when will the republicans win another presidential election?

[Nym90]

If the country moves to the left politically, both parties will also move left. This may well result in a Republican victory, but overall it would still be a victory for liberalism.

1996 is the perfect example. On paper it was a big Democratic victory in the Presidential election. But in reality, it wasn't, because both parties had moved to the right. Conservatives were the true winners since they had forced Clinton and the Democrats to move to the right in order to win, thus essentially removing true liberalism from the spectrum of political debate for the next 10 years.

Looking to 2008, conservatives have to be a might upset about the fact that even Rudy Guiliani may now be considered too far to the right to win, while Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are now considered reasonable moderates by most rather than extreme liberals.

But not to worry, eventually a Democratic President and the Democratic Congress will screw up and go too far to the left, and then the Republicans will win. But they'll probably have to moderate themselves to do it.

Usually when a party loses, they reevaluate their positions and reinvent themselves. The Republicans can't do that yet after their 2006 defeat, because the primary reason for that defeat was Bush and the war in Iraq. They need to wait until after 2008 before they can purge themselves of that albatross.

[agcatter]

Bush is definitely an albatross.  However, as I outlined before, the demographics are such that the Republican Party is history regardless of whether they moderate their stance or Bush is out of office.  Concervatives need to get ready to live under a European style welfare state.  There is nothing they can do about this.  They no longer have enough votes.

[TheresNoMoney]

Concervatives need to get ready to live under a European style welfare state.

Haha, yeah right!

While I think that many European countries have some great aspects to their economies, the American Democratic party is fairly conservative on economic issues. There are only a few true economic populists in the U.S. Senate right now (Russ Feingold, Byron Dorgan, Sherrod Brown, maybe a few more). A good percentage of the Democrats in Washington are corporatists just like 95% of the Republicans.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

So how about a two-tier system. There are both government and privately-ran health care systems. Similar to the current education system actually. That way at least the uninsured have some form of health care, and those who can afford don't complain about all the disadvantages of a single-payer system.

Or we could not have government-ran health care, but instead have the government provide INSURANCE for everyone.

[TheresNoMoney]

Or we could not have government-ran health care, but instead have the government provide INSURANCE for everyone.

Exactly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Or we could not have government-ran health care, but instead have the government provide INSURANCE for everyone.

Exactly.

Which would be a dreadful, costly mistake. Better than the current situtation o/c, but then that's really not saying much.

[SPC]

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.

And the Libertarian Party will replace them, get rid of third-party payers, and lower medicare prices. Hey look, I just came up wih a solution that doesn't require government intervention.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

2008!  Hagel or Romney!

[Nym90]

It's very hard to say, each party seems entirely out of touch with the populace..approval ratings for each Party are starting to hit all time lows.  The Republicans are still struggling with the fact that they think they're still in power.  They have President Bush threatening veto on so many big issue bills, and he and the Democrats are each telling each other to be partisan.  Nothing is getting done in Congress because of the fighting going on.  I see right now just as high of chance the Republicans have with winning the next election as the Democrats.

Approval ratings for Congress are always low, and nothing has changed with that. Approval ratings for Democrats in Congress specifically are much higher than for Republicans, as are favorable ratings of the parties in general.

The President and his approval ratings always have and still do drive the national political mood. Congress as an institution is always disliked, but most Americans still like and approve of their own Congressman.

[Kevin]

If the country moves to the left politically, both parties will also move left. This may well result in a Republican victory, but overall it would still be a victory for liberalism.

1996 is the perfect example. On paper it was a big Democratic victory in the Presidential election. But in reality, it wasn't, because both parties had moved to the right. Conservatives were the true winners since they had forced Clinton and the Democrats to move to the right in order to win, thus essentially removing true liberalism from the spectrum of political debate for the next 10 years.

Looking to 2008, conservatives have to be a might upset about the fact that even Rudy Guiliani may now be considered too far to the right to win, while Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are now considered reasonable moderates by most rather than extreme liberals.

But not to worry, eventually a Democratic President and the Democratic Congress will screw up and go too far to the left, and then the Republicans will win. But they'll probably have to moderate themselves to do it.

Usually when a party loses, they reevaluate their positions and reinvent themselves. The Republicans can't do that yet after their 2006 defeat, because the primary reason for that defeat was Bush and the war in Iraq. They need to wait until after 2008 before they can purge themselves of that albatross.

I was thinking of something along those lines too.

[Angel of Death]

Probably the most devastating possible thing that could happen to the Republican Party would be if Roe vs. Wade were to be ever overturned.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Probably the most devastating possible thing that could happen to the Republican Party would be if Roe vs. Wade were to be ever overturned.

I totally second this.

Which is why Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned (at least in the foreseeable future.)

[Person Man]

Although, I predict that about half of the states will still continue to follow Roe, even if it was overturned.

[MasterJedi]

Although, I predict that about half of the states will still continue to follow Roe, even if it was overturned.

They wouldn't be in abortion clinics as those could be forcibly closed making most people not get any. So the people who are desperate to kill can possibly die themselves in back alleys.

[Jacobtm]

Personally, I think there are many plausible situations (involving the top 4 candidates in each field) that could lead to Republican victory in '08.

[© tweed]

2012

[MODU]

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.

The one has nothing to do with the other.  For starters, of the 47 Million who do not have coverage plans in their name, how many of them have coverage through their spouses (one of the items overlooked often in statistics).  Secondly, if in fact that 47 Million do not currently have coverage, how many have plans offered to them through their employer and they just choose not to participate?  Lastly, if in fact that 47 Million do not have coverage and do not have plans offered to them through their companies, how will creating a nation-wide government plan that will include everyone (not just the 47 Million) be more beneficial to them than changing the law to allow local and cross-state organizations to form to offer discounted or free insurance plans to those who are actually in need?

The last thing this nation needs is a top-level government nanny program that will end up becoming more of an economic strain on the taxpayers than that of Social Security is right now.  What we need to do is have the Congress pass laws allowing the easy access to local and cross-state insurance providers to provide plans to the individual at a group rate, provide assistance to charity organizations who offer free coverage to those who are actually in need, and encourage preventative medicine in regions where medical cases are high.  From there, you can tackle the causes of skyrocketing health care expenses (lawsuits, Medicare claims, etc), and insurance plan costs for everyone could then begin to decrease. 

[nlm]

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.

The one has nothing to do with the other.  For starters, of the 47 Million who do not have coverage plans in their name, how many of them have coverage through their spouses (one of the items overlooked often in statistics).  Secondly, if in fact that 47 Million do not currently have coverage, how many have plans offered to them through their employer and they just choose not to participate?  Lastly, if in fact that 47 Million do not have coverage and do not have plans offered to them through their companies, how will creating a nation-wide government plan that will include everyone (not just the 47 Million) be more beneficial to them than changing the law to allow local and cross-state organizations to form to offer discounted or free insurance plans to those who are actually in need?

The last thing this nation needs is a top-level government nanny program that will end up becoming more of an economic strain on the taxpayers than that of Social Security is right now.  What we need to do is have the Congress pass laws allowing the easy access to local and cross-state insurance providers to provide plans to the individual at a group rate, provide assistance to charity organizations who offer free coverage to those who are actually in need, and encourage preventative medicine in regions where medical cases are high.  From there, you can tackle the causes of skyrocketing health care expenses (lawsuits, Medicare claims, etc), and insurance plan costs for everyone could then begin to decrease. 

That's all nice MODU, but the nation has waited so long for action that many folks are tired of waiting and want something fairly easy to understand. In addition to the millions that are uninsured, there are millions more with crap insurance that only covers them nominally. Corporations have been decreasing the quaility of the insurance they offer for a number of years now. On top of that, medical bills have become a leading cause of bankruptcy - and not only among those without insurance but also those that didn't have adequate insurance. It's a big problem and one that Congress should have been working on long ago.

This has been a question of priorities for our law makers, and health care hasn't ranked very high. The fact that the GOP put bankruptcy reform (which wasn't an entirely bad idea) ahead of health care refrom (which is causing even more bankruptcy now that bankruptcy has been reformed) really shows where our law makers hearts are. People are getting sick of it and that leads to a knee jerk solutions that people can understand easily. I don't blame them for being sick of it, health care in this country is fairly ridiculous, however universal government run health care in a country with a population as large as ours and as much economic stratification as ours presents some problem that I don't think have been looked at that well by those that support such an idea. If the GOP had been a little bit less of a bloodsucking hoard we would be in a better position today on health care and a big bloated national care plan wouldn't be such a serious topic of discussion. If Congress doesn't make nuanced choices to solve actually problems that people are living through but insted ignores thems, it's only a matter of time until the people start to demand something that completely lacks nuance and balance.

When and if we get yet another giant tax payer funded program, I'll be blaming both the GOP and Dems for making it possible. The GOP for ignoring the problem to such a degree that this idea became popularized and the Dems for taking that popularity and running with it.

[??????????]

I almost hope for U.H.C. just to get a good laugh at the disaster it will cause.

[MODU]

And you hit on a big point of it all.  For all the talk both sides do on the issue, they really don't do much to actually solve it . . . and why should they?  If they solve the issue, they won't have anything to campaign on in the future.  There are so many corrections we can make in our current laws, both on the national and state level, that can resolve most of the problems of the current health care system without resorting to adding yet another layer of government bureaucracy as a bandaid, which really all the so-called universal healthcare plans talked about today are in reality.  If the politicians would put half the time and effort into researching the problem rather than talking about it each campaign cycle, this could have been resolved years ago.

[??????????]

Can you imagine a NHC here in the USA? Imagine people getting free healthcare with the irresponsible lifestyles and habits most Americans have. On top of that most people run to doctors for ever cough, cold or flu. And then on top of all that you got people who scam the system for personal gain or drugs and then, after that, you have millions upon millions of illegals coming into the country as it stands now! Imagine if the US was offering FREE healthcare! How would doctors be able to tell who was a US citizen and who wasn't? ID's wouldn't be good enough, those are easily faked. I'm a very law abiding citizen and even I know where you can get those kind of ID's.

[MODU]

Can you imagine a NHC here in the USA? Imagine people getting free healthcare with the irresponsible lifestyles and habits most Americans have.

Higher taxes does not equal "free."

[??????????]

Can you imagine a NHC here in the USA? Imagine people getting free healthcare with the irresponsible lifestyles and habits most Americans have.

Higher taxes does not equal "free."

The masses, however, would consider it "free" because they aren't writing a check for it.

[MODU]

Can you imagine a NHC here in the USA? Imagine people getting free healthcare with the irresponsible lifestyles and habits most Americans have.

Higher taxes does not equal "free."

The masses, however, would consider it "free" because they aren't writing a check for it.

Just goes to show that ignorance is not bliss.

[nlm]

And you hit on a big point of it all.  For all the talk both sides do on the issue, they really don't do much to actually solve it . . . and why should they?  If they solve the issue, they won't have anything to campaign on in the future.  There are so many corrections we can make in our current laws, both on the national and state level, that can resolve most of the problems of the current health care system without resorting to adding yet another layer of government bureaucracy as a bandaid, which really all the so-called universal healthcare plans talked about today are in reality.  If the politicians would put half the time and effort into researching the problem rather than talking about it each campaign cycle, this could have been resolved years ago.

If you really want to fix these problems - it all starts with election and campaign finance reform. These are things that most Republicans hate and quite a few Democrats do not like as well. People can argue that spending money equals free speech till they are blue in the face, but what they are actually doing is defending the status quo of our broken political system.