No. Not kidding. Fascinating decade in American history, the 1850s. Whig Party of the early 1850s, like the GOP today, was split in two factions. Whigs were smart. They scuttled the party, then the northern anti-slavery faction re-invented itself as the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint, the Republicans today might be wise to follow the example of the Whigs -- jettison the Tea Party, reorganize under a new name, then move more to the center and attract the 40% of American voters who consider themselves neither conservative nor liberal, but who mostly voted for Obama in '08 and '12.

 

The Republicans the last two elections have offered up two of the most moderate presidential candidates in the last century . I always hear this lame argument that republicans have moved further to the right and I just laugh. If Michelle Bachman or Rick Santourm were the candidates you would have an arguement . Those crazy right wingers who want federal spending to slow down and our government to quit growing . Crazy right wingers who want to preserve the 2 amendment of the document this nation was founded on . Those crazy right wingers with their radical ideas that all our government guarantees is the PURSUIT of happiness and not the results.

 

Such radical ideas shared with our founding fathers that helped them create this great nation. But lets pause for a second and think if there could be another cause to the problem. Could it be we have raised a generation of weak dependent citizens who feel the federal government should cuddle them and provide for them. A mindset that allows weak individuals not to think how through hard work they may be able to provide for themselves without the government holding their hands and telling them we all deserve the same results . I was just raised different and reading through the history books of this nation past generations were also raised different . This nation was built through blood sweat and tears of hard working immigrants from all over the world. They came here not because they promised monetary gain or free health care. They came here because of the American dream. Which used to mean that only in this country and in this moment in history has a nation arose that allowed a man through his own hard work and determination determine his own success. Success was never promised it was earned .

 

I know this post will anger some and frankly I don't care. I don't mince words .The problem with this country isn't a party be it republican or democrat . The problem is the mindset of the people and the distorted and wrong view on what our federal government was founded to be and to provide .

 

Off my soap box.

No. Not kidding. Fascinating decade in American history, the 1850s. Whig Party of the early 1850s, like the GOP today, was split in two factions. Whigs were smart. They scuttled the party, then the northern anti-slavery faction re-invented itself as the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint, the Republicans today might be wise to follow the example of the Whigs -- jettison the Tea Party, reorganize under a new name, then move more to the center and attract the 40% of American voters who consider themselves neither conservative nor liberal, but who mostly voted for Obama in '08 and '12.

 

Your original statement ignores 160 years of politics.

 

As to this post, I've been around long enough to have seen both parties declared dead, and more than once. I also get a great kick out of people who expect their party to hold onto power 12, 16 even 20 years. Sounds very much like the republicans around 1990 or the democrats around 1998.

Edited April 20, 201313 yr by 75center

Your original statement ignores 160 years of politics.

 

As to this post, I've been around long enough to have seen both parties declared dead, and more than once. I also get a great kick out of people who expect their party to hold onto power 12, 16 even 20 years. Sounds very much like the republicans around 1990 or the democrats around 1998.

Election results by state 1860 vs. 2012. Compare the maps in the link below.

 

Christian Martin Blog: USA Election Map 2012 and 1860's map of USA

 

Other similarities of the 1850s and today:

 

-- Immigration was a heated topic of discussion in the 1850s, as it is today.

-- Southerners voting then and now as a bloc to preserve culture while trying to limit the role of the federal government in their lives.

-- Controversial Supreme Court decisions involving personhood: Citizens United and Dred Scott.

-- New political parties/factions arrive on the scene with a bang (Tea Party, Republicans).

-- Presidents elected after rising from relative obscurity in short amount of time. (Both also called Illinois home.)

 

If you think another era is more representative, please share.

Every era experienced those same conditions. When hasn't immigration been a major discussion? Various geographical regions have always voted as a bloc. Controversial SC decisions? All the time. Political party factions? Not quite yearly but common. Presidents rising from obscurity quickly? Also common. Pick any era and you have those happening.

How can he wear out his "welcome" if he was never "welcomed" to begin with? I'm digressing a bit here but it seems that the larger issue is how can the GOP "survive" three-seven-quite possibly 11 more years of a Democrat-controlled Executive Branch (especially if Hillary runs in '16).

 

Bub, you are part of what's wrong with this country. SMH....

Bub, you are part of what's wrong with this country. SMH....

So me and the other 65.9 million people who voted to re-elect the president last November are the problem, huh? That's one way to look at the GOP's shrinking tent.

So me and the other 65.9 million people who voted to re-elect the president last November are the problem, huh? That's one way to look at the GOP's shrinking tent.

Yes

Yes

:lol2: :lol: :clap:

So me and the other 65.9 million people who voted to re-elect the president last November are the problem, huh? That's one way to look at the GOP's shrinking tent.

 

The R's are not doing to bad for a 'shrinking tent'.

 

Check out this site:

 

2013 Governors and Legislatures

 

It shows the make up state governorships and legislatures.

 

I counted 24 states where R's control the governorship and both houses. I counted only 9 for the D's. Of course the D's control large (but shrinking) states like California and NY.

Whatever Democrats do Republicans have done it too. Whatever Republicans do Democrats have done it too.

 

GW Bush and Obama were both supremely unqualified to be President.

 

Bush was cocky and Obama is arrogant. I don't like either of them.

 

Ignore what's going on in Washington, decide what you want to do with your life and get to it.

The R's are not doing to bad for a 'shrinking tent'.

 

Check out this site:

 

2013 Governors and Legislatures

 

It shows the make up state governorships and legislatures.

 

I counted 24 states where R's control the governorship and both houses. I counted only 9 for the D's. Of course the D's control large (but shrinking) states like California and NY.

Good analysis. You're correct. Obama's election in '08 seems to have made many red states even redder. My comments about the GOP's small tent pertain to the national level. Unless the GOP can pick off states like NY or CA or PA, their national election woes will continue -- or actually worsen -- because of the country's changing demographics and the structure of the Electoral College.

 

I read or heard the other day that 50,000 Hispanic voters are being added to the voter rosters every month, while the GOP is losing about the same number of its older voters. It's just a matter of time before the growing Hispanic vote turns Texas and Arizona blue (in national elections), as has happened in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

The R's are not doing to bad for a 'shrinking tent'.

 

Check out this site:

 

2013 Governors and Legislatures

 

It shows the make up state governorships and legislatures.

 

I counted 24 states where R's control the governorship and both houses. I counted only 9 for the D's. Of course the D's control large (but shrinking) states like California and NY.

Here's another way to look at what you describe:

 

The other day I revisited the Obama-Romney results state by state. I noticed that Romney took a huge chunk of Great Plains and Western real estate. He won Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, the two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

 

Obama won California.

 

California has 55 electoral votes. The other 10 states combined have 51.

Bub, you are part of what's wrong with this country. SMH....

 

Ignorant and stupid comments like this is the problem and why I hate coming in here. All the insults always seem to come from one side too. That stupidity will be the death of our country. Screw it though. Let's get dirty.

Here's another way to look at what you describe:

 

The other day I revisited the Obama-Romney results state by state. I noticed that Romney took a huge chunk of Great Plains and Western real estate. He won Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, the two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

 

Obama won California.

 

California has 55 electoral votes. The other 10 states combined have 51.

 

The state by state battles will continue as long as there is no strong candidate from either party. Since 2000 we are mired in 'swing states'. The landslides of Reagen or Clinton are behind us and without a strong unifying candidate that is the way it will be.

 

California is probably forever lost to the R's. I spent 8 months there in 2008. As a state, they are brainwashed. Same with NY due to NYC. Pennsylivania likely lost to the R's to the strong D machine in Philly.

 

Its Ohio, Virginia and NC that are needed by the R's. Through in Michigan as a chance now. And Florida is a must win for the R's next time.

All the insults always seem to come from one side too.

I disagree. Both sides are guilty.