when will the republicans win another presidential election?

[WalterMitty]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

[Joe Republic]

The last time the presidential election ballot did not feature either a Bush or a Clinton anywhere on it was 1976.

[MODU]

The last time the presidential election ballot did not feature either a Bush or a Clinton anywhere on it was 1976.

So, basically, 90% of this forum hasn't known any other form of politics. Given the need for some to stick with what they know, as long as their is an eligible Bush or Clinton, part of the population will be driven to nominate them for President.  OOOOH, spooky. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The last time the presidential election ballot did not feature either a Bush or a Clinton anywhere on it was 1976.

You Know if you add Nixon and Dole to that list you're looking at only one election since the 1940s (1964)...

And if you add Roosevelt, Dewey and Bryan you go back even further.. only three elections since 1892 - 1916, 1928 and 1964.

So this ain't a new thang...

[opebo]

Never.  I'm surprised this isn't obvious to all.  Demographic trends cannot be disputed.  Hispanic numbers are massive and accelerating.  That transfers into millions more of low income voters who will pull the Democratic lever to get more government goodies.  It's the dirty little secret that Republicans operatives know but somehow never say out loud.  California is long gone.  New Mexico will be gone in 2008.   In 2012 wave bye bye to Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado.  By 2012 the numbers will have sufficiently changed to add to Democratic totals in other now close battleground states in other parts of the country.

Just one example of how drastic the change is.  California study released yesterday indicated the demographics of California by 2050 - 52% Hispanic, 26% white, the rest a mixture of Aian (13%) Black (6%) and other.  Texas (of all states) will be gone by 2020 - Hispanic plurality by then and Hispanic majority by 2025.

Two terms of Hillary and by 2016 presidential elections won't even be competitive.  All you have to do is do the math.  Facts are brutal things.  Numbers don't lie.

Oh, I really so enjoyed reading this!  Thanks.  But of course I'm sure you know the parties will always tend towards a 50/50 split by following the changes in the electorate...

However - the problem with following the electorate is this:  both parties have to serve and protect the owning class regardless.  That is their purpose.  But whatever the ethnicity of the electorate, it has always been made up mostly of working class people, and they've never had their interests served, so I think we can feel sure the status quo will be preserved.  Let's just sit back and see how it is accomplished as the country gets browner.  I think it is safe to assume that it will be, since the alternative is a Pinochet.

[Kevin]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

[MODU]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

God I hope not.

[MaC]

Hopefully 2008 if Paul or Tancredo is chosen by the party
Hopefully 2012 if someone like them is chosen to defeat the Democrats

But I digress, both party only elect status-quo politicians chosen by political machinery and aren't in opposition to the illuminati.

[WalterMitty]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

God I hope not.

youre perfectly comfortable with the lower classes going without health care?

they shouldnt get so uppity should they?  they should realize they are human garbage.

typical hubris.

[agcatter]

Who would you like to pay for it?  Nevermind.  I think I know the answer.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

Romney?  For universal health care?  Haha, no.

[WalterMitty]

Who would you like to pay for it?  Nevermind.  I think I know the answer.

who is paying for it now?

do you actually think you are getting  a good return on your health care dollar?

[TheresNoMoney]

Who would you like to pay for it?

You do realize you're already paying for it, don't you?

I am constantly amazed by Republican ignorance on this issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2008

What? I thought you were predicting a Hillary victory.

[Kevin]

Who would you like to pay for it?

You do realize you're already paying for it, don't you?

I am constatnly amazed by Republican ignorance on this issue.

Me and a number of other Republicans are centainly not ignorant on the issue,However I think we are eventully going to get some form of universal health care eventully,Whether it be under a Republican or Democratic President who takes the incitive such a system.

[Citizen James]

Never.  I'm surprised this isn't obvious to all.  Demographic trends cannot be disputed.  Hispanic numbers are massive and accelerating.  That transfers into millions more of low income voters who will pull the Democratic lever to get more government goodies.  It's the dirty little secret that Republicans operatives know but somehow never say out loud.  California is long gone.  New Mexico will be gone in 2008.   In 2012 wave bye bye to Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado.  By 2012 the numbers will have sufficiently changed to add to Democratic totals in other now close battleground states in other parts of the country.

Just one example of how drastic the change is.  California study released yesterday indicated the demographics of California by 2050 - 52% Hispanic, 26% white, the rest a mixture of Aian (13%) Black (6%) and other.  Texas (of all states) will be gone by 2020 - Hispanic plurality by then and Hispanic majority by 2025.

Two terms of Hillary and by 2016 presidential elections won't even be competitive.  All you have to do is do the math.  Facts are brutal things.  Numbers don't lie.

Wouldn't your 'Hispanic hypothesis'  be more likely to favor Richardson?

And facts are very different than the conclusions we draw from those facts.   And numbers can easily be manipulated to deceive, or be miscalculated or misinterpreted.

In 1965 the Republican party was considered in dire straits, in 1991 Bush Sr. was considered invincible,  a mere two years ago many republicans on this forum were certain that the Democratic party was about to be relegated to third party status. 

Mass human behavior tends to be chaotic - a small change here or there can have massive repercussions years down the line, be it a butterfly in south America or a Butterfly ballot in southern Florida.

That's what's so exciting about politics and mass human behavior, it makes quantum mechanics seem downright predicable by contrast.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

probably 2016 at the earliest.

sh**t, I was going to say 2016 or later, but then I remembered your record of political predictions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully never. [/hackery]

This is the country where 62 million voters re-elected Bush, so expecting them to behave reasonably like that is a pipe dream.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

Romney?  For universal health care?  Haha, no.

^^^^^^^^^

[Boris]

2008

What? I thought you were predicting a Hillary victory.

I dunno. It's hard to imagine her winning, but at the same time, come on, it's hard to imagine her losing.

In theory, 2008 should be 1980 in reverse. The Republicans are all uniting behind Bush's failed and unpopular policies in Iraq. The Democrats are favored on every issue except for national security, where we're pretty much even. And look at the top GOP contenders: We have a Mormon Flip-flopper, a pro-choicer with a sh**tload of personal baggage, John McCain (no other description required), and some Bush-clone southern conservative. When was the last time a political party has won a Presidential election when their incumbent had an approval rating in the 20s?

However, I figure we nominate Hillary, and the GOP unites behind whatever schmuck they nominate in opposition to her.  But then she fucks up somehow: verbal gaffe, poor debate performance, neglecting disgruntled left-wing voters, not attacking an easily-attackable opponent, failure to adequately respond to GOP smear campaigns, you name it. While the GOP nominee gradually moves to the left on the war while still uttering their usual "no surrender" bullsh**t. That takes down Hillary to the 48% of the vote that we've been receiving in 2000 and 2004.

But yeah, I'm probably acting like Tweed in early 2006 when he was predicting a Santorum victory.

[MaC]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

God I hope not.

youre perfectly comfortable with the lower classes going without health care?

they shouldnt get so uppity should they?  they should realize they are human garbage.

typical hubris.

no, typical hubris is: anyone who doesn't support my position exactly is a poor hater.

Let me put it to you another way, I know whatever I say is going to make you dislike me/my opinions, but for my ego's sake, let me divulge.

Let's take a dichotomy: Either the 47 million will recieve health care or they won't
Another: Either government intervention in the health industry should increase or decrease.  (We shall take the current amount of intervention to not be an acceptable answer since neither of us think this is a good idea, in addition to the rest of the forum).

So, both of us pair the dichotomies differently.  That's a givern.  You seem to believe that 47 million will recieve health care if government does intervene.  I believe that 47 million will recieve health care without intervention.

So let's take this further, you seem to think that the current situation is a result of the free market and I believe that the current situation is a result of the government.
This crossroads is probably the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe that a free market does mean free of limits.  People will have various options.  The free market is not a set constant as the government is, and this is why I believe it can work.  The free market is one that allows individuals to interact in different ways.  Instead of a singular option of having government control, there are many avenues to obtaining the same end.  This is why libertarianism is often seen as extreme.  You will have other options such as housing, schooling, and retirement where many people including myself will say that they don't readily know the answer, but I know it is not government control.  When a need arises, someone, somewhere will want to fix that need.  Health care is not my upmost concern, but out of 300 million people here and with a capitalist system in place, somebody will want to create a system where everyone can easily obtain health care and they can become rich in doing so.

Walter, I pose to you a question, and I do hope you answer it honestly:  If you knew without a doubt that the health care for all Americans could be provided without government involved, would you still want universal health care.  I am curious, and I respect whatever you say in response.

[WalterMitty]

one thing is for sure...if the 47 million people in america without health insurance would get off of their asses and vote their best interests, the republican party would be forced to change or die.

I'm sure we are going to be getting universal health care pretty soon after 08,Whether it be with Clinton,Obama or Romney.

God I hope not.

youre perfectly comfortable with the lower classes going without health care?

they shouldnt get so uppity should they?  they should realize they are human garbage.

typical hubris.

no, typical hubris is: anyone who doesn't support my position exactly is a poor hater.

Let me put it to you another way, I know whatever I say is going to make you dislike me/my opinions, but for my ego's sake, let me divulge.

Let's take a dichotomy: Either the 47 million will recieve health care or they won't
Another: Either government intervention in the health industry should increase or decrease.  (We shall take the current amount of intervention to not be an acceptable answer since neither of us think this is a good idea, in addition to the rest of the forum).

So, both of us pair the dichotomies differently.  That's a givern.  You seem to believe that 47 million will recieve health care if government does intervene.  I believe that 47 million will recieve health care without intervention.

So let's take this further, you seem to think that the current situation is a result of the free market and I believe that the current situation is a result of the government.
This crossroads is probably the fundamental disagreement between us.

I believe that a free market does mean free of limits.  People will have various options.  The free market is not a set constant as the government is, and this is why I believe it can work.  The free market is one that allows individuals to interact in different ways.  Instead of a singular option of having government control, there are many avenues to obtaining the same end.  This is why libertarianism is often seen as extreme.  You will have other options such as housing, schooling, and retirement where many people including myself will say that they don't readily know the answer, but I know it is not government control.  When a need arises, someone, somewhere will want to fix that need.  Health care is not my upmost concern, but out of 300 million people here and with a capitalist system in place, somebody will want to create a system where everyone can easily obtain health care and they can become rich in doing so.

Walter, I pose to you a question, and I do hope you answer it honestly:  If you knew without a doubt that the health care for all Americans could be provided without government involved, would you still want universal health care.  I am curious, and I respect whatever you say in response.

of course id support universal coverage without the government being involved...IF it was affordable for all.

[opebo]

Who would you like to pay for it?  Nevermind.  I think I know the answer.

agcatter, everything is already being paid for by the people who have no money.   

[Ebowed]

The health care issue really is a losing one for the Republicans.  They should focus on other issues instead of harping on this one, because it makes them sound greedy and selfish, even if that isn't their intention.  Really, do they listen to their own arguments?  The best reason to oppose universal coverage to lift up millions of uninsured poors is that the taxpayers will have to pay for it?  Wow.

[agcatter]

The other problem with Canadian type single pay system is getting treatment.  My sister is 51 and was having some very troubling symptoms over the last two to three weeks.  The blood work results looked suspicious and combined with the symptoms and family history the doctor ordered a CT scan  last Monday - which showed shadows or spots on her kidney and liver.  They immediately ordered a MRI and that was done yesterday (two days later) to get a definitive diagnosis.  We are hoping against hope for good news early next week.  Anyone want to venture a guess as to how long she would have to wait for the original CT scan let alone a follow up procedure like an MRI if she lived in Canada?  I wonder if Michael Moore covered that little detail in his latest propaganda flick.  We all know the answer to that one I think.

Government run health care is wonderful - unless you are actualy sick.  if the cancer spreads (cancer tends to do that) while you are waiting for "your turn" it doesn't do you a hell of a lot of good.  Now, if we can tweek the system to improve what we've got I'm all for doing whatever we can do to improve the system.  However, government run systems look good on paper, but my sister is a living example as to the drawback - a matter of life and death.