How long will Dems' new structural advantage last?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

But it will only be a few years before FEMA opens up their secret concentration camps and we won't have to worry about social conservatives anymore. Sometimes I hope right wing conspiracy theories are true.

The problem with christian conservatives is that they believed the world is destined to be taken over by some scary anti-christ one world government thing. This warps their worldview and the last thing we need is these people (like Palin) in the white house. I don't know why right-wing terrorists like McVeigh even exist. Shouldn't they want this to happen so jesus will come back faster?

[Matt Damon™]

not all social conservatives are fundies or the black helicopter types

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Yes, but they are the most vocal.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

It's like "Ohhhh...look at me, I don't believe in science and hate gays, but I am a normal guy - JUST LIKE YOU"...

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Unless the new government is as incompetent as the last left-of-center government, I will give the GOP until 2020 or even 2030...2040 isn't completely out of the question. However, if the Obama-Pelosi gig turns into a cluster like the entire Clinton-Foley(Speaker, not the child molester), we could see a Neo-Con-tract with America by the next election.

[MK13]

It's like "Ohhhh...look at me, I don't believe in science and hate gays, but I am a normal guy - JUST LIKE YOU"...

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Unless the new government is as incompetent as the last left-of-center government, I will give the GOP until 2020 or even 2030...2040 isn't completely out of the question. However, if the Obama-Pelosi gig turns into a cluster like the entire Clinton-Foley(Speaker, not the child molester), we could see a Neo-Con-tract with America by the next election.

I agree.  Obama needs to stay away from the hot button social stuff.

[Matt Damon™]

obama needs to stay away from pointless leftist economics

[MK13]

obama needs to stay away from pointless leftist economics

Better then the cold hearted econimics the right is pushing for.

[Matt Damon™]

obama needs to stay away from pointless leftist economics

Better then the cold hearted econimics the right is pushing for.

alot of the problems with our economy stem from conservative embrace of big government and deficits

[Wiz from Wis in Mass]

obama needs to stay away from pointless leftist economics

Better then the cold hearted econimics the right is pushing for.

alot of the problems with our economy stem from conservative embrace of big government and deficits

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

[paul718]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

[MK13]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

I Respect you as a republican, but you are just spewing the foxnewish talking points.

[paul718]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

I Respect you as a republican, but you are just spewing the foxnewish talking points.

No.  It's just that when all of this started happening, I needed to know why.  This is the best, most concrete explanation I've heard so far.  I will change my opinion if I'm convinced, but this is what makes the most sense to me.  What is your opinion on the source of the current financial crisis?  You might be able to sway me.

[Prez Duke]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

I Respect you as a republican, but you are just spewing the foxnewish talking points.

It's on video has happening. Are you going to say it was made by Foxnews too?

But you just proved you have no argument to the contrary.

[dead0man]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

I Respect you as a republican, but you are just spewing the foxnewish talking points.

What did he say that was incorrect?  Don't be afraid to be specific.

[phk]

At this point it seems as if only a "black swan" event can rescue the GOP.

[Beet]

A lot of the problems with our economy stem from conservatives gutting regulatory institutions, appointing cronies and morons, draining the budget with a pointless war, and focusing on pointless social debates (gay marriage, abortion, evolution) while Rome burns. Its not a question of pure ideology, its a question of competence. Conservatism might recover, but until a Republican runs the government well, it will be stained for the interim.

I agree with you that the Republicans took a beating these last two elections because they were incompetent.  And a lot of the examples you've laid out are true.  But I don't think you can blame them for the current state of the economy.  It was Chuck Hagel and a group of Republicans who foresaw insolvency in Fannie and Freddie due to the subprime industry, but it was Barney Frank and the Democrats who fought them on it, saying there would be no problem.  With that said, the Community Reinvestment Act was enrolled under Carter and strengthened under Clinton, but the Republicans had 12 years to do something about it, and they never did until it was too late.  So I think blaming Republicans for the economic mess is way off the mark.  There's enough blame to go around to plenty of people. 

I Respect you as a republican, but you are just spewing the foxnewish talking points.

What did he say that was incorrect?  Don't be afraid to be specific.

The incorrectness lies in focusing entirely on the GSE's and CRA, while ignoring the entire private sector, the entire financial sector, the entire subject of monetary policy, and of course macroeconomic imbalances. Here is some basic reading w.r.t. the GSE's and CRA:

http://www.wordyard.com/2008/10/15/meltdown-blame-game/

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/cra_fannie_and.html#more

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.html

[dead0man]

k...but his main point was it's silly to place the blame for the current mess just on the Republicans.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Your links seem to agree with that.  (I couldn't read your first one because it's blocked by the DoD)

[paul718]

k...but his main point was it's silly to place the blame for the current mess just on the Republicans.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Your links seem to agree with that.  (I couldn't read your first one because it's blocked by the DoD)

Thanks...

My post could have been worded better, but what I meant was that that a lot of people deserve the blame and that Wiz's focus on conservatives was off the mark.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I think people like Steele as RNC chair will help the Republicans a lot.

[Gustaf]

Old parties never die, they just fade away.

It's hard to tell. People are over-reacting though. This is just like 2004 when many Republicans were discussing the death of the Democratic party, even though they held 45 Senate seats about 200 House seats and had broken 48% of the vote and 250 EVs in the last presidential election. Granted, the GOP did badly this year but come on! It was 7% and given the circumstances that isn't even too shabby.

Sure, they got problems and considering the structure of American politics it will take a lot of time before they can win back congress again but I don't think it's gonna be that hard. It took Republicans 16 years to win back congress after the Great Depression hit. The swings then were roughly twice the swings now, I think, so let's cut it in half. 8 years, counting from 2006, brings us to 2014. So around then would be my basic guess.

Sure, they need to reinvent, etc but I don't think that will be as difficult as people seem to think. These type of voter blocs have changed allegiance before.

[Lunar]

I think people like Steele as RNC chair will help the Republicans a lot.

What do you MEAN, "people??"

[Jacobtm]

It's hard to tell. People are over-reacting though. This is just like 2004 when many Republicans were discussing the death of the Democratic party, even though they held 45 Senate seats about 200 House seats and had broken 48% of the vote and 250 EVs in the last presidential election.

Remember all the "We can't just become Republican-lite, we need to hunker down and become a real opposition party" talk right after '04?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I dunno, that's pretty over-simplified, though. The GOP would only fully control congress for two or three congresses for the next 31, after 1933. That being said, the structural majority coud last until 2040, but the Rs could pick up congress in 2014 and maybe 2016 before geetting kicked out in 2022 and not seeing another R congress until 2042.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Until 2010. They already have almost 60 seats in the senate, and there is not much that they can gain in any area. Besides, usually the party of the president has some losses in congressional races two years into his first term. Quite possibly the Republicans will regain everything by 2012 if Obama ends up another Carter; even if he is a popular president, there is not much that the Democrats can gain.

[Lunar]

Until 2010. They already have almost 60 seats in the senate, and there is not much that they can gain in any area. Besides, usually the party of the president has some losses in congressional races two years into his first term. Quite possibly the Republicans will regain everything by 2012 if Obama ends up another Carter; even if he is a popular president, there is not much that the Democrats can gain.

So...how many Democratic vulnerable seats are open in 2010 compared to vulnerable Republican seats?

Take a count and come back to me.