And The Democrat Race Is On

[Kutnupe14]

In my opinion, even if the GOP made an announcement tomorrow that they embraced gay marriage, legal pot, atheism, and the social welfare state, I'm still not convinced they'd have better than the short end of a 60/40 shot at the Presidency. I think the Left knows the Republicans can never win the Presidency again...but needs to convince them they _can_, to lure them away from their base of beliefs so that they will lose their advantage in midterms.

If Republicans stick to their beliefs, never win the Presidency again, but keep control of congress away from Democrats via dominating midterms, that stalls the democrat agenda pretty effectively (witness the last 4 years of Obama's term). But if the Republicans abandon their beliefs to try to win back the White House, they probably lose the Presidency anyway, plus the Congress also, and we get one-party democrat rule.

That's why people on the Left have to convince the Republicans to change their beliefs. Republicans sticking to their guns, even if they only represent 30% of the public, keeps the football away from the Democrats. As a fairly right-wingish person, I personally have no problem with the Republicans never winning the White House again. I say, let the Democrats run it and take the blame, while we keep the purse strings out of their hands during midterms. The main task is convincing Republican voters that the White House is lost. The Left is the one who needs to convince them to still believe.

The problem isn't Republican beliefs, it's the delivery of them. You can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if Pee Wee Herman is your pitchman, good look at people taking you seriously. Their constant fail is assigning blame to a huge swath of potential voters. Why would someone vote for them if they think the party dislikes them? Who was the idiot that said something about "black people on welfare?" It was as if ONLY black people are on welfare in his world, totally disregarding the various colors that are in that system. How do you think that plays out to black guy not on welfare? Why not simply say "people on welfare" than using one specific group. That would have played out infinitely better.

 

[MAJB Retired]

That's my thought...

 

[ViperJock]

The left wing doesn't need a PR machine. The right wing can and do buy their own microphones. When they come off as tea party extremists or advocates of social statism, the left only has to sit back and laugh.

I'm sorry it took me a long time to respond because I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be purple. The only thing the Left has is a PR machine. They are liars and hypocrits every one. Although the right has some as well, I have yet to meet a lefty that wasn't either one or the other or both. Their economics are fail. They are the racist party. They are the ones waging a war on women. The list goes on and yet they successfully blame all of their own failure and bigotry on the right by yelling louder, shouting down, infiltrating (and acting racist in the name of conservative groups etc.) and controlling the media. They don't need PR?!?! Lmao. It's all they have. And unfortunately for everyone, they are awesome at it.

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm sorry it took me a long time to respond because I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be purple. The only thing the Left has is a PR machine. They are liars and hypocrits every one. Although the right has some as well, I have yet to meet a lefty that wasn't either one or the other or both. Their economics are fail. They are the racist party. They are the ones waging a war on women. The list goes on and yet they successfully blame all of their own failure and bigotry on the right by yelling louder, shouting down, infiltrating (and acting racist in the name of conservative groups etc.) and controlling the media. They don't need PR?!?! Lmao. It's all they have. And unfortunately for everyone, they are awesome at it.

 

[KG1]

Maybe a Libertarian candidate will.....Oh nevermind.

 

[D-Ric902]

The problem isn't Republican beliefs, it's the delivery of them. You can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if Pee Wee Herman is your pitchman, good look at people taking you seriously. Their constant fail is assigning blame to a huge swath of potential voters. Why would someone vote for them if they think the party dislikes them? Who was the idiot that said something about "black people on welfare?" It was as if ONLY black people are on welfare in his world, totally disregarding the various colors that are in that system. How do you think that plays out to black guy not on welfare? Why not simply say "people on welfare" than using one specific group. That would have played out infinitely better.

is everyone in your world this delusional?

the canned rhetoric is very strong n this one.
Not truth but much rhetoric

 

[Kutnupe14]

is everyone in your world this delusional?

the canned rhetoric is very strong n this one.
Not truth but much rhetoric

Do you see posts and then just write stuff that makes no sense?

 

[MCgrease08]

is everyone in your world this delusional?

the canned rhetoric is very strong n this one.
Not truth but much rhetoric

Where are you getting the sense that Kut is posting canned rhetoric?

I've seen a few others today accuse him of posting some type of left wing messaging. The man clearly has formulated his own opinion based on experience different from yours. It's not rhetoric. His comments aren't based on talking points.

The Republican party does have a lot of weaknesses when it comes to how they reach out to voters and express their positions. I tend to embrace conservative ideals, but I don't feel that the GOP does a good job of speaking to me or engaging me as a voter.

That's a fact. You might try to dismiss it as rhetoric, but it doesn't change my personal perception.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not if they keep traveling the path they have since Goldwater. They're still stuck on a 60s platform, and have failed to recognize the makeup and beliefs of the country have changed.

The problem isn't Republican beliefs, it's the delivery of them...Their constant fail is assigning blame to a huge swath of potential voters...

Ok, but: you didn't start out saying the GOP's problem was with the "delivery" of the beliefs; you said it was the beliefs themselves. (That's what "platform" means).

So, which is it?

Well, from your first statement I suspect you believe, as I do, that there's a growing gulf between those Republican values and the average American. It's not just that an isolated Republican hick said something about a certain race of people. If we can't take Jesse Jackson as emblematic of an entire race, then occasional statements by individual politicians can't be taken as emblematic of an entire party and its "platform," either; you can't have it both ways.

The truth of the matter is, and you and I both know this: the certain group of people we're talking about here is predominantly liberal. And we simply need to own that. Maybe not "atheist" liberal; maybe not "anti-gun" liberal; but when it comes to issues of size of Government and its role in peoples' lives - stuff that matters - you're talking about a fairly liberal group. Once you get outside the issues of God and Guns, they are predominantly liberal. Is it really so bad to just admit that? And what I'm saying is simply this: no amount of messaging finesse or keeping one's foot out of one's mouth or whatever, is going to bridge that gap. A group of voters does not vote 97% for a party, if they do not actually believe in the platform of that party.

When you add a majority of white people to that mix, the Republicans are done, Presidentially. And politically, that is stronger than gaffes, guns, or god. It's time to just let Republicans be Republicans, let Democrats be Democrats, and let the cookie crumble. The people have spoken; they know what they want. It's time to let them have a taste. Elections have consequences. Every congressman/politician in Washington is there because we put them there. We now have to own that choice.

 

[D-Ric902]

Ok, but: you didn't start out saying the GOP's problem was with the "delivery" of the beliefs; you said it was the beliefs themselves. (That's what "platform" means).

So, which is it?

Well, from your first statement I suspect you believe, as I do, that there's a growing gulf between those Republican values and the average American. It's not just that an isolated Republican hick said something about a certain race of people. If we can't take Jesse Jackson as emblematic of an entire race, then occasional statements by individual politicians can't be taken as emblematic of an entire party and its "platform," either; you can't have it both ways.

The truth of the matter is, and you and I both know this: the certain group of people we're talking about here is predominantly liberal. And we simply need to own that. Maybe not "atheist" liberal; maybe not "anti-gun" liberal; but when it comes to issues of size of Government and its role in peoples' lives - stuff that matters - you're talking about a fairly liberal group. Once you get outside the issues of God and Guns, they are predominantly liberal. Is it really so bad to just admit that? And what I'm saying is simply this: no amount of messaging finesse or keeping one's foot out of one's mouth or whatever, is going to bridge that gap. A group of voters does not vote 97% for a party, if they do not actually believe in the platform of that party.

When you add a majority of white people to that mix, the Republicans are done, Presidentially. And politically, that is stronger than gaffes, guns, or god. It's time to just let Republicans be Republicans, let Democrats be Democrats, and let the cookie crumble. The people have spoken; they know what they want. It's time to let them have a taste. Elections have consequences. Every congressman/politician in Washington is there because we put them there. We now have to own that choice.

well said
you get the government you vote for

 

[jamil]

The Democrat Race is the race for the Presidency. And it's over.

Hillary is it.

She's fallen from favor. I think the press was willing to give her the presidency but recent events have rekindled the feud. Unless Hillary tucks her angry balls away and mends that somehow, she won't have their support.

The problem isn't Republican beliefs, it's the delivery of them. You can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if Pee Wee Herman is your pitchman, good look at people taking you seriously. Their constant fail is assigning blame to a huge swath of potential voters. Why would someone vote for them if they think the party dislikes them? Who was the idiot that said something about "black people on welfare?" It was as if ONLY black people are on welfare in his world, totally disregarding the various colors that are in that system. How do you think that plays out to black guy not on welfare? Why not simply say "people on welfare" than using one specific group. That would have played out infinitely better.

I don't know if the impact would be "infinitely" better, but maybe an order of magnitude better.

Ok, but: you didn't start out saying the GOP's problem was with the "delivery" of the beliefs; you said it was the beliefs themselves. (That's what "platform" means).

So, which is it?

Well, from your first statement I suspect you believe, as I do, that there's a growing gulf between those Republican values and the average American. It's not just that an isolated Republican hick said something about a certain race of people. If we can't take Jesse Jackson as emblematic of an entire race, then occasional statements by individual politicians can't be taken as emblematic of an entire party and its "platform," either; you can't have it both ways.

The truth of the matter is, and you and I both know this: the certain group of people we're talking about here is predominantly liberal. And we simply need to own that. Maybe not "atheist" liberal; maybe not "anti-gun" liberal; but when it comes to issues of size of Government and its role in peoples' lives - stuff that matters - you're talking about a fairly liberal group. Once you get outside the issues of God and Guns, they are predominantly liberal. Is it really so bad to just admit that? And what I'm saying is simply this: no amount of messaging finesse or keeping one's foot out of one's mouth or whatever, is going to bridge that gap. A group of voters does not vote 97% for a party, if they do not actually believe in the platform of that party.

When you add a majority of white people to that mix, the Republicans are done, Presidentially. And politically, that is stronger than gaffes, guns, or god. It's time to just let Republicans be Republicans, let Democrats be Democrats, and let the cookie crumble. The people have spoken; they know what they want. It's time to let them have a taste. Elections have consequences. Every congressman/politician in Washington is there because we put them there. We now have to own that choice.

I don't usually side with Kut on most political discussions but I think he has a point, at least with the second POV. I've seen evidence that groups typically aligned with Democrats are discouraged with the Democratic leaders. There are conservative thinking minorities. Not a majority but still a lot. But even they don't consider voting for Republicans because they don't trust them. And a lot of that distrust was sown by Democrats and the stupid **** Republicans say only reinforces the claims.

My sister's daughter has a Hispanic father and identifies as a Hispanic. She probably wouldn't vote for a Republican. When I talk politics with her she recites the Democrat's talking points against Republicans. She thinks they are not much more than a white good-ole-boy's club. It's hard to argue otherwise when Romney makes comments like "self deportation".

So I'm not saying that minority races will ever support Republican in droves. But to make any headway at all Republicans will need to learn how to stop proving the Democrats case against them. Because "self deportation" and "black people on welfare" makes the "racist" narrative sound pretty accurate even it's not.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Maybe this is what Warren has been waiting on...

Progressives push Warren to replace Reid | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[spec4]

My guess is Durbin. Been there much longer and a real snake.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Honest Question:

What Democrat interested in a run for the presidency has a positive gun voting record?

 

[mrjarrell]

Honest Question:

What Democrat interested in a run for the presidency has a positive gun voting record?

James Webb. The rest of them hate guns.

 

[Bfish]

Webb is also a little more conservative on immigration and his views on the military as well...

Of all democratic hopefuls I would like to see Webb gain the nomination over all others! I am not saying that he would get my vote, but if the GOP candidate doesn't win I wouldn't feel as "screwed" if he were to win as opposed to the other dem hopefuls I know about... Looking at it from some perspectives however, he may be harder to beat just by the way of he has the largest potential for swing votes.

 

[Scout]

The Democrat Race is the race for the Presidency. And it's over.

Hillary is it.

She hasn't even said if she is going to run or not. I hope the scandals keep coming (I'm sure they will) because voters have a very short memory.

 

[Twangbanger]

She hasn't even said if she is going to run or not. I hope the scandals keep coming (I'm sure they will) because voters have a very short memory.

One theory for why she's delaying her announcement is that she and Bill derive significant income from speaking fees (and of course, the ever-present issue of donations to their respective "foundations.") As long as she's a "private citizen," they can keep that money for themselves without creating the appearance of impropriety. But once she officially announces as a candidate, that money would look like campaign contributions.

I don't usually side with Kut on most political discussions but I think he has a point, at least with the second POV. I've seen evidence that groups typically aligned with Democrats are discouraged with the Democratic leaders. There are conservative thinking minorities. Not a majority but still a lot. But even they don't consider voting for Republicans because they don't trust them. And a lot of that distrust was sown by Democrats and the stupid **** Republicans say only reinforces the claims.

My sister's daughter has a Hispanic father and identifies as a Hispanic. She probably wouldn't vote for a Republican. When I talk politics with her she recites the Democrat's talking points against Republicans. She thinks they are not much more than a white good-ole-boy's club. It's hard to argue otherwise when Romney makes comments like "self deportation".

So I'm not saying that minority races will ever support Republican in droves. But to make any headway at all Republicans will need to learn how to stop proving the Democrats case against them. Because "self deportation" and "black people on welfare" makes the "racist" narrative sound pretty accurate even it's not.

Point well-taken, Jamil. Where I part ways, is exemplified by the Romney comment. (To be honest, I remember that one only vaguely, but I'll take you at face value). What precisely was wrong with it? Is it the idea behind it? Or just the fact that he _said_ it? Why are we ashamed of what he said? Why do we have to hint around it in code? I thought his 47% comment was the truest, most straight-talk thing I'd heard out of a politician in a very long time; it points to a crucial change in the structure of our society. If that's "too hot for prime time," we're royally screwed! Similarly, if all xx million illegal immigrants self-deported tomorrow - wouldn't those of us middle-class members of "the right" agree that is a good thing? Your 15 year-old niece is not stupid. Even if Romney had chosen his words more "diplomatically," eventually she is going to figure out where those of us on the "right" really stand on the issue of uncontrolled immigration (which is what Romney is talking about when he mentions "self deportation"). And, if she strongly identifies as a "Hispanic," I'm guessing there's a high probability she's not going to be crazy about that position. Do you really think tweaking words is going to get her vote, if she believes those people have a right to be here, and we are denying it? Do we have to run away from our position to gain her vote in 3 years? Do we have to abandon the position entirely? There's a major difference of opinion there, and I think word choice is only the most trivial part of it.

Here's what I think: I think those isolated comments are just an excuse for people to justify feeling how they were going to feel, anyway. I'm not for poking a finger in anyone's eye unnecessarily, minority or otherwise. But at some point, you have to be honest about what you believe. There are some people whose vote you are not going to get. And instead of censoring yourself, I think there comes a time when you just have to speak honestly and passionately to the people whose money and enthusiasm you _can_ get, and leave the rest in the hands of the voters.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

So is Jim Webb The ony Demo who can kinda read,and count to 2 ?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Martin O'Malley challenges Hillary Clinton - CNN.com