when will the republicans win another presidential election?

[MODU]

I agree with WalterMitty.  Unless a Democratic President REALLY screws up, the Dems will have the White House until 2016 or 2020.  Get ready for 8 years of President Hillary.  And Republicans, you did it to yourselves.

I wouldn't be suprised if one of the parties were totally shot out for two full presidencies. By then, I would think the Libertarians would replace the losing party.

You may now delete yourself

Why?  Wouldn't you like a Republican vs Libertarian competition?  Hard core liberals would isolated to a third-party status by then.

But the true question is . . . when will we get rid of these parties all together and get back to voting for the people who are qualified, and not who the parties decide to nominate?  Are you content with the contest to determine between the lesser of two evils.

[MODU]

2020. At which point political scientists will be able to speak of the "Democratic era," as they will have won the popular vote in all but one election since 1988.

I doubt it. It'll probably be referred to as the Bush-Clinton era, assuming Hillary is elected in 2008.  Hell, it's quite possible I could be 28 by the time I live under a President whose last name isn't Bush or Clinton.

hahaha . . . wouldn't that be scary.

[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. 

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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."

[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.

[MODU]

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.

I agree.  But the two dinosaur parties have done all they can to limit the abilities of the individuals and third-parties from breaking down those barriers.  If neither party wants to solve issues, they have no need to change the status quo.

[MODU]

Want third parties to get in? Then change the FPTP system you love so much.

No, we just need to remove the barriers put in place in allowing ballot access.  Switching away from FPTP without changing ballot access still leaves the third-parties severely disadvantaged by the two dominanting parties.

[MODU]

Want third parties to get in? Then change the FPTP system you love so much.

No, we just need to remove the barriers put in place in allowing ballot access.  Switching away from FPTP without changing ballot access still leaves the third-parties severely disadvantaged by the two dominanting parties.

modu, maybe this isnt a fair question, but im curious...why arent you a republican?  do you disagree with the republican party on anything?

The same question could be asked of you, Walter?  Why aren't you a Democrat?  I've answered this numerous times in the past.  I jumped out of supporting the Republican party decades ago, remained independent up till the early days of the Reform movement, and then went back to independent.  I am conservative by nature, so I will more times than not share similar views as those of the Republican party, but I do have my differences on issues, especially when the two dinosaur parties have grown closer together with their party-first mentality.