If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Groucho Marx's Republican Party" I never forget a party, but in this case I'll be glad to make an exception (¬_¬)y-   (politico.com) divider line 71
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2014 at 10:52 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 08:22:15 AM  
Nice headline, for a Marxist commie thread; but I'm pretty sure this piece already got a greenlight earlier this week.
 
2014-03-19 08:55:52 AM  

abb3w: Nice headline, for a Marxist commie thread; but I'm pretty sure this piece already got a greenlight earlier this week.


Don't thinks so. Never got the "this link has already been submitted and greenlit" warning when I submitted this
 
2014-03-19 10:17:10 AM  
♪ ♫ I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it
I'm against it! ♫♪
 
2014-03-19 10:56:38 AM  
Nice emoticon, but terribly joke.

Harpo would be crying.
 
2014-03-19 10:56:54 AM  
I'm going to assume the article consists of "Republicans will make gains in the House and Senate, then proceed to make asses of themselves for the next two years, subsequently leading to major losses during a presidential election rout."
 
2014-03-19 11:00:35 AM  
All the GOP will have to do is put out stupid derp about how Obama made us too impotent to stand up to Russia and we shouldn't risk such a thing again and poof, President Santorum.
 
2014-03-19 11:01:31 AM  
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies proposition men for sex in airport bathrooms.
 
2014-03-19 11:07:05 AM  
Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?
 
2014-03-19 11:07:28 AM  
"Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Sounds about right.
 
2014-03-19 11:13:01 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm going to assume the article consists of "Republicans will make gains in the House and Senate, then proceed to make asses of themselves for the next two years, subsequently leading to major losses during a presidential election rout."


Yep... except the article had more graphs than your tl;dr.
 
2014-03-19 11:15:02 AM  

Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?


Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.
 
2014-03-19 11:15:25 AM  
Well, gee, you mean Republicans saying things to the effect of "women should stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen making me a sammich or else," "if you're poor you don't deserve healthcare or anything else" and "it's all single mothers' fault" doesn't resonate with mainstream America? Huh. I can't imagine why THAT could be.
 
2014-03-19 11:18:43 AM  
The GOP is as self-parody.
 
2014-03-19 11:19:17 AM  
I see your charts, graphs, logic, citations, and experience and raise you "Democrats staying home like they always do on off year elections."
 
2014-03-19 11:20:51 AM  
"Another negative consequence of packing the districts with a conservative voter base is that many Republicans are now more worried about losing a primary to a Tea Party candidate than they are about losing the general election to a Democrat, which pushes the party further rightward."
-FTA

^This was an excellent point.
 
2014-03-19 11:21:01 AM  
Hooray for Senator RAND PAUL
The presidential run explorer
And narcissistic borer,
Hooray hooray hooray!
 
2014-03-19 11:22:27 AM  
"I don't care to belong to any club political party that will have me as a member".

www.sickchirpse.com
 
2014-03-19 11:27:36 AM  
Whatever it is, I'm against it!

- Groucho Marx Rand Paul
 
2014-03-19 11:28:54 AM  

Flargan: "Another negative consequence of packing the districts with a conservative voter base is that many Republicans are now more worried about losing a primary to a Tea Party candidate than they are about losing the general election to a Democrat, which pushes the party further rightward."
-FTA

^This was an excellent point.


I agree. Excellent point. So what do Democrats do to win the Congress seats?
 
2014-03-19 11:31:14 AM  
FTA: Rather than reconsider those positions, Republicans have concluded that they simply have a communications problem.

There it is in a nutshell.
 
2014-03-19 11:31:40 AM  

allylloyd: I agree. Excellent point. So what do Democrats do to win the Congress seats?


put up strong candidates?
 
2014-03-19 11:33:51 AM  
For no reason whatsoever, I decided to read that in Hawkeye Pierce's imitation of Groucho.

/+1 subby
 
2014-03-19 11:37:06 AM  

somedude210: allylloyd: I agree. Excellent point. So what do Democrats do to win the Congress seats?

put up strong candidates?


Gerrymandering makes this a meaningless effort.  The voter base has been prescribed to vote R, regardless of the merits of the candidates.
 
2014-03-19 11:38:04 AM  

somedude210: allylloyd: I agree. Excellent point. So what do Democrats do to win the Congress seats?

put up strong candidates?


They also do a decent job of not saying things like "there's illegitimate rape and legitimate rape," "you should trade chickens for health care," "God likes women getting raped," and "47% of Americans never take responsibility for their lives."
 
2014-03-19 11:38:24 AM  

mutterfark: For no reason whatsoever, I decided to read that in Hawkeye Pierce's imitation of Groucho.

/+1 subby


Thank you. And thanks, that was a side effect that I wasn't expecting (though I did the same thing too)
 
2014-03-19 11:39:03 AM  
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.
 
2014-03-19 11:39:06 AM  
...and two hard-boiled eggs.
 
2014-03-19 11:39:57 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?

Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.


I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014. The GOP's current strategy wins about 50% of the time, which is more than sufficient for their current philosophy of government. I doubt they see this as much of a "problem" at all, much less one that they need to solve.
 
2014-03-19 11:41:49 AM  
Last night I shot a kid with skittles in my pajamas.
How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.

/too soon?
 
2014-03-19 11:43:40 AM  

exparrot: Last night I shot a kid with skittles in my pajamas.
How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.

/too soon?


How did you shoot Skittles at him? Modified potato gun?
 
2014-03-19 11:47:49 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014. The GOP's current strategy wins about 50% of the time, which is more than sufficient for their current philosophy of government. I doubt they see this as much of a "problem" at all, much less one that they need to solve.


Two major differences between 2010 and 2020 - pres election in 2020 and an even browner electorate. Meaning that Dems will be able to undo a bunch of the gerrymandering emplaced after the 2010 election (which essentially locked the GOP into House control for the entire decade). We just have to survive another six years.
 
2014-03-19 11:48:28 AM  

qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?

Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.

I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014. The GOP's current strategy wins about 50% of the time, which is more than sufficient for their current philosophy of government. I doubt they see this as much of a "problem" at all, much less one that they need to solve.


If the electorate is more Democratic in 2020, that would suggest Democratic gains in the state legislatures. Those would help to reverse some of the gerrymandering that has benefited the GOP in the last two elections.
 
2014-03-19 11:49:04 AM  
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas, I don't know, unless he was making sure I wasn't on birth control."
 
2014-03-19 11:51:01 AM  
This election will tell us more about the memory capacity of the American electorate than anything about the GOP.  Does the American electorate have a memory, or not?
 
2014-03-19 11:51:59 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014.


Depending on how quickly new district lines are applied, 2022 might be the bloodbath we were hoping 2012 was. The 2020 election could be hugely important at setting the House up for a more direct relationship between number of votes for R/D candidates, and number of seats held by R/D candidates.

// and primates might make rapid egress from my anus
 
2014-03-19 11:52:32 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: somedude210: allylloyd: I agree. Excellent point. So what do Democrats do to win the Congress seats?

put up strong candidates?

Gerrymandering makes this a meaningless effort.  The voter base has been prescribed to vote R, regardless of the merits of the candidates.


Then put up strong candidates for state offices. Once the next census drops, they can then undo the gerrymandering.
 
2014-03-19 11:54:30 AM  

DarnoKonrad: I see your charts, graphs, logic, citations, and experience and raise you "Democrats staying home like they always do on off year elections."


I don't think the author of TFA denied that 2014 isn't going to be a good year for the Democrats.  The point was that any GOP victories in 2014 will be Pyrrhic in nature, since they will probably only serve to further erode the party's national reputation heading into 2016.
 
2014-03-19 11:56:00 AM  

A Cave Geek: This election will tell us more about the memory capacity of the American electorate than anything about the GOP.   Does the American electorate have a memory, or not?


Back in July 2009, Gallup reported that a third of Americans blamed Obama either a great deal or a moderate amount for the performance of the economy. The answer to your question, sadly, is no.
 
2014-03-19 11:56:06 AM  
The Secret word today is Benghazi
 
2014-03-19 11:56:31 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?

Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.

I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014. The GOP's current strategy wins about 50% of the time, which is more than sufficient for their current philosophy of government. I doubt they see this as much of a "problem" at all, much less one that they need to solve.

If the electorate is more Democratic in 2020, that would suggest Democratic gains in the state legislatures. Those would help to reverse some of the gerrymandering that has benefited the GOP in the last two elections.


This.

We'll probably have more Democrats as governors in 2020, but it will be hard for Democrats to win state legislatures which will be drawing the lines in time for 2022.
 
2014-03-19 11:56:54 AM  
Interesting article.  It lays out very well how the GOPs quest to control the house has sabotaged their efforts to win national contests (including presidential elections as well as explaining their terrible national approval rating).  It also explains why this trend is likely to continue through 2016.
 
2014-03-19 11:57:42 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?

Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.

I'm not convinced that the GOP is in trouble beyond 2016. Yes, we'll probably see a typical heavily Democratic electorate in 2016 and 2020, but we'll probably have the same problems during the 2018 and 2022 midterms that we saw in 2010 and will see in 2014. The GOP's current strategy wins about 50% of the time, which is more than sufficient for their current philosophy of government. I doubt they see this as much of a "problem" at all, much less one that they need to solve.

If the electorate is more Democratic in 2020, that would suggest Democratic gains in the state legislatures. Those would help to reverse some of the gerrymandering that has benefited the GOP in the last two elections.


Honestly, it looks like they can Either win the Presidency or the House. In all honestly I think they have far greater power in the House than they would in the Presidency. Being the President means having to make real decisions and get things done. I don't think the Republican party "really" has interest in the Presidency, as it opens them up for criticism and doesn't gain them any real power.
 
2014-03-19 11:59:00 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Triple Oak: Sub-headline: "Why the GOP is in more trouble than you think"

I'm pretty sure we all knew they were in trouble, are they somehow in  more trouble?

Anyone who says that the GOP can "solve" its problem by winning more Senate seats in 2014 is in denial. 2014 might even look like a good election, but the looming problems for 2016 and beyond spell T-R-U-B-E-L for the GOP.


Doing well in 2014 will exacerbate the GOP's issues.  Doing well will give republicans a false data point that the moron wing will point to and say, "see shutting down the government didn't hurt us."
 
2014-03-19 11:59:17 AM  
President Obama this is your life
 
2014-03-19 11:59:44 AM  

DarnoKonrad: I see your charts, graphs, logic, citations, and experience and raise you "Democrats staying home like they always do on off year elections."


Federally, the Democratic concern for 2014 is simply to not lose the Senate. There is no way they are taking the House.

2016 will be the important year when they can push back on all sides

Outside of critical Senate seats, state campaigns are probably where the Democrats should be focussing on for 2014, but I don't know what the prospects are like, especially where they can build their ground game for 2016.
 
2014-03-19 12:04:09 PM  

A Cave Geek: This election will tell us more about the memory capacity of the American electorate than anything about the GOP.  Does the American electorate have a memory, or not?


It's less this and more team politics.  Midterms are the game of turnout, and the (R) always has the advantage here due to lack of interest from the left.

People who vote R will continue to vote R because they have been convinced that they are stalwart defenders of the American Way, and the ends justify the means.  They often don't like their beliefs to be challenged, and the very existence of the D party, with its consistent outreach, inclusion, and pressure to change established societal norms to be even more inclusive, cause the R to recoil even further and reflexively vote R rather than see the world they are used to and comfortable with, change and change and change.

It's a country-wide "damn the torpedoes" situation every midterm.  It's not about the memory of the electorate, it's about the turnout.  To test the collective memory of the nation you need to look to Presidential-year elections as those are more indicative of where we as a nation are actually heading.
 
2014-03-19 12:08:25 PM  

Serious Black: A Cave Geek: This election will tell us more about the memory capacity of the American electorate than anything about the GOP.   Does the American electorate have a memory, or not?

Back in July 2009, Gallup reported that a third of Americans blamed Obama either a great deal or a moderate amount for the performance of the economy. The answer to your question, sadly, is no.


1/3....That means 2/3 did not....2/3 is more than enough to win elections.
 
2014-03-19 12:08:25 PM  

MindStalker: Honestly, it looks like they can Either win the Presidency or the House. In all honestly I think they have far greater power in the House than they would in the Presidency. Being the President means having to make real decisions and get things done. I don't think the Republican party "really" has interest in the Presidency, as it opens them up for criticism and doesn't gain them any real power.


The GOP is at heart an insurgency party, they just want to block any and all progress. With neoliberalism in vogue the past two decades, Republicans have gotten Dems to do all their dirty work. Now all that conservatives have to do is obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, and their monied masters will keep siphoning up every last bit of wealth until modern capitalism collapses.
 
2014-03-19 12:09:58 PM  
Ironically, Republicans' short-term tactics to pick up additional seats in the 2014 midterms-as well as the rightward pressures of the presidential primary process-will only reinforce the public's perception of the Republican Party as unwelcoming and out of step with the majority of Americans.



Then why the fark are people votng for them, then?
 
2014-03-19 12:12:52 PM  

A Cave Geek: Serious Black: A Cave Geek: This election will tell us more about the memory capacity of the American electorate than anything about the GOP.   Does the American electorate have a memory, or not?

Back in July 2009, Gallup reported that a third of Americans blamed Obama either a great deal or a moderate amount for the performance of the economy. The answer to your question, sadly, is no.

1/3....That means 2/3 did not....2/3 is more than enough to win elections.


It would be if those two-thirds all voted. They don't. That remaining third will though, and I can guarantee they'll all vote for the Republican candidate.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report