Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Adam Jensen]

they will either adapt or double down. i dont know which yet

If the last term was any indication, I'll go with "double down."

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 08:35 AM ----------

Theory isn't the same as an law, I do know that, a theory is a well thought out hypothesis that hasn't had enough to disprove it, and there has been some holes in evolution not enough to make me ever think we don't evolve but enough to ask what else can cause us to change over time?

Wrong wrong wrong wrong

http://notjustatheory.com/

Learn what a theory is, okay? Gravity, is a theory. Disease caused by bacteria? That's also a theory. That matter is comprised of atoms? Also a theory.

Learn what a theory is.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 08:37 AM ----------

You mean the lack of hurricane for two seasons after a prediction from the 05 with three hurricanes.

---------- Post added 2012-11-09 at 06:36 PM ----------



A theory starts out as a hypothesis, that is what I was saying. The holes in evolution is the missing link for humans, the platypus and the large lack of fossilize evidence due to the nature of how fossilization works. I thank you for correcting me as I may have been misinformed but that doesn't mean I don't think that climate change isn't completely human cause, it is created from a large number of variables and it is arrogant of us to assume we know what all the variables are.

Stasso, do yourself a favor. Youtube Thunderf00t and AronRa. They have EXCELLENT videos explaining what evolution is, what theory/law is, and why Creationisms/ID is fundamentally flawed AND in many cases based on lies.

[Darkacid]

Obama had to lose his soul to "win" so I think the GOP is fine.

[Jero]

Did the Dems admit and adapt in 2010? Repubs in 2008? Dems and Repubs in 2004? Dems in 2000? No, they don't. They just keep swapping power back and forth.

[Spectral]

Obama had to lose his soul to "win" so I think the GOP is fine.

I was wondering what your excuse would be!

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 10:52 AM ----------

Did the Dems admit and adapt in 2010?

Not very much, which is why they control exactly the same parts of government that they did in 2010.

Repubs in 2008?

Yes, after 2008, there was a large revolution in the Republican Party. It spawned the anti-government, anti-intellectual Tea Party, which was remarkably successful and took a fair number of seats from Democrats in 2010.

Dems and Repubs in 2004?

Yes, after 2004 Democrats decided to be a less squishy opposition, pushing back openly against the wars, against torture, and in favor of social safety nets. They won Congress handily in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

Dems in 2000?

No, they failed miserably, and it showed. Picking Kerry was a disaster.

No, they don't. They just keep swapping power back and forth.

This is a bit like telling someone that put a bandage on a wound that it would have stopped bleeding anyway, because look, it's not bleeding anymore.

[Absolem]

Unlikely. Atleast not anytime soon.

I think it's safe to say that the retarded elephant is down and injured. And the sane among us are glad it is so.

It's probably going to die. I hope a smarter elephant with less hate, more education and the majority's interests at heart replaces that silly retarded elephant.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Obama had to lose his soul to "win" so I think the GOP is fine.

What does this even mean? I want to criticize it but I first have to understand it. Didn't you used to have an avatar?

[Palmatum]

They have a few good ideas and that's it. Quite frankly they no longer have a place in politics and they are rather scary in the way they think and how ignorant they are.

[Darthcullen]

denial about what, did you not look at the numbers, there are just as many republicans as democrats, and their opinions are just as valid as yours.

/thread

I live in Tennessee. Of the people that vote republican, 50% have an IQ less than 85, their opinion does not matter in American politics.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 04:03 PM ----------

I was wondering what your excuse would be!

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 10:52 AM ----------



Not very much, which is why they control exactly the same parts of government that they did in 2010.



Yes, after 2008, there was a large revolution in the Republican Party. It spawned the anti-government, anti-intellectual Tea Party, which was remarkably successful and took a fair number of seats from Democrats in 2010.



Yes, after 2004 Democrats decided to be a less squishy opposition, pushing back openly against the wars, against torture, and in favor of social safety nets. They won Congress handily in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.



No, they failed miserably, and it showed. Picking Kerry was a disaster.



This is a bit like telling someone that put a bandage on a wound that it would have stopped bleeding anyway, because look, it's not bleeding anymore.

They picked Kerry in 2004! Gore in 2000 and he should have won.

[Absolem]

They have a few good ideas and that's it. Quite frankly they no longer have a place in politics and they are rather scary in the way they think and how ignorant they are.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Spectral]

They picked Kerry in 2004! Gore in 2000 and he should have won.

The post I was replying to was about whether parties change after elections. I'm saying that the Democrat party didn't sufficiently react after 2000, and Kerry was a symptom of a stagnant party.

[jmt]

I just had this discussion with my dad.

The issue is that the US has a growing population of independent voters, increasing with every new crop of voters. The hard split Democrats and Republicans will stay with their respective lines.

The new strategy is to maintain enough energy in your respective party to ensure a solid turnout, but to not be so overt in your approach that it turns off the independents.

Independents aside, the country is pretty evenly split in the parties. That means that to win, you have to get the independent vote. The increasing attention to states like Ohio and Florida, who, over time, have had created so many independent voters due to their population mix and geographic location.

It also explains why Libertarians increase in party support and size in every election dating back to the 70s.

Democrats capitalized on the independent vote with Obama in 2008. They also lost some this year due to the state of the economy.

Republicans completely missed the mark and they never corrected their course because they were convinced that the polls were skewed.

It's a damn shame that a politician has to convince you that they're a normal American, when their record speaks otherwise. What's even worse is that it's a better campaign approach to try and define your competition as anything but normal instead of running a campaign based on your achievements or ideas.

[Felya420]

Democrats capitalized on the independent vote with Obama in 2008. They also lost some this year due to the state of the economy.

Democrats gained in Senate, House and won the presidency. The loses, didn't stop across the board wins or taking every swing state. Republicans didn't just lose the independent vote, they had segnificant loses in every minority demographic.

It's a damn shame that a politician has to convince you that they're a normal American, when their record speaks otherwise. What's even worse is that it's a better campaign approach to try and define your competition as anything but normal instead of running a campaign based on your achievements or ideas.

The word isn't normal, it's relatable. Most people in this country will never live the life of privilege Romney was born into and his policy just confirmed that. The deductions that were never mention, the vague tax plan, the Ryan tax plan, the flopping on issues at every turn. It wasn't that he couldn't seem normal, it's that with the way Romney makes money, it was hard to disassociate him from the economic collapse. Espeacialy because he refused to show his return for the years of the collaps. In fact, he only showed his last two years, making the RNC chant of 'are you better off than you were 4 years ago' disappear as quickly as Obama did on the first debate.

There is a double edge sword in getting Romney as your nominee due to his financial prowes. On one hand, he should be the person to fix the economy, but on the other hand, his earnings from capital gains and dividends, make him seem just like those who tanked it. I don't think it's mentioned often, but Romney didn't embody the economic solution that republicans saw in him for most democrats. Unlike republicans, Romney represented the very image of those responsible for the collapse in the first place.

[MaximusRex]

I thank you for correcting me as I may have been misinformed but that doesn't mean I don't think that climate change isn't completely human cause, it is created from a large number of variables and it is arrogant of us to assume we know what all the variables are.

This is the argument used as to why we should't act on it, but all the pollutants are known to have other negative effects to the environment, so even if there was no climate change we should still be working toward eliminating that same pollutants.

[Felya420]

What does this even mean? I want to criticize it but I first have to understand it. Didn't you used to have an avatar?

I like the 'win' being in quotes. No, Obama won without any quotes. Democrats added seats in house and senate. The at least winning the popular vote that republicans expected, never happened. It wasn't close. The closest was the popular vote, which is over 3 million people. The electoral was dominant, winning every swing state.

If Obama sold his soul for the win, shouldn't we be able to check Rove or Cheney bank accounts for how much Obama got for his soul?

[ptwonline]

Republicans won't change until they get drubbed in the 2016 election too. Maybe not even then.

Here's the problem: they've gone down a losing path, but because they are the party of no apologies, no retreat even if they can admit to themselves that they are on the wrong track, they won't be able to take a step back to go down the right path. So instead they'll stick with the Tea Party because it's the Tea Party that makes them anything close to competitive in the short term, even if it's a loser in the long run. This also ensures that they will be extremely socially conservative and keep scaring off many moderate voters. Oh sure they'll try a bit of outreach to Hispanics, but with the staunch anti-immigration and racism permeating in their ranks, it will be a tough sell even to their own membership.

They'll do well in Congressional elections in 2014 because they have gerrymandered districts (Democrats got more votes for House seats and yet Republicans won the lion's share. How? Gerrymandering.) Based on that they will feel confident in their brand going into 2016 and unless the Democratic candidate is really bad, the Republicans are likely to get drubbed again.

You'll also see the Right Wing Entertainment Complex continue their usual campaign of lies and fear and US conservativedom will remain in their fact-free bubble where climate change is a hoax, Evolution is just a theory, BLS numbers are cooked by Obama, and so on. Why will they do this? Because it makes them money. That's what this is all about. To them the "news" and "facts" are just part of a free market, and as long as there is demand for what you are selling who cares if it's true?

Look at Karl Rove. He gets a healthy slice of the money he raises for his Super Pacs, so he likely made tens of millions of dollars this election cycle even though his Super Pacs failed miserably. But he--and others--have an incentive to keep Fox News and talk radio to lie and gin up the hate and fear because it draws numbers, and donation dollars, and that makes them rich rich rich. The truth? The good of the nation? Does anyone believe that Fox or Rush or Rove or Beck or anyone of them TRULY care? Maybe to some extent, but far, far below how much they care about duping and manipulating the rank and file conservatives and even the billionaires in order to pad their own engorged bank accounts, and their base is happy to lap it all up. Rove and Co lied to the nation and "unskewed" polls to pretend that everything was close or that they were going to win, and they did it all for more money.

I'm hoping that another drubbing in 2016 opens the eyes of enough conservatives that they finally reject this misinformation industry, jettison Rush, jettison Fox, and jettison the Tea Party (or in the parlance of Mitt Romney, have them self-deport from the Republican Party). Maybe then the party can rebuild properly and actually be a useful, rational, and positive force again.

[Adam Jensen]

This is the argument used as to why we should't act on it, but all the pollutants are known to have other negative effects to the environment, so even if there was no climate change we should still be working toward eliminating that same pollutants.

That's exactly my view on AGW. Who cares if we are or are not responsible for global warming? Acting as if it is true is beneficial to us all in that it results in clean air and water, whether it's man caused or not.

[Felya420]

They'll do well in Congressional elections in 2014 because they have gerrymandered districts (Democrats got more votes for House seats and yet Republicans won the lion's share. How? Gerrymandering.) Based on that they will feel confident in their brand going into 2016 and unless the Democratic candidate is really bad, the Republicans are likely to get drubbed again.

It's hard to beat incumbents, but Democrats had gains in house. They didn't win most if them, but they netted a few that they did not have prior to elections.

[ptwonline]

It's hard to beat incumbents, but Democrats had gains in house. They didn't win most if them, but they netted a few that they did not have prior to elections.

Without gerrymandering the Dems might have a House majority. Instead it will likely be a Republican majority til 2024 or so, no matter how many viotes Democrats get.

[Angry Bob]

The republican party has ancient values, out of date with modern times. It's a party stuck in the '50s and which refuses to evolve. No one gives a shit these days about teaching Russia who is boss, or going to Sunday church, or that rock music is evil and Charles Darwin was the devil, or whatever shit those republicans preach.

It's no wonder they are losing terrain in favor of the democrats who actually in tune with the times.

[Felya420]

Without gerrymandering the Dems might have a House majority. Instead it will likely be a Republican majority til 2024 or so, no matter how many viotes Democrats get.

I'm not that pessimistic. In both 2006 and 2010, we had majority swings. If the forecasts for the economy remain true next year and roll for another, it will be a good chance to regain. I just doubt anymore republicans will talk about rape in 2 years, which makes winning more difficult.

I believe this presidency is crucial, as recovery is inevitable and which ever party is leading at that time, will hold office for a while.