The W
Views: 99993128
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 1155
The W - Current Events & Politics - A quick thought about one party rule
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.79
Pages: 1 2 Next
(299 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.01
DISCLAIMER: I hate fantasy booking.

THIS POST ASSUMES: Obama wins the presidency, Dems do attain their supermajority in the Senate (which is how I interpret the first clause of...)

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Probably for the Republican party the best outcome is to get torched and lose everything big. If the Dems do what Dems normally do when in power and the Republicans go through the bloodbath they must to regain their center, in four years things will be much different
TWO. Two years.

Biden's already promised it will only take one for the polls to sink the Obama presidency. ;-) That should be just long enough for the next crop of candidates to sweep in, 1994-style. WHO WILL BE NEWT 2010?

I originally had a lot more to put behind this, but then I forgot most of it trying to figure out how to fix the Google cache link problem - which I didn't. And now "SNL" is almost on. These are all poor excuses!





Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 480 days
Last activity: 480 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
The problem with 2 years is that the 60 mark, or even a high 50's mark, would take a few elections for Republicans to whittle the margin down back to 50-50. It would probably take 4-6 years for the Republicans to wrest away control of the Senate in a best case scenario just due to the way Democrats gained seats, with the majority of the gains being in seats that would be up for grabs in 2012 and 2014, not 2010.
As for the House, it is going to be extremely difficult for the Republicans to get back in control. They have virtually thrown in the towel in the northeast, so that is a chunk of 'dead' districts there. Plus, I don't see a galvanizing force in the Party to bring forth a coherent message.
If an Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumverate leads to a 3,000 Dow/300 S@P, all bets are off and there might be blood in the streets by that point. Then again, give Bernanke and Paulson a few more weeks to screw around with things and we might be there by New Years. At least I was right that the Dow would hit 10,000 before it would hit 15,000 when it hit 14,000 last summer. Didn't think it would head towards 7,000 though. But, if it is malaise rather than catastrophe, it'll take a few election cycles for the Republicans, or there replacement should they go completely Whig post 1850, to return to power.



(edited by redsoxnation on 25.10.08 2344)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 73 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
First, a disclaimer of my own: I was too young to know what the hell was going on in 1994, so I don't know what was going on in the Republican Party at that time.

For the Republicans to rebound from what looks like is going to be a bad election day for them, they need to take the party back from the evangelicals and corporate thugs that currently rule the party (which isn't to say the Democrats don't have the same problems). If Obama does become president and the Dems to have a big majority in Congress, the Republicans need to counter with something other than the anti-intellectualism and corruption embodied by Sarah Palin.

If they stick to that course - and it's the course they've been going further and further down for as long as I've been alert enough to pay attention, which is roughly a decade - then the party is going to continue to lose influence.

I know about a dozen people who are voting for Obama and citing "he's an intellectual" as their primary reason. When the alternative is a party full of people professing that the world is 6,000 years old, that homosexuality is unnatural and other things of that ilk, despite overwhelming evidence to contradict it, there's not much of a decision for these people to make.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by CRZ
    WHO WILL BE NEWT 2010?


Mike Pence
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
In a nutshell, what happened in 1994 was that the extreme arrogance of the Dems caught up with them. Their agenda was out there far enough that it was able to galvanize the moderate/conservative citizens in the country. Now add a mind like Newt's which was able to organize and coalesce the Reps behind a brilliant stroke like the "Contract with America", get a slate of House and Senate Candidates to work in unison and turn local/state elections into a national referendum on Clinton/Dem Congress. You have an amazing shift in Congress.

It all started to fall apart when they were essentially unable to enact the points in the "Contract with America" and Bill Clinton got his head out of his ass, learned from his mistakes, and in a budget showdown with Newt re shutting down the government got his head handed to him by Clinton.

It's a little more detailed than that involving universal healthcare, Hillary, gays in the military and other fun stuff.

IMHO, the collpase of the Rep party was put off and Bush was re-elected because of 9/11 and the "war on terror."

One party controlling everything normally leads to arrogance and deafness.



Perception is reality
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 480 days
Last activity: 480 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
But remember, that was after a 40 year stranglehold by the Democrats on the House and a stranglehold on the Senate outside of the years 1982-86. The House generally doesn't bounce back and forth. The 12 years the Republicans held control in the House was actually a short period historically. With a sub 10% approval rating the majority Party in the House is going to pick up seats, proving yet again people hate Congress but like their Congressperson. It is generally a cumulative effect that causes the House to change, and whether a Party having control for 4 or even 6 years can cause that to happen is questionable, barring of course complete meltdown.
Besides 9/11 and the war on terror, you really have to factor in that John Kerry was just a completely unlikeable guy in the equation of the Bush victory in '04

(edited by redsoxnation on 25.10.08 2357)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    But remember, that was after a 40 year stranglehold by the Democrats on the House and a stranglehold on the Senate outside of the years 1982-86. The House generally doesn't bounce back and forth. The 12 years the Republicans held control in the House was actually a short period historically. With a sub 10% approval rating the majority Party in the House is going to pick up seats, proving yet again people hate Congress but like their Congressperson. It is generally a cumulative effect that causes the House to change, and whether a Party having control for 4 or even 6 years can cause that to happen is questionable, barring of course complete meltdown.
    Besides 9/11 and the war on terror, you really have to factor in that John Kerry was just a completely unlikeable guy in the equation of the Bush victory in '04

    (edited by redsoxnation on 25.10.08 2357)


Great points. The best one to me being that Kerry was just a terrible candidate in so many ways. Yet he still almost won. The almost as good a point is that we hate Congress but love our Congressperson.

To Zed's point, if the Dem's act as per usual I think erosion will take place in two years but it will take four for them (Reps) to regain one or both parts of Congress. Unless they find a Newt. Newt was able to take the normal erosion of the party in power during the off-election and magnify it.



Perception is reality
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
You have to remember 1994 was also due to a huge lack of turnout on the Democrats part due to a lot of disillusionment with Clinton, who managed to implement pretty much none of what he'd promised in terms of liberal priorities. For liberals "don't ask, don't tell" kind of summed up the first couple years, and we were just not exited about the guy like we were in 1992 and stayed away.

The Republicans have to learn they can't be a competitive party if their strategy is to get 55% of the population to vote for them based on their hatred and fear for the other 45% - especially if the 45% is growing, the 55% is shrinking, and the 55% actually doesn't really hate and fear the 45% that much.

This isn't always the playbook - look at some successful national GOP campaigns: Reagan 84, Bush 2000. These were run with an inclusive message targeted at everybody. How are you going to be a competitive national party if you not only write off, but actively ridicule, entire regions of the country and segments of the population as part of your campaign strategy? After the election there's a good chance you're not going to have a single GOP congressman from New England. New York City is going to have an all democratic delegation for the first time in History. The GOP has completely written off the Northeast, West Coast, and large cities. How in the world can you retain a majority with that small a playing field?

You have good, moderate GOP Senators that should be re-elected easily even in a bad year for the party in real trouble (Sununu, Coleman, the guy in Oregon), because their party has chosen to demonize people that might otherwise probably vote for them.




www.allcitynewyork.com
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56
Geez, is nobody willing to suggest that Obama might be the best president ever, lead the Democratic Party to become the country's default option and end up with his face on Mt. Rushmore?

Given that the Dems are expected to actually win more Senate seats in 2010, I don't think they're losing control anytime soon. God help the Republicans if they actually nominate Palin in 2012....she would put up Mondale-esque numbers.
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 135 days
Last activity: 29 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.51
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    How are you going to be a competitive national party if you not only write off, but actively ridicule, entire regions of the country and segments of the population as part of your campaign strategy?
Isn't this a problem shared by both major parties?



http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.03
Not remotely to the same degree. The Democrats are running a competitive Senate race against an incumbent in Mississippi. They're at least competitive in every region, and among every demographic group. Not dominant, but competitive.

I'm not saying that behind closed doors liberals don't ridicule conservatives, and vice-versa, and sometimes that leaks out. But as an open campaign strategy they are actively trying to go after every vote. Obama campaigns in Appalachia, and McCain does not campaign in Detroit. And not only that, Obama doesn't send his V.P. to Downtown Detroit and talk about how it's great to be in a "pro-America" part of the country. When you have your campaign implying that people from entire regions of the country, and anyone from large urban areas isn't "pro-America," it's a pretty lousy way to be competitive in those areas.

I'm not saying this is in one party or another's blood. All recent successful presidential campaigns, Republican or Democrat (with the exception of 2004) have been run on a general theme of inclusiveness and unity.



www.allcitynewyork.com
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.35
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    When the alternative is a party full of people professing that the world is 6,000 years old, that homosexuality is unnatural and other things of that ilk


Darwinism is survival of the fittest by continuation of species, and the antithesis of Creationism. Homosexuality in and of itself spits in the face of Darwinistic idealogy because it's impossible to do the whole 'continuation of species' dance when you're not with someone of alternate reproductive organs. You'd think they'd meet in the middle ground here.

On topic, usually when one party has taken both the Legislative and Executive, it hasn't lasted very long. Congress hopefuls live and die by their constituents, which is far more narrow than the Senate and presidency, and enough people in 3 counties, townships, parishes, WHATEVER, will get whoever out of their Congressional seat very quickly. The tide of the Senate is a little slower, but enough congressman change, odds are Senators could too.

(edited by Lexus on 26.10.08 1650)


"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."
-Me.
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by Lexus
    Darwinism is survival of the fittest by continuation of species, and the antithesis of Creationism. Homosexuality in and of itself spits in the face of Darwinistic idealogy because it's impossible to do the whole 'continuation of species' dance when you're not with someone of alternate reproductive organs.
Too simplistic. Perhaps, for example, the presence of homosexuals help continue the species by helping societies survive -- say, by being adults unencumbered by children or pregnancy who could help raise other's children until those children were of childbearing age (especially while the dads were off hunting or at war and the moms were pregnant or died in childbirth).

(I'm not an expert and have no actual historical examples.)

/derail

--K



Last 5 movies seen: "O" ** - The Visitor ***1/2 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall *** - Leatherheads *** - Cult of the Cobra **
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
      Originally posted by Lexus
      Darwinism is survival of the fittest by continuation of species, and the antithesis of Creationism. Homosexuality in and of itself spits in the face of Darwinistic idealogy because it's impossible to do the whole 'continuation of species' dance when you're not with someone of alternate reproductive organs.
    Too simplistic. Perhaps, for example, the presence of homosexuals help continue the species by helping societies survive -- say, by being adults unencumbered by children or pregnancy who could help raise other's children until those children were of childbearing age (especially while the dads were off hunting or at war and the moms were pregnant or died in childbirth).

    (I'm not an expert and have no actual historical examples.)

    /derail

    --K


You are treading towards social Darwinism. I would caution great care.



Perception is reality
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    You are treading towards social Darwinism.
I'm pretty sure I'm not. Could you expand on that?

--K



Last 5 movies seen: "O" ** - The Visitor ***1/2 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall *** - Leatherheads *** - Cult of the Cobra **
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      You are treading towards social Darwinism.
    I'm pretty sure I'm not. Could you expand on that?

    --K


Your statement re homosexuality and why it might survive are indeed a theory purported by true social darwinists, those whose took Darwin's theory of evolution, esp. survival of the fittest to explain competition between and within societies. Homosexuality was allowed to survive because it served a vital purpose in that homosexuals since they were not married and/or did not have their own offspring were useful in aiding the clan/society at large.

However, thought predating Darwin's theories adopted and twisted it into the fact that to them, for various reasons, society was allowing the less fit to survive and thus weakening the society long-term. Malthusian thought is an example. Anyhow this morphed into eugenics and was co-opted by among others, the Nazis.

There is nothing wrong with your statement or social Darwinism per se but it often opens a very dangerous door either to the eugenics wackos or those vehemently opposed to your thoughts.



Perception is reality
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.89
Its nice when people forget that one party rule helped create the New Deal and other programs that have helped society. Sure, it helped Republicans create these last eight years of fear and tyranny as well. But, the idea that large tickets items will get passed in a two party system is very very rate.

Its is also nice to see people already try to sabotage Obama's presidency if it does happen before his first day. I guess we keep forgetting that the GOP brand is dead. The Republicans have to reinvent themselves more ways then one it is going to take more then four years and we don't like Obama attitude. Because, if Obama does get steer us out of Iraqi and the economic crisis without too much damage what else with the Republicans run on in two years. Plus, I do think people will be more patient with Obama then Clinton in 1994 and if Palin is the best Republicans throw at him in 2012 if she survives the GOP bloodbath that may take place if McCain loses, good luck with that.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.01
    Originally posted by lotjx
    Its nice when people forget that one party rule helped create the New Deal and other programs that have helped society.
Well, there are also economists who believe the New Deal deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.

    Sure, it helped Republicans create these last eight years of fear and tyranny as well.
"Fear and tyranny?" Where are YOU living?

    But, the idea that large tickets items will get passed in a two party system is very very rate.
Do you mean "rare?" Maybe that's a GOOD thing. Big government shouldn't be the answer to EVERY problem (in my opinion).

    Its is also nice to see people already try to sabotage Obama's presidency if it does happen before his first day.
Wait, what? I'm just talking here. If I were able to SABOTAGE, I would be working on Congress. ;-)

    I guess we keep forgetting that the GOP brand is dead.
Yet they'll still pull, what, 45%, 48% of the popular vote? I don't think the obituaries should be written just yet.

    The Republicans have to reinvent themselves more ways then one it is going to take more then four years and we don't like Obama attitude.
I believe you missed my point. A lot will happen, a lot of it will probably be self-inflicted, and it will add up to ... ???? That's what I'm saying.

    Because, if Obama does get steer us out of Iraqi and the economic crisis without too much damage what else with the Republicans run on in two years.
That would be great if that happened. You'll excuse my cynicism? I don't think ANY president could manage to do both of those things.

    Plus, I do think people will be more patient with Obama then Clinton in 1994 and if Palin is the best Republicans throw at him in 2012 if she survives the GOP bloodbath that may take place if McCain loses, good luck with that.
There are a lot of people underestimating Sarah Palin - some of them even post here - but I don't think we need to automatically pencil her into the nomination for 2012 just yet. I feel uneasy enough just talking about 2009-10. ;-)



redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 480 days
Last activity: 480 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
I feel somewhat uneasy speaking about the rest of 2008 at this point.
On the economy: It really doesn't matter if it is Obama, McCain, the reincarnation of Reagan or the reincarnation of FDR, the US Economy is going to be in trouble for a few years to come. That is what happens when greater than 2/3 of the economy is dependant upon consumer spending and the consumer is facing compounding debt. At least with the housing collapse, the banks ended up foreclosing on homes and had what eventually will be assets in the land, even if the land is priced at pennies on the dollar. When the credit card implosion comes, and that bullet train is coming right down the tracks, look out as there is nothing to back up that debt. That's when financial institutions will really start failing.
On the Republicans in the northeast: The old Rockefeller Republican is dead, at least on a federal level. Republicans actually have good records winning gubernatorial races in the northeast in the last 20 years, but the national party is comatose in the region. With the 'solid south' showing cracks and California having deserted since '94, the old Nixonian electoral vote strategy is imperiled. But, historically, those strategies work for 9-10 Presidential election cycles before finally winding down.
As for Palin in '12 if the Republicans go down in flames in '08: Failed VP aspirants rarely get the party's nomination the next time around. Even FDR had to wait 12 years after his failed 1920 VP bid. Whoever the nominee will be is probably far off the radar at this point.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Well, there are also economists who believe the New Deal deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.


US News and World Report has a great article that discusses various economists' opinions regarding the New Deal.

There are also those who argue that Roosevelt didn't go far enough, and essentially bailed out capitalism and all its failures rather than using the moment to nationalize the banks and other necessary privatized utilities.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Big government shouldn't be the answer to EVERY problem (in my opinion).


Every problem? Solving one or two problems, given how much we're spending and indebted, would seem like a worthwhile achievement.

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Yet they'll still pull, what, 45%, 48% of the popular vote? I don't think the obituaries should be written just yet.


Do those figures really mean all that much given our two party system?

    Originally posted by CRZ
    There are a lot of people underestimating Sarah Palin - some of them even post here - but I don't think we need to automatically pencil her into the nomination for 2012 just yet.


I keep hearing this "underestimating Sarah Palin" line (like it's a new Judd Apatow film) and I still don't see by what measure I should be overestimating or accurately estimating her skills in vetting and contributing to public policy - her political skills in self-promotion not withstanding.

(edited by Leroy on 26.10.08 1824)



NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.79
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Wassup 2008
Next thread: Iraq aside, little separates Obama, McCain on use of military force
Previous thread: Bush To Congress: "Hey guys, I'm going to ignore the law."
(299 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Surprized none of the local Canadian W's commented on the latest budget. I'm impressed the Conservatives were able to pull together a decent budget after such a short time in power. . It's a win/loss situation in a few regards:
The W - Current Events & Politics - A quick thought about one party ruleRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.136 seconds.