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 10
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2014 at 10:52 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-19 11:37:06 AM
2 votes:

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 11:07:28 AM
2 votes:
"Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Sounds about right.
2014-03-19 10:17:10 AM
2 votes:
♪ ♫ 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 03:47:56 PM
1 votes:
What this and a lot of other articles don't touch on, is how the tea party, in its feverish charge rightward, has a real possibility of splitting from the mainstream republican party, giving us both a hyperconservative party and a downright fundamentalist party. And this idea has to terrify GOP strategists because of what I like to call the 'Perot effect' after the 96 election wherein Perot split the Republican vote with Dole, handing the election to Clinton. Imagine that happening in every election, with the conservative voter base split among two now impotent parties. Until one party seriously got its act together, or one shrivelled and died, it'd hand most if not all elections to the democrats.
2014-03-19 02:17:36 PM
1 votes:
Although it might have the opposite effect in galvanizing the right to vote for their candidates, I'd say the best thing Democrats could do is just play a commercial of the current greatest hits of GOP comments on women, immigrants, the poor, and healthcare.  Remind them that if they don't vote and the GOP picks up seats, that those comments would be put into legislation.
2014-03-19 11:47:49 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:40 AM
1 votes:

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


put up strong candidates?
2014-03-19 11:19:17 AM
1 votes:
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 11:18:43 AM
1 votes:
The GOP is as self-parody.
2014-03-19 11:07:05 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report