Opinion of the Obama-era Republican Party
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:11:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of the Obama-era Republican Party
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Opinion of the Obama-era Republican Party
#1
Freedom Party
 
#2
Horrible Party
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 76

Author Topic: Opinion of the Obama-era Republican Party  (Read 2573 times)
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2016, 11:39:29 PM »

For those of us in the GOP who care about facts, truth, decency, national unity, and fair play -- admittedly it has not been a glorious time.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2016, 11:46:17 PM »

Obstructionist, power-hungry crooks. I was hopeful that the Republican Party would start to see reason after Trump lost the election... Since he didn't actually lose, this election seems to have instead taught them that reason is their mortal nemesis, and screaming insults and pissing off as many people as possible is the way to go. Unfortunately, the Trump-era Republican Party will probably make the Obama-era Republican Party look like a dignified, respectful, cooperative group.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2016, 12:08:22 AM »

But on the bright side, perhaps the Trump-era Democrats will use the same medicine against them now the results have shown that it works.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,124
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2016, 12:56:14 AM »

They stabbed Obama in the back. They returned his gestures of bipartisanship with obstruction and immaturity.
HP.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2016, 10:38:30 AM »
« Edited: December 21, 2016, 10:41:22 AM by TD »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not vote for Clinton. No, I just start with snark because that's how I talk to people who say "lugenpresse" in the vernacular of white nationlists. But I guess I mean Trump supporters. Also did I mention I was not a white male?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

"One, two" percent is not significant. And did we forget that Donald Trump utilized free media effectively to gain billions of dollars in media coverage? Once again, I'm going to remind you that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million and 2.1% - which is not insignificant.

Anyway - your history is as usual as colored as your God-Emperor's connection to facts.

Number one, sure, we agree the people are disgusted. But have you seen who's disgusted, and where they're disgusted? Coastal area liberals voted for Clinton overwhelmingly, as did Illinois - and they added up to 232 electoral votes. For your theory to work out, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia should have remained as solidly red as they were in 2012, not moved towards the blue side. Your theory of universal revulsion at the Democratic Party isn't shared by the facts. If it were true, we'd see a uniform and broad swing towards the Republicans. We didn't.

"Personification of the movement." What movement? Can you spell out this movement for me? White nationalism, trade protectionism, and .... ? Really, this is just like the Obama cargo cult, where everyone hailed Obama as the second coming of Christ. You sound exactly like the Obamabots of 8 years ago who hailed Obama as the great realigning candidate who ended the Reagan era.

Also "loud proud realignment" launchings tend to win the popular vote, tend to increase Congressional majorities, tend to be ideologically moored, tend to do a lot of things that Donnie didn't do or isn't.

If anything, Trump's election is like a much paler weaker shade of Obama's 2008 campaign.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean Pence. We're talking about the "non asshole Trump" here that you imagine in your fantasy world so I refer to Pence. My point is, the Republican Party cannot sustain itself with 51% elections and winning 52 Senate seats. In this era, we've seen the Democratic Party do far better when they win (53% and 59 Democratic senators, for example).

Pence, at best, would be a guy who won 52%. You may consider that solid but that's on the order of the weaker re-election margins (as Obama's was, clearly). And obviously, we're back to Democratic control in 2024, where they probably win a hefty majority, if history is any guide. The best the Democratic nominee did in this era was 379 electoral votes; the best any GOP nominee is going to do in this era is something on the order of 329 electoral votes, most likely.

Do you start seeing my point now? The GOP coalition is much narrower, much weaker, much more demographically disadvantaged and largely based on white people (like yourself) who have this cultural fear and resentment of the world and are economically situated in the Old Economy like coal, old manufacturing jobs, etc. The Democratic coalition is clearly younger, millenial-based, more diverse, and based in the New Economy (Clinton carried Silicon Valley, she carried North Virginia, she carried the Research Triangle in North Carolina).

I'm going to point out that hyper-polarization is not sustainable. When your opposition routinely wins 45-48% of the vote, you have a strong sustained opposition and nothing really gets done. We've had periods like this in American history and usually, there's a break in the dam as I've said elsewhere. And that dam looks to be broken by Democrats, not Republicans.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A two point increase is not an "uptick" worth measuring. You keep clinging to this as if it was some massive gain and Latinos didn't vote 65% for Clinton, well above Kerry's 55%. You keep trying to cling to these miniscule upticks, ignoring that they went Democratic overwhelmingly. In what universe is losing Latinos 65-29% an achievement? Or Asians 65-29% and African Americans 88-8%? Especially when they're rising majorities unlikely to embrace your vision anytime soon?

Think of the flip side. Latinos - 65% of them - said they rejected your candidate's vision of a wall, rejected them enough to vote for the other candidate. A full 71% didn't vote for your candidate because of his immigration proposals.

Now tell me how the Latino vote uptick looks now.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you about to trot out the fact you have black and Latino friends?

Look, minorities under 40 voted third party or stayed home. They didn't suddenly gravitate to Trump. I've covered why the uptick is imaginary. Their mothers and aunts were excited about Hillary; they weren't.

Right, the Democratic Party sucks at not being an elitist party. I agree on that point and this is why they will become vastly more populist in the future. See: Sanders, Bernard. That's' one way to win back working class voters and white voters and younger minority millenial voters. Sure. But that's not because of Trump, per se, that's more because Trump points to the age we're going to be in, not that his policies will be magically adopted by the Democratic Party.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2016, 10:39:11 AM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or maybe these voters were white working class voters who gravitated to Trump based on white nationalistic racial whistles and talk about trade renegotiation and annoyance with the corporate Democrats.  The Democratic Party will probably regain many of these lower class voters in 2020-2024 by becoming more populist and ridding themselves of the corporate wing. (And they won't be styling themselves as Trumpists either).

Also once again you are ignorant of facts. The Democratic coalition was 55% white and 45% minority. The GOP coalition is 90% white. The GOP is not "a more inclusi-" OK you're just descending into parody here. I'm going to point out that the white Cabinet of Donald Trump has a net worth that is equal to a third of American households.

QED.

The rest of your rambling can be answered here.

The popular vote doesn't matter, absolutely. Except it does matter for legitimacy, a mandate, and political capital. Of which, your man has ... well, a limited amount. Losing the popular vote isn't peanuts.

Sure, Hillary took them for granted. The Democrats will need to re-learn the lessons and become a more populist party and we're in a populist age.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read again what I said. Why do Trumpists have a hard time reading what I say?

I said the Republican nomination now has a winning pattern for future idiots who want to try the "outrageous populist" route. I am saying however it's not going to work in the future. Trump is unique, sure, a symptom of populist anger, but he's not a guy presenting solutions or ideas to cure it in any meaningful way.

Yes, a movement starts with a man. First of all, Trump is not a movement, he's one man who rode to office much like Obama did - a cargo cult that utilized free media and dominated the airwaves and tapped into American frustration.

You're looking at the wrong man. The man you should be more worried about is named Bernie Sanders and he started the vastly more popular movement that nearly toppled Clinton too. (He was running ahead of Trump by some 20 points as well).

If you compare the Trump v. Bernie movements, the Bernie movement is more ideological, more intellectual, has more intellectual firepower. That movement resembles very much the Goldwater - National Review movement of the 1950s and 1960s that launched Reagan into power.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2016, 10:39:59 AM »

As for my opinion, I'm down with the ideology but I wish it had more of an intellectual backbone. Years of movement conservatism playing up people's fears has a consequence. Now the Rubio/Cruz folks are scratching their heads.

"Intellectual backbone." What intellectual backbone are we talking about? Tell me about this movement and its glorious history. Where did it start? In the screeds of Pat Buchanan, who's an anti-Semite, maybe?
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2016, 03:07:43 PM »

Minority parties play with the hand they're dealt. Republicans received a mandate in the 2010 midterms to get serious about spending, serve as a check on the President, and change course. That's what the voters who elected a House majority for my party wanted, that's what they got.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2016, 07:20:51 PM »

Opinion of the Obama-Era Republican Party: They didn't get enough done. Could have gotten Immigration Reform(great opportunity to do so), Criminal Justice Reform(still has to be done), entitlement reform(Obama is to blame though), and Tax Reform(great opportunity to do so) done. We need gun reform also.

Just didn't get enough done period.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2016, 07:23:42 PM »

Are you talking about the Obama-era GOP that did primary challenges on all Republican incumbents/potentials that were even remotely moderate, bringing the party further to the right as GOPers like Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats or retired?

HP.
That lasted from about from about 2010-2012 though.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2016, 07:25:42 PM »

Are you talking about the Obama-era GOP that did primary challenges on all Republican incumbents/potentials that were even remotely moderate, bringing the party further to the right as GOPers like Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats or retired?

HP.
That lasted from about from about 2010-2012 though.

There's still primaries like this, even if they aren't as roundly successful as they were in the 2010-2012 era. Thad Cochran almost lost his seat to a huge asshole.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 24, 2016, 08:47:05 PM »

Are you talking about the Obama-era GOP that did primary challenges on all Republican incumbents/potentials that were even remotely moderate, bringing the party further to the right as GOPers like Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats or retired?

HP.
That lasted from about from about 2010-2012 though.

There's still primaries like this, even if they aren't as roundly successful as they were in the 2010-2012 era. Thad Cochran almost lost his seat to a huge asshole.
Chris McDaniel.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2016, 12:24:13 AM »

Did what they had to do to stop as many liberal priorities from becoming law as possible. Ugly, but FF.

But their demagoguery was horrible and helped lead to Trump, so HP in that regard.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2016, 03:12:31 PM »

Terrible, although I'm very pleased by our electoral success in 2014 and 2016.  I doubt that was due to Obama as much as the specific candidates, though.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2016, 11:18:56 AM »

Horrible. Just horrible. Obstructing, destructive force in large parts. The level of harted for the president was truely a shame.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 15 queries.