog and + 1 Ind)
            In 1941 Dems dropped down again to 66 Dems to 28 R (+1 Prog and +1 Ind)
            In 1943 Dems had 58 Dems to 37 GOP (+1 Prog)
            In 1945 Dems had 57 Dems to 38 GOP (+1 Prog)

            Then in 1946 elections Dems lost the majority, LaFollette Jr was replaced by the vile McCarthy and a few years later we got the odious Taft-Hartley Act of 1948.  Throughout the whole time FDR was president he had solid majorities in both the House and Senate.  Early on when the New Deal was being implemented he had OVERWHELMING majorities.  The GOP at one point had less than 20% of the seats in the Senate.  

            Now imagine if Clinton (either one) or Obama had 66 Dems in the Senate or 69 Dems or even 76 Dems (to 16 GOP senators!!!).  There is NO DOUBT that legislation passed would be far more progressive than the shit that was passed in 1995-2000  when the GOP had majorities in Congress under President Clinton or 2011 to the present when the GOP controls the US House.

            So if you want a progressive president the answer is to elect more Democrats to Congress.  At that point it won't matter who the fuck is president because the power of the purse and the ability to write the laws resides in Congress.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:27:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  FDR's Dems were Southern Dems (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Berkeley Fred

              And, after LBJ, all the Southern Dems became the base of the GOP.

              My wife, daughter and granddaughters should have more privacy in their doctor's office than I have buying another rifle or shotgun.

              by NM Ray on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:05:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Safe to say (0+ / 0-)

                that when you have 76 Democratic Senator plus a few independents out of 96 total that the Dems were not ALL in the south.  

                But yeah the GOP base at that time was the Rockefeller Repubs in the Northeast.

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:21:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  FDR liked people (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan, waterstreet2013, apimomfan2

          i don't get that vibe from HRC

        •  Yeah, about that... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bronx59, apimomfan2

          There is almost no chance that the Dems win the House back before 2022.  And, one party has had 60+ senators for exactly 2 years (Dems from 2009-2010, and they didn't really have 60, because Joe Lieberman was one of them) since the 1960's, so forget about that idea.

          Dr. Erich nailed it.  Hillary will be even more conservative than Obama, because she/they are even more beholden to corporate interests.  Hillary is the most hated Dem by the GOP, of them all.  Even more than Obama.  If Hillary is elected, expect a GOP surge in the House and Senate in 2018 that makes 2010 look like a nice Dem year.

          •  No chance huh? (4+ / 0-)

            I recall people saying the same fucking think in 2006.

            There are 80 seats held by the GOP which can be flipped in 2014 with a modest wave.  Cook, Sabato and Rothenberg have cited 37 GOP held seats that are competitive.  Dems only need 20 to regain the majority.  In 2016 with the Demographic tide even more seats will become competitive.

            In 2016 there will be no less than 8 GOP held seats in the Senate that will be competitive and possibly as many as 12 depending on retirements in Arizona and Iowa.  

            But hey by all means, go ahead and fixate on Hillary.  Then piss and moan like an impotent child when the GOP dictates policy and we're still talking about austerity and cuts.

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:34:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Political Landscape is Unstable (4+ / 0-)

              Even after all that FDR and the Democratic congress did for America, they still eventually lost seats.
              Even after the Coup of 2000, when it looked like the Democrats would never be allowed to govern the country, we eventually elected a Democratic president.

              Ask Kevin Phillips about the "coming permanent Republican majority."

              Republicans ruined America during the reign of George Bush, and he was actually elected in 2004. The destruction of our economy is plainly the result of Conservative policies and beliefs, yet we have the creation of the Tea Party which says they don't go far enough.

              There is no permanent in politics, and damn little in the of sure-fire predictions.

              Right now it seems impossible that Republicans can stage a comeback of any kind. Their policies fail, and obviously so, in all areas. They are consistently wrong, and stubbornly so. Yet they have a small majority in the House and their own major cable network and have no trouble raising ungodly sums of money.

              Hillary Clinton voiced the words "vast right-wing conspiracy" when no others would. She may have meant it in a limited way, about her husband's political career clashes, but I hope it was more broadly understood by her.

              We'll see.

              A Southerner in Yankeeland

              To save your life and our country, read "Pity The Billionaire" by Thomas Frank, and "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Then read more books.

              by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:59:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  A second hearty Thank You! (5+ / 0-)

          Too many progressives simply blame the President when they should know better.  Does anyone (Dem or Rep, progressive, conservative, or radical) believe that the President would promote the same agenda if he woke up tomorrow with a solid Dem majority in the House and at least 61 Dem Senators?  Seriously?

        •  Clinton is no FDR (3+ / 0-)

          nor will she ever be. She's a lackey for Wall Street and the Banks. I don't care how many progressive's get elected in 2016 if she becomes president she'll still be a lackey. Nothing will change concerning the income gap or regulating the fucking criminals that got us where we're at....
          Hillary Clinton Tells Wall Street She Believes Anti-Wall Street Rhetoric ‘Foolish’

          6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

          by fugwb on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:16:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary =VERSUS= More Republicans on SCOTUS. (0+ / 0-)

          Or did everybody forget what those (*&$%^s have been doing ?????

          "I hesitate to agree with Ted Nugent...."

          by waterstreet2013 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:38:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  FDR didn't have a CIA, NSA et al (0+ / 0-)

          pulling strings behind the scenes.

          The 'military-industrial complex' was still off in the future.   After Carter tried to rein in the CIA - and failed - those working behind the scenes in the intelligence community have had a direct hand (or at least a veto) in the selection process for the Presidency.  You are NOT going to get ANYONE in the White House who is not willing to turn a blind eye and 'play ball'.

          Ronnie left foreign affairs to Herbert Walker - an intelligence community insider. Pardoned drug dealers who defied Congress with Iran CONTRA .....Clinton.... google Mena Arkansas - more CIA ops......   another Bush and then Obama whose maternal family ties to the Company are conspicuously ignored... OF COURSE we 'moved on' - no way was anyone going to be held accountable for ANYTHING that happened under Bush II - no matter how illegal.......    torture, 'pre-emptive war', indefinite detention..... sure....    Our Founding Fathers would be aghast.

          Executive power is out of control but the sad truth is that the Executive Branch (and Congress as well) serve the rich and powerful (look at the history of the intelligence agencies in the US and where they drew their members from - the OSS was full of Ivy Leaguers from very well off and connected families).  You have money directly influencing politicians through political contributions and all the skeletons in their closets (known fully to our own Intelligence Community) serving to limit any overly altruistic impulses to 'serve the People'.

          Sorry but things have evolved in a way that leaves us only with the illusion of a Republic.  We've had an Empire for a while, one with a very dark side and that Empire is collapsing.  And like all Empires in collapse, those that hold wealth and power will do all they can to retain what they have.   Sadly, this will end as it always does - and that is not well for, well, pretty much everybody.

          Doesn't matter if a Republican or Democrat is President.  Hell, Obama has been WORSE than Bush in prosecuting financial crimes and expanding Executive Power.  Transparency?  bwahaaaaaa...... whistle blowers are ENEMIES of the STATE....... The Constitution is moot  

          We can argue over God Gays and Guns - giving the ILLUSION of 'differences' while Huxley's nightmare comes true faster than he thought possible.

          Life isn't fair but you should try to leave it fairer than you found it.

          by xrepub on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:48:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Congress matters! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes

          We are still in an almost impossible governing situation because of the 2010 midterms.

          Strange days indeed. ~John Lennon

          by joanil on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:25:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It doesn't matter if you are one who (6+ / 0-)

      believes that moderate Dems are no better than today's right-wing GOP. I'm not one of those. And until the  majority of the country considers themselves "liberal", like we do here, we're not likely to elect someone who is far left. The only way a Ted Cruz wins is if we nominated someone as far to the left as he is to the right. Not worth the risk IMO.

    •  Does anyone still think that there was no (21+ / 0-)

      difference between Al Gore and W?

      I guarantee on one thing, we would not be in this economic mess if Scalia/Thomas had followed the law.

  •  The other issue with the GOP (11+ / 0-)

    They want much of the poor population to DROP DEAD. That's why they work so hard to kill your job, to kil the economy, to kill the safety nets, to kill unemployment, to kill healthcare access, to kill foodstamps.

    We could never get so lucky as to have this ugly fucking 'subculture of rabid dogs' disappear'.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:55:19 AM PST

  •  Nice diary. (4+ / 0-)

    A kind of nutpick-a-palooza :-)

    I ride the wild horse .

    by BelgianBastard on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:22:59 AM PST

  •  George W. Bush left a big stink (11+ / 0-)

    that will take years to clear.

    It's one thing to have a right wing state with the federal government as a backstop and quite another thing to run a right wing country.

    Conservatism is like a parasite. It feeds on a healthy organism while trying to destroy it.  It can't stand up on its own.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:18:31 AM PST

    •  This is true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hypernaught, waterstreet2013

      It took the Dems 12 years to get past the stink left by Jimmy Carter.  The GOP ran against him for three elections.  It may take the GOP that long to get past the fact that GWB was president when the whole economic world melted down.  That is why I could see a one-term Hillary presidency following Obama.

      Make no mistake about it,...not many people like Hillary.  Most liberals barely tolerate her.  Pretty much all Republicans hate her guts.  That said, with Christie's debacle in NJ, she may be the only sane alternative in 2016, and,...Obama wasn't so bad, so why not stick with the Dems again (this might be the logic of the Indies).  

      But, I've seen this movie before, it's called GHWB.  He wasn't loved by anybody, either, but in the eyes of the nation, he was better than a Dem, and he WAS Reagan's VP, so there was some love there.  After four years, the good feelings wore off, and he was a one-termer.  The same could happen to Hillary, who has no where near the enduring popularity of her husband.

  •  This RS post looks like a "get out the vote" (4+ / 0-)

    screed, to me. For instance, the religious right (aka Republicans) are really freaked out about killing  public education and replacing it with creationist/Bircher programming.
    It's a "check-off list" of RW concerns.

    As for the Republican party, it's going to continue it's shift to the right, until it reaches a tipping point, at which time a "middle" party is going to exist between the left and right.

    In fact, the "middle" could be considered to be engineering the rightward shift in order to get the middle (incl. moderate Dems) to be pushed as far rightward as possible. I think we're seeing this played out all the time. Establ. goppers and "teaparty" goppers are colluding   routinely and the drama and dissensionn we see in  the gop is actually choreographed.

    The reality-based approach on the left, which is that what is good for the middle class is also good for the poor, and also protects the sustainability of our economy, eliminates concern about debt and deficits, and protects the environment and addresses climate change, is a dangerous common-cause prescription as far as the right is concerned. So they're always working to separate the "left" from the "middle" with wedge issues and suck the "middle" back into the old coalition with the right.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:28:44 AM PST

    •  I'm not sure they will continue to the right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      much further.

      I rather suspect the plutocrat financier wing is going to stop that drift with their bucks out of desperation; and if they do the Tea-infused looney wing will form a 3rd conservative party.

      If you're right, and you well could be of course, then for sure a third party will form in the "middle", said middle actually being slightly right of center.

      Either way, they split.  It's almost inevitable at this point.

      They have no one to blame but Fox News and two decades of feeding poison red meat to their most rabidly ignorant base.

      "A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance." -- George Orwell, 1984

      by Treats on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:21:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The TPs won't form a 3rd Party. But if they don't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David54, wasatch

        get with the program their funding will dry up.
           OTOH, the Wall Street Republicans have no popular support whatsoever. The so-called Tea Party IS the Republican base.

      •  It's far more likely that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, No one gets out alive, wasatch

        the economic Powers that Be take over the Dem party.  They couldn't care less about social issues, and the environmental issues are virtually comatose in the current national Dem party, anyway.  Expect a socially moderate/economically conservative Dem party to emerge from the GOP meltdown, and a liberal or green party to branch off on the Left.  

        I could seriously see three parties:  a Left Green party, a center-right Dem party, and a far-Right southern Republican party.

  •  Last ever? No... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bananapouch1, dagnome, La Gitane

    Last for a while? Yes. Because as long as the GOP continues on it's current path and refuses to adjust to changing demographics and whatnot, they will never win the White House.

  •  oddly enough, we say many of the same things, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    we think that everyone everywhere is biased against us, instead . . .

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:03:26 AM PST

  •  Which Bush? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest, wishingwell

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:11:18 AM PST

  •  Bush will be last straight, white, male prez. N/A (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bananapouch1, JustBeKos

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:27:00 AM PST

  •  Silly, very silly (5+ / 0-)

    Coalitions change and shatter in an instant. Democrats will hold the White House for a while, but only until the Republicans realize they need to rebrand, and then successfully do so. Not just "let's not talk about rape!", but actual, measurable policy changes.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

    by Le Champignon on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:55:49 AM PST

    •  Possible but they're concentrated in certain areas (4+ / 0-)

      In the 1980s and 1990s Democrats lived in all 50 states, often as minorities. Right now the GOP's voting base consists almost entirely of the old Confederacy and a few depopulated Midwestern states. It is simply hard to shift to the center if your party's base consists of aging white Christians in a country that's increasingly diverse and non-religious. In many states, the GOP is dead, and does not have a chance of winning statewide races. Look what happened to the state GOP in California - as the state became more diverse, the party shifted to the right trying to hold on to its radical base. After some time, the party became viewed as extreme, and unelectable statewide. Right now the same trend is occurring in states like Colorado and Virginia. If those two states become solidly blue, it will be even harder to elect a Republican as president.

    •  Yep (4+ / 0-)

      I even give the GOP a fair shot at winning the presidency in 16. I don't like this grand pronouncements about fates of the major political parties because they are almost always wrong. I can remember, in the wake of the Dukakis defeat that there would be no Democratic presidents until the turn of the century.  Clinton won the next time out. Then Clinton supposedly had the opportunity to win over the Perot voters and create a grand coaltion to keep the GOP out of power for a generation. The GOP took over the House and senate two years later.  Then Karl Rove "had the math" that proved the Dems were a permanent minority party, and of course the Dems then won back both Houses of Congress.

      •  Long game working itself out (3+ / 0-)

        1988 was the last Cold War Presidential election, and Dukakis for all his virtues was easily tarred as a soft-on-defense Massachusetts liberal. Not only was the Cold War still an issue, but we were still living in the shadow of Reagan's reactionary social climate (Bernard Shaw asking Dukakis about the raped-wife hypo, ugh).

        Fast forward 4 years, and the context was very different. You began to see the realigning of Republican and Democratic states with Clinton at the Presidential level. Two years later, the Gingrich Revolution represented the delayed-realignment caused by the Nixon Strategy working itself out in Congress.

        2000 and Bush v. Gore, along with 9/11, bought the GOP extra life at the national level, but they botched it to the extent that an African-American could not only be elected President with a smashing majority, but reelected by a majority despite the fact that, economically, things weren't and still aren't very good.

        The only reason the GOP is still relevant nationally after 2008 is because we monumentally screwed up 2010, a mistake that will haunt us for another 6 years at least. Can they win in 2016? Yes, but it will take two things:

        1) Another economic downturn, not necessarily as bad as 2008, but similar
        2) A non-crazy Republican candidate

        1) is somewhat out of hands, but as for 2), with Christie's implosion, I'd be scared shitless if I was a Republican leader. I mean, Rick Santorum leading polls? Favorable impressions for R-Money to run again? It's getting harder and harder to hold back the TP crazy in the GOP primaries. There is a non-trivial probability that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will be the 2016 GOP nominee.

        Let me repeat for emphasis: Ted Cruise. Rand Paul

        There will be another GOP President, but the 'Republican Party' will probably have evolved (lol) into something very different by then.

      •  I think Republicans have a better than even chance (0+ / 0-)

        of winning the Presidency in 2016.
           Bush-Cheney will be a distant memory, and an elderly HRC won't have the energy behind her that Obama did.

        •  Really? First woman President ever? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Clinton herself will be a lot older, but I can only imagine the energy and efforts that will be made for her candidacy coming from all across America. Things like that matter.

          Yes, Bush-Cheney will be long gone, but if the GOP nominee is a TP nutjob, nothing short of Great Depression 2.0 will prevent the Democrats from winning in '16.

          But it's certainly not hopeless for the GOP: I give them less-than-even chances, better than 2012, but not the favorites.

          •  "First woman president ever" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            doesn't excite Kossacks. But it will energize a lot of women in the democratic base, and even some Republican women, who will cross over to vote for Hillary.

            It will be a transformative presidency -- the first time since Queen Elizabeth I that a woman has been in charge of a substantial military power, and the first time in all of history that a woman has been in charge of a superpower/major military empire. And many Kossacks are not comfortable with that.

  •  I followed that diary over there, too. (5+ / 0-)

    If you liked that one, here is another favorite::

    28 rules that GOP hopefuls need to be aware of, including:

    Somewhere between 93% to 98% of the people who would be covering the race on behalf of the nation’s largest national and regional news media outlets will be supporting your Democrat opponent
    Of course. The media is almost %100 biased, but let me get the figures exactly. Oh, here it is, 93% to 98%.
    Hire people who want you to win. This may sound obvious; but note that a large number of the staffers surrounding the McCain and Romney campaigns made it clear that they were more interested in maintaining their social standing in Washington’s cocktail circuit than winning the election. Hire people who would only dismiss a campaign tactic on the grounds of effectiveness, rather than nice-guy sophisticate concerns such as “elevating the discourse” or “fostering bipartisan cooperation”
    I hate it when my candidate wants to elevate the discourse and foster cooperation. How disgusting!
    Don’t preach to the choir. Target the bulk of your communications efforts toward convincing fence-sitters and the marginally informed, not just the true believers who are already convinced. “Because freedom.”, “Because Founding Fathers.” and “Because Constitution.” and yes, “Because God.” may be effective with the GOP’s conservative base, but they are not effective arguments for winning over new adherents.
    Actually, I have no argument with that. I'm glad the GOP candidate will never follow that advice. And besides, isn't that  the direct opposite of the point just above?

    Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving party. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome.

    by pucklady on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:57:38 AM PST

  •  GHWB last legitimately elected GOP Pres in 1988 (5+ / 0-)

    One must remember that the last legitimately elected GOP President was President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988.  In fact, Al Gore was truly the de facto winner of 2000, with strange shenanigans in Ohio and the MSM as facilitators of the GWB reign providing the last GOP President with a second term in 2004.

    So much has vastly changed since then, not least of which are investigative journalists all over the Internet, and, as a result of the Obama campaigns data base, a manner in which to exceed even the most vaulted amounts of GOP largesse and GOTV on the national stage.

    Today, beltway media hype has all but lost its traction.  Witness the current meltdown of Chris Christie, the darling of the MSM until his state scandals so enveloped him and nearly the whole of his personally selected staff, so much so that now only select members of that MSM still cling to Christie.  And that is only because really, even among the GOP's possible second and third tier candidates for 2016, they have yet no other candidate even remotely viable.

    Finally, the demographics have vastly changed.  The wins of Clinton and Obama have shattered the GOP stranglehold on the South and many former GOP states in the Midwest now in terms of the national level are all but lost to Republicans.  Indeed, were it not for gerrymandering, these states today would be yielding a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives.

    So only another outright stolen election--with more facilitators than just the MSM--can grant to the GOP another President anytime in the foreseeable future. Unless of course, the ideology of the GOP base itself is to undergo a complete metamorphosis.   But that would mean that both the GOP Old Guard, with their ridiculous dreams of an American social caste system, and the Tea Partiers, with their equally inane call to return America to the darker years of the nineteenth century, would come to terms with the reality of our current world.  And how likely is that to happen, at least in the next several decades?

    •  All it will take is one Dem mistep (0+ / 0-)

      and the GOP will win.  One act of hubris.  One overreach, assuming the country is more progressive than it is.  One major scandal of the wrong kind.  

      That's all it will take.  The voting public is fickle.  Dems lost the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994 because they became so corrupt, so arrogant, and so disconnected from the political tone that they didn't recognize their own mortality.  Enter a lightening rod like the first Dem president in over a decade (an election the GOP still considers illegitimate because of Perot), a tax hike in an era when Reagan had convinced Americans that taxes were the Devil, and you have a recipe for a 1994 tsunami.

      That will happen to Dems, eventually.  It has always happened in the past.  It will eventually happen again.

  •  Tipped and Recced (5+ / 0-)

    simply for the "a GOP angel loses his wings" statement. That was priceless.

    Blue is blue and must be that. But yellow is none the worse for it - Edith Sidebottom

    by kenwards on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:31:59 AM PST

  •  Yes, they are afraid... (4+ / 0-)


    But more than that I think that some of them, those with one foot in reality, are starting to feel very afraid.
      Deep down, many conservatives are just cowards. Afraid of change, afraid of others and even afraid of themselves.

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mahatma Gandhi

    by PlinytheWelder on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:44:11 AM PST

  •  ha ha ha... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger, raboof

    Wait until the next big bubble burst...then you'll see your republican president. Could be next election. The problem is, you're looking at the political world with one eye and failing to see how both parties coddle the rich elite at the expense of the working class.

  •  The biggest reason the Republican Party is dying (7+ / 0-)

    Is that to a man (and it's mostly old white men) the Republicans cannot tell the truth.  They lie and cheat to win elections.  They campaign on Jobs, and when elected, enact anti-abortion laws, or laws restricting the right to vote, or laws that deny science and the fact the globe is warming.  The try to gut environmental laws.  They are trying to eliminate the American Middle Class so their rich Masters can keep all the money they've "earned" from the toil of their low-paid workers.  
    Now, if the Republicans could figure out a way to change all of that, and start telling the truth, I may even consider voting for a Republican again.  In maybe 40 or 50 years.

  •  Bear in mind that the GOP in the Obama era (7+ / 0-)

    is not a political/governing party, it's an improv act, and a very lucrative one at that. Their product -- self-congratulation and resentment -- sells, and they don't have anything else to sell.

    What's happening now is, they're selling more and more of that product to fewer and fewer people. They're winning at the cash register, not the ballot box, and for the moment I think they're OK with that.

    They won't win a national election until they start selling a different product. There simply aren't enough Americans who want to live their lives and base our laws on a pair of fantasy novels (Atlas Shrugged and The Bible).

    •  Well you're partly right... (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure I agree with you on the fantasy novels, but...

      The Obama-era GOP is not a governing party.  It is purely an Opposition party.  They decided in 2009 that their only hope of stopping Obama from being a transformative "Reagan of the Left" was to grind the whole machine to a halt for 4-8 years.  

      In that respect, they have been pretty darn effective.  They'll take their chances with Hillary, who, if she weren't a woman, would more than likely be one of them.

      •  I'd argue that it's playing the role of the (0+ / 0-)

        "Opposition party" in an elaborate improv act designed to fool the public into believing they actually care about any of the substantive issues, are "opposing" anything for genuine, altruistic reasons and negotiating in good faith to resolve that "opposition" and get things done.

        I agree they've been effective, because there are plenty of people who have fallen for their (what I consider to be) transparently phony charade.

        All politics is theatre to one degree or another. This is a degree we've never seen before. The entirety of the GOP's public behavior and rhetoric over the past five years has been an act. All of it.  It's the greatest, longest-running, best-coordinated, most lucrative production of improvisational theatre in world history.

    •  Rachel Maddow was among the first to describe the (0+ / 0-)

      modern Republican party as a "performance art project."  An apt description.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:53:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the kind of thinking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert

    That causes us to get our asses handed to us in elections.

  •  Of course it is "cool" to be a liberal Democrat. (3+ / 0-)

    Republicans are lame by definition. There is no such thing as a cool Republican. Anyone who points that out is merely stating reality.

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:18:23 AM PST

  •  In 2024, after 2 terms of Hillary Clinton, no... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    American between the ages of 18-52 will have experienced a Republican president in office (other than the utter disaster that we know as George. W. Bush).  No American of voting age up to the age of 52 will have any positive memory of a GOP presidency over a period spanning 32 years.   To realize that is to come to a WOW moment.    Unless the Dems totally screw up, the probability of a GOP candidate being elected president will be further and further diminished by this reality.

    To write a Republican Party talking point on a policy issue, any policy issue, all you need is: a noun, a verb, and 'Obamacare'.

    by MARTinNJ on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:21:11 AM PST

    •  So, the Reps will do what they did in 1952. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      No one gets out alive

      Run someone very popular who is seen as outside the party structure.  

      And that was after five terms of a Democrat in office.

      The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

      by raboof on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:30:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eisenhower wasn't sure which party he'd run on, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No one gets out alive

        and both Dems and Reps courted him.  And the nomination process was controlled by party leaders back then, not by the voters.

        The current GOP voters value ideological purity and would not support a candidate like Ike who was pretty much a middle of the road guy who mostly made decisions based on practical considerations.

        So unless they come up with a very conservative yet very popular outsider, and I can't think of anyone who fits that description, I don't see that strategy working for Republicans.  The closest I can come at the moment is Trump, and he'll never be electable.

      •  raboof -- actually, that's why they were grooming (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        david all-in petraeus (& some, like me, think they still are). they were hoping to repeat ike's candidacy with a respected (cough, cough) bemedaled war "hero" -- only, dp fucked up (literally) & now he's doing his image-rehab-thing, speaking at college campuses (for big $$$$$), getting himself appointed to university boards of regents (also big $$$$), etc.

        i wouldn't be at all surprised if he's the geeohhpee nominee in 2016, especially if the alternatives are santorum & romney. i'd love it if they do, too. can't wait for voters to be reminded how he was too distracted by his crazy mistress who thought he was cheating on her (while he was cheating on his wife!) to handle the benghazi situation. funny how darryl issa's never got around to investigating that . . .

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

        by bluezen on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:38:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You could say the same thing about 1992 (2+ / 0-)

      At that point, there hadn't been a Dem president other than the disaster of Jimmy Carter in 24 years.  Then a recession coincided with the GOP Right getting antsy, and spawning Perot.  

      And, Bill Clinton happened.

      Hubris, over-reach, fatigue, all factors in change.  I know conservatives who were horrified on election night, because they voted for Perot out of protest, never believing that the Dem could actually win.  How'd that work out for you???

      One benefit of not holding the White House for a long time, is that people forget about the bad times, too.  It's only a matter of time.  Dems got really lucky with the Christie scandal.  Maybe not next time,....

    •  LOL... (0+ / 0-)

      so HRC is an automatic two term winner, eh?


      I've seen this movie before-- back when some of you were still watching Sesame Street and Mommy was cutting the crust from your peanut butter and jelly sammys, I was part of Salon's "public forum" website... this was wayyy before the term "blog" was invented.

      There, numerous armchair no-nothings were predicting a landslide victory for Al Gore.


      I and about three other people predicted Smirky would win.

      "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

      by Superpole on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:07:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  To answer your question (0+ / 0-)

    No, but the GOP won't have a president further to the right than the Dumbya.

  •  GW Bush shouldn't have been president in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No one gets out alive

    the first place so, no I don't think he'll be the last. The GOP has proven to be the masters of dirty tricks so I would count the SOBs out.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:33:00 AM PST

  •  10-12 years ago, i thought Bush would bust the GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue Bronc

    for a generation,

    I figured he'd be such a big idiot he'd bust the brand
    for a generation, much as Hoover did.

    However it appears he may have shattered the party entirely

    the dems can grow in the south, the GOP can't grow anywhere.

  •  Which Bush? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    His daughter Noelle?

    The point being, this family goes back generations, doubt that they are finished yet.

  •  Not unless the traditional Republicans (2+ / 0-)

    can reclaim their party from the crazies -- the Religious Reich, the Tea Party, and the other factions that have put more emphasis on social issues than on fiscal conservatism. When you consider that Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO by the current crop of folks in charge, it's obvious they've gone way over the edge.

    I've got traditional Republicans in my family; they're horrified at what's happened to the party. They're strict fiscal Repubs; they've got no objection to paying for abortions because it's cheaper than 18+ years of welfare. My eldest niece is a teacher; she's seen what's been done to public education. They could give a rat's ass who marries whom as long as their consenting adults and the tax bills don't go up.

    I think we'll get a conservative President again -- but one who's willing to work with the opposition to solve issues, not a "my way or the highway" type. I think the bigger question is if we'll ever see a Congress willing to work with the Democrats and with a Democratic President.

    There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:46:40 AM PST

    •  Koch Bros (0+ / 0-)

      The key to the failure of the Republicans runs through the Koch Bros anti-America work.  They built the original "tea party republican" act.  They bussed the actors around the country to the various teaparty republican events.  They are the very focal point of the destruction of the Republican Party.

  •  I doubt that W will even be the last Bush to be (0+ / 0-)


  •  Another article at redstate looks at the Electoral (0+ / 0-)

    College as the GOP’s biggest problem. It points out that in 2012 if Romney had won Ohio, Florida and Virginia, he still would have lost the election. (The final EC total: 332-206) It lists the 20 solid blue states and their 246 EC votes:

    CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).
    It says the Republicans are confronting the EC problem by trying to get states to proportionally award their EC votes, like Nebraska and Maine, but it sees little hope of that happening soon. It laments that "even a below average Democrat presidential candidate" starts with 246 of the 270 needed to win.

    The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

    by ybruti on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:51:58 AM PST

  •  Problem with GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thinking Fella

    From the responses you posted I'm not sure they even realize the problem.

    You have to give democrats credit. When some of the solutions to our problems in the past were ones that could be helped by republican ideas they moved to the right.

    Now there are virtually no problems our country now faces that can be solved by republican ideas but they are unable to embrace any democratic ideas because they have so demonized them for the past 30 years.

  •  I wish they would make up their minds. (5+ / 0-)
    4. A mainstream media that is overwhelmingly comprised of journalists who are biased towards Democrats and liberal causes.
    We hear this complaint all the time. In between, we hear that Fox News is the most-watched, most-popular, highest-rated, most-trusted news source on TV; that conservative talk radio is widely and wildly successful because it appeals to so many people, while liberal talk radio has failed and continues to fail because "no one" wants to hear it; that "no one" watches the "liberal" network, MNSBC, or reads the "liberal" paper, The New York Times.

    Somehow, as GOP fans are constantly telling us, conservative "news" sources are far more popular and successful than any other news sources, which "no one" watches or pays any attention to, yet in the next breath they tell us the "mainstream media" is dominated by "journalists who are biased towards Democrats and liberal causes." Somehow Fox and Rush Limbaugh get the highest ratings, have the most viewers, and make the most money, yet still amount to only a tiny voice in the wilderness of the "liberal media."

    Folks, 1974 called. It wants its complaints about the "liberal media" back.

    •  Orwell would be proud (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Doublespeak at its finest.

      For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

      by Grey Fedora on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:33:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your poll does not have an answer for me. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe you should have - not until the Tea Party dies.

  •  I can explain/translate #2 (5+ / 0-)
    2. An education system controlled by liberals that churns out young liberals.
    What this actually means is an education system that teaches fact-based critical thinking skills.  

    Skills in which the ability to be open minded, consider multiple points of view, make original conclusions based on data, and be willing to change your mind in the face of new evidence are all valued.

    This, to them, is "liberalism."

    They are simply lost, unintelligent, angry, scared little children.

  •  Let not him that girdeth on his harness..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    “Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”

    It wasn't that long ago when Karl Rove and the GOP were so smug about creating "A permanent Republican majority," and relegating Democrats to liberal enclaves on the two coasts.  

    And don't discount the power of gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep them in power for awhile. And they can cause immeasurable damage before in their last throes.

    Finally, the forces of ignorance and evil are never truly defeated. While waiting for a "Book of Numbers" solution may sound appealing, new Republicans will spring up with the next generation.

    Progressive policies inherently sow the seeds of their own destruction. As former have-nots begin to prosper, a certain percentage of them will forget from whence they came; the white working class who were the chief beneficiaries of the New Deal became the Reagan Democrats, and then the Tea Party.

    Eternal vigilance is price of freedom and prosperity.

    For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    by Grey Fedora on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:31:48 AM PST

  •  #1, #8 and #9 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Berkeley Fred, wishingwell

    Pretty much fully covers the real challenges that they face. I just never expected to see it all laid out on a site like RS. They have the facts in from of them. It's all right there. But rather than take a serious look at those numbers and trends, they turn to all the nonsense and noise.

    Deep down I think they don't really want to change. They want everyone else to change. Because that is easy (for them).

    I personally think there will be another GOP President, but not until the GOP does the work required to come up with a platform that doesn't

    alienate majorities of younger voters, Hispanics, African Americans, gays, teachers, young professionals, atheists, unmarried women, and even suburban married women.
    But short of ejecting the social religious fundamentalists and becoming actual "Progressive Conservatives", I can't see it happening any time soon.  

    Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects. Lester B. Pearson

    by TwoSolitudes on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:32:07 AM PST

  •  No, we don't "pretty much have one now." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Anyone who thinks so is simply not paying attention or is politically illiterate.  Give the President a majority Dem house and 61 Dem Senators for the remainder of his term and then ask the question in 2016.  I would guarantee that no one would choose that option in the poll.

  •  I think this depends on future definitions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of the words "GOP" and "President". A 1950s republican bears virtually no resemblance to the kind of bigoted, venal predatory oligarch of today. And lord only knows what variant of schutzstaffel the Tea Party will morph itself into.

    As for "President"... it's also a crap shoot: Obama has proven that florid oratory and toothy grins don't mean anything (as if they ever did)... and the office itself has been pretty much relegated to a figurehead position since almost all of its occupants for the past 50 years have possessed little if any personal integrity through their works and exhibited a vulgar taste for situational morality.

    Which of course leaves the actual power of running the country to Congress. And almost everyone knows just how useful teats are on bulls....

  •  Sorry, have to start with a joke (not quite) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1. GWB will not be the last GOP president - he was a usurper. Beware, he might not be the last.
    2. The Overton Window has been pushed so far right that it is a legitimate argument that POTUS Obama is a arguably a right winger. (whether he wants to be or not) The same can be said for HRC. (whether you believe it or not)

    It is easy to go to histrionics, and "crossroads" is one of the most misused words in politics, but it applies here. We really are at a crossroad - technology has made our economic system, and therefore every other system in our society, obsolete, irrelevant, and poisonous. We need to reinvent everything, and anyone who doesn't see it and do something about it might as well be a goposaurous.

  •  Starting to be afriad? Fear is what drives them (0+ / 0-)

    Fear of the future, fear of change, fear of almost everything that they construe as "new" and "different"

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:40:36 AM PST

  •  Wingless Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    Shall not rise up.  Ode to Republicanism->

    This land is your land and this land is my land, sure, but the world is run by those that never listen to music anyway. ~ Bob Dylan ~

    by NCTim on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:43:21 AM PST

  •  Wouldn't that be a hell of a capstone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on the conservative movement. The culmination of decades of work, in the form of Bush Jr. and Dick Chaney.

    One can only wonder what historians will write about it.

    Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

    by somewierdguy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:55:35 AM PST

  •  Spinsters take heed... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A political movement whose core "values" support abortion, homosexuality, and single women is a political movement that doesn't have a long-term future.
    Everyone knows...
    white, old, southern, and male
    voters reproduce like rabbits.  

    My fire extinguisher of choice, is gasoline.

    by JustBeKos on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:39:25 AM PST

    Recommended by:
    Ozzie, wishingwell

    This "Democrat Party" shit started approximately with Tom DeLay and it was an obvious attempt to take "democratic" out of "Democratic." Stop doing it!!!!

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:55:51 AM PST

  •  Jeb Has The Stink (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lizzie Cheney has the stink.
    Chris Christie has the stink.
    Paul Ryan has the stink.
    Sarah Palin has the stink.
    Rick Santorum has the stink.
    (Your favorite GOoPer) has the stink.

    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:13:44 AM PST

  •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    speaksoftly •
    A political movement whose core "values" support abortion, homosexuality, and single women is a political movement that doesn't have a long-term future.
    So does a party with a majority of couples over the age of 65.
  •  Who owns whom? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Since you mention the Abortion Barbie strategy, let's talk about that a little bit: Even before Wendy Davis announced her candidacy for Gov., Texas repubs were saying that she "owns the pro-abortion stance."
    Ok, so here's a short list of what her repub opponent, Greg Abbott, owns:

    1.  Rick Perry
    2.  Ted Cruz
    3.  The Tea Party
    4.  Opposition to raising the minimum wage.
    5.  Refusal to accept federal medicaid funds.
    6.  The war on women.
    7.  The war on the LGBT community.

    There might be a repub candidate out there who's smart enough, strong enough and charismatic enough to carry all that baggage, but it ain't Greg Abbott.

    "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

    by oldmaestro on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:22:11 AM PST

  •  You mean Jeb Bush? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    My invisible imaginary friend is the "true" creator

    by Mr Robert on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:01:50 PM PST

  •  no. the GOP will change as necessary (0+ / 0-)

    the older morons will leave. Most the culture war crap will go away but the economic conservatism will still be there. Basically it will be the libertarian party. Sooner or later the democratic party will screw up sufficiently enough for people to give the GOP another chance.

    •  sounds as if you can barely hide your giddiness (0+ / 0-)

      at the prospect.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

      by bluezen on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:49:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not at all. (0+ / 0-)

        it's political reality. There is no such thing as being a permanent majority in a democracy. Sooner or later the other party gets a chance.

        •  keep whistling past the graveyard. ;~ (0+ / 0-)

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:15:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what does that even mean? (0+ / 0-)
            •  wishing for something good to happen in a bad (0+ / 0-)

              situation . . . like your comments in this thread. they all have a common theme: the gop will be right (pun intended) as rain once the stubborn old foggies with their outdated ideas die off -- & then the r's will return to their rightful place: governing the country.

              the geeoohpee is never gonna rid the party of its bigots. it can't. it's all the party has left for its base. but, of course, as a card carrying concerned troll, you already know that.

              that spinning vase looks good on you, btw ;~

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

              by bluezen on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:06:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  no (0+ / 0-)

    a shake up in the GOP is coming, hopefully after 2016 when HRC wins big. what the entire country needs is for the GOP to make a clean break with the politics of ignorance and absolute corporate power. they've been able to hold off this moment during the Obama years, but the potential for a real big break is there, one where the GOP loses a significant portion of its current base to the Democrats because those voters are simply fed up with them.

    once that happens, the GOP will finally be able to break free of the stupid and let their saner voices be heard. over time, human nature being what it is, eventually Democrats will have their own unity issues and a fresh voice will immerge again fron the GOP.

    •  never gonna happen. the geeohhpee is the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      party of the plutocrats. no way they're ever going "to make a clean break with the politics of ignorance and absolute corporate power." -- they are absolute corporate power. they rely on voter ignorance to exist.

      you're either deluding yourself or are on a fool's errand.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

      by bluezen on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:57:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the social issues(culture war) (0+ / 0-)

        stuff they will break with sooner or later. The people who hold on to the culture war stuff are old and 10-15 years off from dying.

        •  ha! good luck with that! the culture war issues (0+ / 0-)

          are the only thing the geeoohpee has in its toolkit to motivate its rabid base to gotv, & as for older party members dying off, there will always be fools like you to take their place.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:11:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i wouldn't vote for the gop (0+ / 0-)

            If you put my nuts in a vice. Get over your stupid theory.

            •  your comment history says otherwise ;~ (0+ / 0-)

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

              by bluezen on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 04:53:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah. i might be a little to the right of the (0+ / 0-)

                average person on this site. It's what generally happens when you're a Nebraska democrat. What would you like to do to me? Kick me out of the party? Ban me from voting for democrats? Am i only allowed to vote for my party but not speak at it's gathering places? Is the dailykos only intended to be an echo chamber for east and west coast democrats and damn be anyone else? My comments might make me seem more to the right than i am because i generally don't comment unless i disagree with or don't understand specific things. I'm sure if i started to comment on things i do agree with, which is probably in the 90% of what's said here,  my rating would shoot skyward.

                on this topic. You've got to be ignorant to believe that republicans would put their bigotry before their lust for power. When the time comes they will have to make necessary adjustments to their platform. To believe that they wouldn't is pure stupidity. Large ideological shifts in political parties happen and almost always happen to facilitate the grabbing of power.

                •  apparently you're either delusional or willfully (0+ / 0-)

                  shoveling shit when you say r's wouldn't choose bigotry over power. that's what got them in power & how they stay there.

                  btw, i was born & raised (white) in the jim crow south & currently live there, now. i know rw talking points when i hear/see them.

                  The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

                  by bluezen on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:00:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  speaksoftly: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    These core AMERICAN values are CHOICE, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY. Telomere

  •  I'm not ready to count them out yet... (0+ / 0-)

    They have a nasty habit of making very good comebacks.

    But the process by which they manage it is going to be brutal to somebody...

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:15:17 PM PST

  •  I'm tempted to look at it... (0+ / 0-)

    If for no other reason than to read the comments. I'm sure the double down brigade is having a coronary trying to refute some of these points. These are the same people who think there is this magical cache of far right voters who sit out every election because the candidates aren't conservative enough. Anyone else notice that at least two of these contradict themselves? Acceptance of gays is part of the problem but so is the fact that the republican party is alienating them? Can't have it both ways, guys.

    At some point you have to face reality. Even taking Rush at his word stops working after you lose so many elections. My guess is their solution would be a change in "voter registration laws" but how long can that keep working when the people who vote for you aren't replaced by the passage of time? Sooner or later, no matter what criteria you change it to, these people are going to be allowed to vote and they'll remember who tried to stop them.  

  •  HERE We GO AGAIN WITH (0+ / 0-)

    the GOP is dead total baloney.

    your analysis assumes and misses about oh, a million things.

    first: the economy still sucks.. you probably didn't notice our economy sucks so bad that recently Sears, Kmart and now even Radio Shack announced they are closing hundreds of stores.

    when these lower rung retail stores can't keep their doors open because millions of people are broke; I'd say that's a big problem.

    so there goes those retail jobs down the toilet.

    the notion the next democratic POTUS candidate has some sort of automatic win coming in spite of our crappy economy is about as presumptuous and naïve as it gets.

    it's too early to talk about demographics. there are still plenty of dumb hicks and one percenters in states where it matters-- like Ohio and Florida.

    and oh yeah, you clearly "forgot" about the shellacking the dems got in 2010.. and that's OK, because you're about to witness it again this fall as a reminder

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:58:40 PM PST

  •  "I wont post the link but brave souls can see it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Slightly Wobbly

    over on RS if they wish." You really should have linked it, you know. Here:
    Could George W. Bush Be The Last Republican President? 2014 update from a 2012 RedState piece by Myra Adams.

    For the Kossacks who don't want to give Erick, Son of Erick any clicks, Adams submitted the same article to The Daily Beast:
    Could George W. Bush Be The Last Republican President? If they couldn’t beat Obama, the chances against stopping Hillary are even slimmer.
    Considering Romney got 47% (snrrrk) of the popular vote, I wouldn't write off the crazy-racist-sexist-people vote just yet.

    •  True, if Romney, despite being widely disliked (0+ / 0-)

      even on the Republican side, and carrying the baggage of being a Mormon, plus having flip-flopped so much you couldn't keep track, and letting his plutocrat sympathies out of the bag with the tape running, could get 47%, then the Republican brand is still worth something. Unfortunately.

  •  hay! what's wrong with spinsters? (0+ / 0-)

    i resemble that remark!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:38:33 PM PST

  •  Romney led O by double digits after 1st debate (0+ / 0-)

    in many national polls, which is one important data point for why GOP can still win if they can put together cogent or cogent-sounding arguments.

  •  So basically the problem is (0+ / 0-)

    That no one wants to be a Republican anymore.

  •  wingnuttery is human nature (0+ / 0-)

    They'll never go away.  They might moderate for a while, but what they appeal to is in all of us.  Ironically, a period of long-term full-spectrum liberal dominance will itself sow the seeds of a conservative revival.  Action and reaction then, now, and forever.

    The funny thing is that the other half of the right wing is utterly convinced that liberalism is structurally doomed because it allegedly has a negative survival value: sub-replacement birth rates, pacifism, radical individualism, devaluing of work, Luddite environmentalists, etc.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:01:26 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site