PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : The last stand: Can the Republican Party survive without Texas??



urbanactivist
Dec 14, 2009, 9:06 PM
Let's review the 2008 Presidential Electoral map...

http://2008election.procon.org/files/electionimages/map3.jpg
http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=001953

Although the land area of the red states is quite expansive, it's no secret that the people power lies in solidly blue areas. With each election cycle, the more populous states trend towards the Democratic party (this is also proving to be the case in traditional swing states like Ohio and Missouri).

The lone exception... the one state that Republicans have been able to count on without fail since the late 1960s... Texas. With a "good ole boy" for a governor and no signs of the abatement of cheap land and a pro-business climate in the future, Texas seems to be a sure bet for the Republicans to stay vital and relevant on the national scene.

But lately, the tides have been changing. Democratic voters are slowly (but deliberately) increasing in number, and spreading their influence much farther than the RGV. Democrats in Texas have finally figured out how to organize in strong numbers. Starting with the major urban areas of Dallas, Houston Austin and San Antonio, Dems are now working overtime to register new voters (of increasingly diverse demographics) and educate the citizenry about the party's goals. Most importantly, Texas has a new class of strong Democratic politicians that have the ability to make a strong showing in the state. What this adds up to is that Texas is about to become a major swing state... much sooner than the Republican party is prepared for.

So the question is this... can the Republican party remain viable without a strong showing in Texas??

diablo234
Dec 14, 2009, 11:34 PM
No. In the future they will probably even lose Arizona and Texas because of their anti immigration stance. Virginia and North Carolina were also categorized as red states until the 2008 election partly due to the influx of northeastern transplants but also due to the fact that the GOP as of right now only caters to the hard line/neoconservative wing while ignoring the more moderate/libertarian fractions of the party.

urbanactivist
Dec 18, 2009, 7:25 PM
Here's the population figures for anyone that's wondering (Wikipedia quick estimates)...

Texas state Population: 24,326,974

Counties over 100,000 (shaded by presidential election results... blue for Obama, red for McCain). They represent a solid 2/3 of the statewide population.

Bexar: 1,392,931
Bell: 237,974
Brazoria: 241,767
Brazos: 152,415
Cameron: 335,227
Collin: 491,675
Dallas: 2,294,706
Denton: 584,238
Ector: 121,123
Ellis: 111,360
El Paso: 721,598
Fort Bend: 354,452
Galveston: 277,563
Grayson: 110,595
Gregg: 111,379
Harris: 3,693,050
Hidalgo: 569,463
Jefferson: 252,051
Johnson: 126,811
Lubbock: 242,628
McLennan: 213,517
Midland: 116,009
Montgomery: 293,768
Nueces: 313,645
Potter: 113,546
Randall: 104,312
Smith: 174,706
Tarrant: 1,446,219
Taylor: 126,555
Tom Green: 104,010
Travis: 812,280
Webb: 193,117
Wichita: 131,664
Williamson: 249,967

(compiled using the US national Election atlas: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=48&year=2008)
So still on the Republican side, but there are definitely some inroads that have been made in 2008.

Counties to watch in the 2010 Governor's race and again in 2012...

Tarrant (Ft. Worth)... there's a lot more Democrats here than what is being indicated, and I think it's a matter of getting some good motivation for them to register and vote. Ft. Worth is certainly more conservative than Dallas, but it's starting to reveal a progressive side. I think Bill White has the ability to recruit a lot of Democrats and liberal-minded people here.

Nueces (Corpus Christi)... they only voted for McCain by a 52-48 margin in the last election. So I think by 2012 they'll be flipped.

Fort Bend (suburban Houston)... they were one of the closest suburban counties in the state to voting for Obama... 51-49 margin. Conservatives no longer have a stronghold on this area.

Hays (suburban Austin)... I didn't include it on the list, but by the 2010 census it will likely be over 100k. Again, Obama only lost here by a 51-49 margin.

electricron
Dec 19, 2009, 1:01 AM
2010 will be an off year election. Anything can happen. Obama will not be on any ballot. Will Obama supporters come to the polls next November, or will they stay at home? My gut tells me many will stay at home not having "their man" to vote for.

2012 is entirely different, assuming Obama runs and is renominated.

urbanactivist
Dec 20, 2009, 7:12 PM
2010 will be an off year election. Anything can happen. Obama will not be on any ballot. Will Obama supporters come to the polls next November, or will they stay at home? My gut tells me many will stay at home not having "their man" to vote for.

2012 is entirely different, assuming Obama runs and is renominated.

Very true, it has little correlation to 2012, but to me what's important here is that the electoral landscape is rapidly changing in Texas, and th 2010 election will be a great snapshot of that. People vote for who they want to vote for of course, but I believe that this trend will continue to strengthen in 2010.

Policy Wonk
Dec 24, 2009, 6:06 AM
The danger for the Republican party going ahead is they have aligned themselves with factions that really can't contribute any tangible sum of money while estranging those who can.

Strange Meat
Dec 25, 2009, 4:31 AM
i dunno, i think that texas will be red for the foreseeable future. it's still pretty red.

Dan Denson
Dec 31, 2009, 3:39 AM
i dunno, i think that texas will be red for the foreseeable future. it's still pretty red.

Why do you think that? Not that you're wrong (I don't know). But it would be good to know why you're making the conclusion that the state will be red for the foreseeable future.

TonyAnderson
Jan 15, 2010, 5:15 AM
I don't think it's wise to use 2008's election results for future predicting, as it was really a historic and unprecedented moment. Plus, everyone seemed sick of Bush. And with the troubles in the economy, and increasing debt, fiscal awareness seems to be an increasing issue, which bodes better for republicans.

llamaorama
Jan 23, 2010, 6:56 AM
My guess is demographics. As time goes on Texas is becoming less rural, less white, and less big oil. It's going to have a similar human and economic makeup to California.

This does not mean it will necessarily turn blue as in west coast liberal, but nothing stays the same forever.

urbanactivist
Jan 24, 2010, 4:09 AM
I don't think it's wise to use 2008's election results for future predicting, as it was really a historic and unprecedented moment. Plus, everyone seemed sick of Bush. And with the troubles in the economy, and increasing debt, fiscal awareness seems to be an increasing issue, which bodes better for republicans.

I agree with you... to a point. The 2008 election energized segment of voters that don't normally vote. Some of them will probably never vote again, but particularly for the younger generation, it changed their view of politics for the rest of their lives. Because we elected the first minority president, I am of the belief that we have changed the voting population... more minorities will be voting in future elections now.

new.slang
Jan 24, 2010, 1:58 PM
i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

NorthScottsdale
Jan 24, 2010, 9:56 PM
I think there is a good chance that Arizona will become a major swing state as well, as we stand to gain 2 more electoral seats in the 2010 census, and is steadily becoming more liberal as the Phoenix area grows. The main reason that John McCain won AZ by such a large margin in 08 is because McCain is an Arizona senator, and everyone loves him here..

Dan Denson
Jan 29, 2010, 5:57 AM
i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

I haven't seen any evidence that people moving here from the north are for the most part Republicans. People moving here are coming for the jobs, and they don't care whose red and whose blue. It's probably a mixed bag.

sammo
Jan 29, 2010, 5:00 PM
hilarious thread! :haha: should have been:

"Last call: Can the Democrat Party Survive?"

or
"Can the Democrat Party Survive B.O.?"

or
"Can the United States of America Survive B.O. -& the Demoncrats?"

but seriously, can the democrats survive without illegal immigrants? -or "undocumented migrants"?

Can the Democrats survive without either of their (and i mean "their" -they run them) most dysfunctional states, california or new york?

for the record, i think both the DNC & GOP suck. one because it's been hi-jacked, radicalized & marginalized by its far left base (socialists) and the other bums that were trashed for being too comfy and beholden to big business interests. and governing like Liberals.

how can you all have elected such an 'unknown quantity'?
no foriegn policy to speak of, just drops the healthcare bill, spending out of control, so many broken promises regarding transparency or pork spending, socializing banks and auto makers, etc. with super majorities in the house and senate, their biggest opponent is the american citizen. how sinister/left.
this admin. has run out of ideas. another 'job summit'? more bailouts? i feel like i'm watching a very predictable greek tragic comedy. one year in, this 'most popular', noble prize laureate (lol) prez has the fastest dropping poll numbers in recorded history! i don't think he would last a month under the perpetual media/hollywood scrutiny of the former hillbilly. looks like buyer's remorse to me.


americans would make for a great magic show audience. "hey folks, look at the plane overhead..."
hint: you're focusing on the wrong hand.

urbanactivist
Jan 29, 2010, 10:43 PM
hilarious thread! :haha: should have been:

"Last call: Can the Democrat Party Survive?"

or
"Can the Democrat Party Survive B.O.?"

or
"Can the United States of America Survive B.O. -& the Demoncrats?"

but seriously, can the democrats survive without illegal immigrants? -or "undocumented migrants"?

Can the Democrats survive without either of their (and i mean "their" -they run them) most dysfunctional states, california or new york?

for the record, i think both the DNC & GOP suck. one because it's been hi-jacked, radicalized & marginalized by its far left base (socialists) and the other bums that were trashed for being too comfy and beholden to big business interests. and governing like Liberals.

how can you all have elected such an 'unknown quantity'?
no foriegn policy to speak of, just drops the healthcare bill, spending out of control, so many broken promises regarding transparency or pork spending, socializing banks and auto makers, etc. with super majorities in the house and senate, their biggest opponent is the american citizen. how sinister/left.
this admin. has run out of ideas. another 'job summit'? more bailouts? i feel like i'm watching a very predictable greek tragic comedy. one year in, this 'most popular', noble prize laureate (lol) prez has the fastest dropping poll numbers in recorded history! i don't think he would last a month under the perpetual media/hollywood scrutiny of the former hillbilly. looks like buyer's remorse to me.


americans would make for a great magic show audience. "hey folks, look at the plane overhead..."
hint: you're focusing on the wrong hand.

Your post doesn't warrant a substantive response.

urbanactivist
Jan 29, 2010, 10:55 PM
i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

I have to disagree with your view/ assumption here. Most new residents moving to Texas are just as diverse as the rest of the United States... it's a fare amount of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, the trend with new residents is away from either party. And yeah, Democrats (and everyone else) moving to Texas has nothing to do with party affiliation... people are moving here in droves because the state is big, cheap and has lots of jobs.

Your argument might hold some weight if you're referring to "superliberals", but again when we're talking about real life job situations, people move where they have to, and take what they can get. Part of the reason that Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing, especially inside the loop.

I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected... "the nation has turned the tide and now agrees with the Republican base". WRONG. Most people just need a government that's going to give them some answers. I think on the whole we still agree with more of the Democratic agenda than we do the Republicans... it's just that when you're mired in a rough economy (especially those without a job right now), you need to turn to whoever has an answer first, and people have grown impatient. The Obama administration also bit off a bit more than it could chew this year, and they need to focus. Once we see some results, the right-wing Tea Partiers won't have a leg to stand on.

mwadswor
Jan 29, 2010, 11:05 PM
I have to disagree with your view/ assumption here. Most new residents moving to Texas are just as diverse as the rest of the United States... it's a fare amount of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, the trend with new residents is away from either party. And yeah, Democrats (and everyone else) moving to Texas has nothing to do with party affiliation... people are moving here in droves because the state is big, cheap and has lots of jobs.

Your argument might hold some weight if you're referring to "superliberals", but again when we're talking about real life job situations, people move where they have to, and take what they can get. Part of the reason that Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing, especially inside the loop.

I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected... "the nation has turned the tide and now agrees with the Republican base". WRONG. Most people just need a government that's going to give them some answers. I think on the whole we still agree with more of the Democratic agenda than we do the Republicans... it's just that when you're mired in a rough economy (especially those without a job right now), you need to turn to whoever has an answer first, and people have grown impatient. The Obama administration also bit off a bit more than it could chew this year, and they need to focus. Once we see some results, the right-wing Tea Partiers won't have a leg to stand on.

Agreed completely :cheers:

Only question would be "Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing." Was that a typo? Most transients don't qualify to vote without a mailing address to register at do they?

Also, "I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected..." You're right that I don't think Scott Brown's election means a whole lot of anything, and I think most Republicans realize that. That said, O'Reily and Hannity (and probably others but I avoid listening to them (the tv in my gym is stuck on Fox :yuck: )) have been crowing non-stop about the massive tidal shift signalled by the Scott Brown election.

sammo
Jan 30, 2010, 12:09 AM
Your post doesn't warrant a response.

response? i wasn't expecting one.

and do brace yourselves for the november elections when the political sciolists (not to be confused with 'socialists' -which many of them unwittingly are) will be shocked, scratching their collective heads, wondering now what the heck went wrong - ?
and it'll be days before the dust settles and the white house/press, the Teleprompter, the Times, msnbc, etc. have the anodynic talking points assembled/aligned to explain the 'catastrophe'. "is Liberalism dead?" they'll -no, we'll wonder aloud...


i'll check back in in november, dig up this thread...

God Bless America!


p.s. hey, stating my post doesn't warrant a response is a response! :cheers:

pesto
Feb 1, 2010, 10:40 PM
unfortunately, much of what sammo says is pretty accurate; the polls for the Democrats are plunging faster than could be imagined considering the unassailable majorities in Congress and the good will they came in with.

Health was shockingly poorly handled and it is hard to believe that Obama really understands how the economy works. I won't talk foreign affairs because they don't usually affect elections.

And sammo is right about the future too; the new strategy (publicly announced) is to get away from issues and focus on "populism". That is very bad news for the next few years, since populism usually means cheap shots at banks, big business, the rich and a healthy dose of racial incitement.

Where I think he may be wrong is that the 2/3 of the Democrats who are not goofy and would like to keep their jobs are going to move back nearer the center. The real interest the next few months is what to do with Pelosi and other leadership that is branded with the far left/goofy image.

sammo
Feb 3, 2010, 12:23 AM
:previous: thank you pesto, for not "totally disagreeing", dismissing altogether. this is my (brash) opinion, from the northland.

the dems & repubs should go back to the drawing board. america deserves better. canada can afford to stumble along and fail, europe can (is/has) fail, s.america can be corrupted, we can survive a conniving soviet union & china, a weak england, a boorish, uncivil middle east...
the world, a sane world needs a strong america. a strong leader.

urbanactivist
Feb 3, 2010, 3:27 PM
response? i wasn't expecting one.

and do brace yourselves for the november elections when the political sciolists (not to be confused with 'socialists' -which many of them unwittingly are) will be shocked, scratching their collective heads, wondering now what the heck went wrong - ?
and it'll be days before the dust settles and the white house/press, the Teleprompter, the Times, msnbc, etc. have the anodynic talking points assembled/aligned to explain the 'catastrophe'. "is Liberalism dead?" they'll -no, we'll wonder aloud...


i'll check back in in november, dig up this thread...

God Bless America!


p.s. hey, stating my post doesn't warrant a response is a response! :cheers:

Please refer to the original post of this thread, read your response, and then try to establish a connection between your series of opinions (which I would refer to as a rant) and the topic of this thread. You've made no reference to any actual political trends that are going on in the United States... much less the Southern/Western US, or Texas. If you're not going to mention any factual information that relates to the thread content, there's not much sense in trying to engage you in the conversation. If you'd like an outlet for your opinions, you can start a thread that involves your content and invites other site uses to engage in those topics. Or you can always refer to one of theses creative media sources...

http://www.foxnews.com
http://www.newsmax.com
http://www.sarahpac.com
http://www.washingtontimes.com

sammo
Feb 3, 2010, 6:20 PM
i think i've made you angry so i'm sorry and stuff.

i guess what surprised me was the belief, the implication that the republicans are in more danger than the democrats (currently) -in texas -or anywhere!
my opinion, the Rs are currently trying to 'find' themselves, redefine themselves, reorganize and are at this time leaderless. to be sure, sarah palin would be welcome at any convention or tea type party but independent conservatives are holding out for real leadership. old guard grampy mcCain was an absolute jape. he would be a welcome backbencher at best.
the Ds have now been taken over by the radical left of their party; the 'erudite' college professor wing. America's whimsical & risky fllirtation/experimentation with Obamunism will actually have been a godsend for the floundering Rs. even hilary (of clinton co.) is waiting on the sidelines. do you understand that the undeserving Rs will benefit from the foolery & damage being caused by this current admin.? and that's bad for America altogether.

i hope you are keen enuf to note the difference and growing divide between the old checkpant Repulican and the (~social/Reagan) independent conservative -which most americans indentify themselves as.

look, texas is big but so far, far away -from el Kanada at least.
and so i am unable to comment much about small obscure counties like 'Nueces' or 'Travis' or 'Tom Green' (<isn't T.G. some b grade actor?).
i suspect that only the illegal/undocumented mexican alien or an acorn type activist group(s) can help maintain any assemblance of a Democrat party in texas. as in canada, Liberals don't win with overt 'ideas'.

certainly we can at least agree 2010 has not been nice to B.O. and his ilk.

electricron
Feb 3, 2010, 9:57 PM
The Party that can win the "center" usually will win the elections. It doesn't matter which state in the union we're discussing, the "independents" rule.
Independents switch votes from one party to the other from one election to the next because they are the "center".
It's an embarrassment for the Democrat Party to have a "super" majority and can't agree amongst themselves to pass a unified health care bill, which their leader stated was/is the number one national issue, through Congress.

Independents will remember that failure this fall....

urbanactivist
Feb 3, 2010, 11:25 PM
i think i've made you angry so i'm sorry and stuff.

i guess what surprised me was the belief, the implication that the republicans are in more danger than the democrats (currently) -in texas -or anywhere!
my opinion, the Rs are currently trying to 'find' themselves, redefine themselves, reorganize and are at this time leaderless. to be sure, sarah palin would be welcome at any convention or tea type party but independent conservatives are holding out for real leadership. old guard grampy mcCain was an absolute jape. he would be a welcome backbencher at best.
the Ds have now been taken over by the radical left of their party; the 'erudite' college professor wing. America's whimsical & risky fllirtation/experimentation with Obamunism will actually have been a godsend for the floundering Rs. even hilary (of clinton co.) is waiting on the sidelines. do you understand that the undeserving Rs will benefit from the foolery & damage being caused by this current admin.? and that's bad for America altogether.

i hope you are keen enuf to note the difference and growing divide between the old checkpant Repulican and the (~social/Reagan) independent conservative -which most americans indentify themselves as.

look, texas is big but so far, far away -from el Kanada at least.
and so i am unable to comment much about small obscure counties like 'Nueces' or 'Travis' or 'Tom Green' (<isn't T.G. some b grade actor?).
i suspect that only the illegal/undocumented mexican alien or an acorn type activist group(s) can help maintain any assemblance of a Democrat party in texas. as in canada, Liberals don't win with overt 'ideas'.

certainly we can at least agree 2010 has not been nice to B.O. and his ilk.

You didn't anger me, but it would be nice if you wouldn't use the thread to just talk about whatever. I'm not a moderator, so I have no say over what you can and cannot post, and it's not my intention to do so. But for me, it would be nice to have some relation to the thread topic... just like this post above. IMO a comparison between Canada and the US makes sense when you're talking about the relationship between liberals, conservatives and independents, so thank you for the perspective. I still don't agree, but I can see a relation to the thread topic, which is appreciated.

The Party that can win the "center" usually will win the elections. It doesn't matter which state in the union we're discussing, the "independents" rule.
Independents switch votes from one party to the other from one election to the next because they are the "center".
It's an embarrassment for the Democrat Party to have a "super" majority and can't agree amongst themselves to pass a unified health care bill, which their leader stated was/is the number one national issue, through Congress.

Independents will remember that failure this fall....

Most polling is in agreement... there are now more Independents than there are of Democrats or Republicans. So I'm in full agreement about that. I also agree that the Democratic party "doesn't do well" when they have the level of power that they attained in '08. Which is why we tend to turn over much more quickly than the Republicans. If I remember correctly (which is tough b/c I was only 10 at the time), Clinton came in with a decent-sized Dem majority, and they were quickly replaced with a Republican Congress in '94.

Dems suck when in power b/c they try to enact too much change at once. They try to pass these humongous bills that will "change the world in one great swoop". It's a bad system of legislating. And I can say for the more Conservative areas of the US, voters are very turned off by that practice becuase there just isn't enough liberal support all around (except for the major cities). But my point in the thread is that the population of Texas is moving more towards the left in general because of continued diversification of the state. Even if this year's elections turn out to be a total disaster for the Democratic party, it's not going to change the growing shift in the priorities of Texans.

But the separations among Democrats are still of no comparison to the practices happening in the Republican party right now. TEA partiers have entirely too much control, and they have begun to turn off independents to their cause just like the Dems pandering inaction have also turned them off. Being an independent is truly just that this year, and it will be very interesting to see how voters side.

sammo
Feb 3, 2010, 11:59 PM
The Party that can win the "center" usually will win the elections. It doesn't matter which state in the union we're discussing, the "independents" rule.
Independents switch votes from one party to the other from one election to the next because they are the "center".
It's an embarrassment for the Democrat Party to have a "super" majority and can't agree amongst themselves to pass a unified health care bill, which their leader stated was/is the number one national issue, through Congress.

Independents will remember that failure this fall....

^no. well kind of...
if you're suggesting the 'center' is simply mid of the the two supposed ideologies, R & D, than you are mistook. America is a center-right nation. this is how america operates best. in canada, yes. we are more liberal. we can afford to be more... 'risque'.

the vast majority of americans and/or independants were not so unhappy with your current healthcare that they wanted it totally revamped via a 2000page undigested bill. when was this monster crafted? why so extensive and secretive? this is an insidious & shameless powergrab by the socialists wing of the Liberals to forever have the citizenry beholden to big brother from cradle to grave. preserve your freedoms! trust me, you won't enjoy waiting in an emergency ward for hours for 'canadian style' service. our pets get better healthcare! just yesterday in newfoundland, the premier opted to get his heart surgery in the US, -not in his own country! when push comes to shove, there is a superior choice.

the fact that with 'hyper' majorities the Dems are unable to 'get anything passed' thus far and are sinking in all/any poll is a testament to how far left they have ventured. even their own are trying to figure out if it would be possible to vote for such odious bills and still manage to get re-elected somehow. i think they have painted themselves in a corner with certain unachievable and foolish promises. (lol, they took they're base too serious! i believe rahm emanuel called them 'f*#@& retards'...)


i realize i have steered this thread clearly 'off topic' so i hereby abate. maybe.

pesto
Feb 4, 2010, 8:08 PM
the US was basically a center-right country but I am afraid it is shifting into the center-left mode of expecting the government to take care of things; a mode that values talk and allocation over action and accomplishment. But maybe these things can swing back.

I agree that center right is the appropriate mode for a world leader. Canada or Holland can afford to experiment and totally screw up something, but the US can't without opening the way for bad actors to take over the world stage (the oil nations, China, Russia, regional dictators). I am not American born, but I can say I would prefer US hegemony to anyone else's.

However, the far right is similarly to be avoided. The Left Democrats may worship mediocrity but the Right Republicans worship the past, and both are to be avoided.

Duck From NY
Jul 22, 2012, 12:27 PM
Considering that we have a two-party system, the parties have generally found themselves taking the opposite position of the opposing party on a given issue, whether the other party picks up on a new issue or a paradigm-shift occurs. Either that, or one of the parties shifts or softens on a position. Therefore, some balance will occur in response to changing demographics and other factors.

A number of scenarios are possible. Republicans could soften on some social issues, they could slowly and lightly soften on unions, and white independents (excluding young college graduates) could heavily shift toward the GOP.

I am not American born, but I can say I would prefer US hegemony to anyone else's.

I'm curious, what country were you born in?

JohnMarko
Nov 10, 2013, 7:16 AM
The fascist, racist, republican party is hopefully in its last gasps. They should not in any way be encouraged, helped or given any care except to see that they are finally killed off as a viable political party.

It is composed of the crazy radical right wing inheritors of the Birchers, Birthers and Bigots. (I mean Birthers, really?!!!) The "sane" conservatives have been migrating to the Democrats for awhile now, leaving only the crazies exemplified by the likes of Cruz (from Texass, naturally).

Texas is slowly moving Democratic. The republicans' crazy anti woman, anti sex wars (anti sodomy, anti contraceptives, really?!!!) and blatant provable lying the likes that have never been seen before - and usually in the same day/same sentence - is finally doing deserved and long coming damage to that party. The only way the republicans can win now is thru election cheating and voter intimidation/shenanigans that they have so far successfully instituted.

The Democratic party will eventually split into two parties, a more business conservative party, and a more liberal party. What the US doesn't have now and desperately needs, is a true left/labor/socialist party.

Anybody who thinks that the Democrats are in any way shape or form "left" doesn't know what they are talking about as far as politics goes.

Unfortunately, the US is more likely to evolve into a unique form of Nazi Germany than return to FDR's New Deal.

Snowden352
Nov 11, 2013, 4:29 PM
So, given that the President's vote and share total of in Texas fell from 2008 to 2012, and adding in Ted Cruz's election and the impending election of the next Republic governor, can we put the debate of Texas becoming a bastion of liberal politics to an end?
At least until another ten years pass?

East7thStreet
Dec 1, 2013, 11:05 PM
How are posts like the ones above allowed? This is not the daily kos or the DU.....people don't come here to read this childish crap.

DBR96A
Mar 18, 2014, 7:58 PM
JohnMarko's comments above are entirely out of line, and they belie the notion that Democrats and liberals are more tolerant. His comments were petty and hateful.

It's also worth noting that Barack Obama lost the independent vote in 2012 despite winning the election, the same way George W. Bush lost the independent vote in 2004. If the 2004 election wasn't a ringing endorsement for Bush, then the 2012 election was not a ringing endorsement for Obama.

Truth is, the Republicans brought the mess they're in upon themselves. The Democrats have the upper hand not because people are embracing their ideals, but because they're rejecting the ideals of the Republicans.

Allow me to count the ways the Republicans have gone astray:


1. The "Southern Strategy" has backfired. It wasn't worth welcoming disaffected Democrats to the party, especially considering most of them were hard-core racists who only needed one generation to piss away all the good will the Republicans had with racial and ethnic minorities since the formation of the party under Abraham Lincoln.

2. They've chased most of the intellectuals away. (No, the conservative intellectuals haven't become Democrats; they've become independents.) Contrary to the popular narrative, there are many conservative intellectuals. The problem is, conservative intellectuals do a terrible job of appealing to emotion, especially compared to televangelists and snake oil salesmen, so the anti-intellectuals in the party mop the floor with the intellectuals in the primaries.

3. They've become economic hypocrites. The Congressmen who squealed the loudest about the bailouts for GM and Chrysler come from states that have given hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in subsidies to foreign automakers. Corporate welfare is corporate welfare, regardless of the level of government it comes from.

4. They prefer to obstruct and privatize rather than govern. Instead of streamlining the delivery of government service, they prefer to either eliminate service or outsource it, and the outsourcing doesn't necessarily save any money since businesses have to make a profit, whereas government merely has to break even. Basically, they're "governing" the same way Al Dunlap "ran" businesses. Eventually, Dunlap was permanently banned from being an executive for a public company, so it's obvious that the approach is wrong.


The antidote for what ills the Republicans these days is a return to what the party stood for prior to Richard Nixon. This means undoing the "Southern Strategy," actually listening to the few intellectuals who are left in the party for a change, ending subsidies for mature industries, and focusing on improved delivery of service in government.

weatherguru18
Mar 24, 2014, 2:33 AM
The fascist, racist, republican party is hopefully in its last gasps. They should not in any way be encouraged, helped or given any care except to see that they are finally killed off as a viable political party.

It is composed of the crazy radical right wing inheritors of the Birchers, Birthers and Bigots. (I mean Birthers, really?!!!) The "sane" conservatives have been migrating to the Democrats for awhile now, leaving only the crazies exemplified by the likes of Cruz (from Texass, naturally).

Texas is slowly moving Democratic. The republicans' crazy anti woman, anti sex wars (anti sodomy, anti contraceptives, really?!!!) and blatant provable lying the likes that have never been seen before - and usually in the same day/same sentence - is finally doing deserved and long coming damage to that party. The only way the republicans can win now is thru election cheating and voter intimidation/shenanigans that they have so far successfully instituted.

The Democratic party will eventually split into two parties, a more business conservative party, and a more liberal party. What the US doesn't have now and desperately needs, is a true left/labor/socialist party.

Anybody who thinks that the Democrats are in any way shape or form "left" doesn't know what they are talking about as far as politics goes.

Unfortunately, the US is more likely to evolve into a unique form of Nazi Germany than return to FDR's New Deal.

I wrote a long response to this but you can't fix stupid so I'll leave my comment at this.