I'm talking moreso about voters, not the electorate. Although I'd bet there will be more Independents in Washington than less in the future, and the fact that Is get counted like Ds when tallying who has majority in the House or Senate speaks volumes to that notion.

My point was that if people could believe that Dems in 2006 would be fiscally responsible.... well they'll believe just about anything.

I don't think you understand how this works.

Yeah, and your point is wrong and stupid. There's a huge gulf between "we'll get it right this time!" and "We don't hate you or want to marginalize you anymore!"

I agree with this. I am a liberal and will never vote Republican but, the sound byte that was released where Romney talks to his supporters about the % of people who he doesn't have any intention of leading...was terribly damaging. There are conservatives who want everyone to succeed, just want limited safety nets and controls. Problem is, too often people who rail against government handouts are out of the other side of thier lying face giving out corporate welfare. Republicans have an ideological problem here. They are by and large intellectually dishonest shills for corporate / oil interests. Change will involve bringing someone forward who is morally legitimate, though conservative.... only then will you GOP types have a chance.

Dam Okay , my bad. people could never be deceived by out right lies and half truths on a major scale.

Or at least We wont get fooled again.

...Which has nothing to do with what he was saying. Hence straw man.

Well, it's certainly portrayed that way. If I'm mistaken, please explain how.

So... you think there's 535 people eligible to vote in the United States?

There is only one way to go. If immigration policy is settled, then all of the single issue immigration voters will turn to something else. It would be impossible for Dems to retain all of those votes, though less impossible than a flip flop on immigration from the GOP.

So, after slavery was ended, all the african americans decided they were totally cool with all those social conservatives who fought tooth and nail to keep slavery?

Wasn't it republicans that ended slavery?

lol

My mistake. That should read, "I'm talking moreso about the electorate, not the people the voters put in office."

well, at least you're not hiding your historical ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty

If only the electorate participated in primaries

I just watched Lincoln.

I'm not saying there would be mass defections. Though the GOP would be gaining support, not losing it.

Didn't obama win the popular vote by 2%? Why are we even entertaining the idea that the republicans are in serious trouble like the OP suggests?

Factors that we need to consider if we are going to talk about this:
-the avg voter is stupid
-the avg voter does not care about the direction of the country more than himself
-a govt that steals from peter to pay paul will always have the support of paul
-Look what has happening in the recent past w/ Japan and most of Europe in regards to national debt. This problem isn't unique to the US. All over the developed world voters have stuck w/ the big government policies.

If OPs post ever becomes true the way out of it for Repubs is to use Greece as an example of what will happen if we continue to refuse to cut spending. Obama will not make serious cuts to spending in the next 4 yrs.

Why is that?

Who in this example is Paul?

They seem to attract people who believe a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant becomes property of the state to dictate what to do about her body. They literally pray for guns and against medical marijuana, but are emphatically "pro-life." It's almost like a natural collusion, a bunch of people "together" who choose to empathize with their own egos and shadows rather than with the rest of the other actual people. An economic theory with a name that sounds like a MLM sales pitch and doesn't grok seem to work either. One clever fallacy and equivaliency after another other. Call that **** out! goodbye. Some end it with a vow to pray for you, other's vow to kill you if you try to take their gun. Most just chuckle at how stupid they think you are.

*chuckling*

I don't agree with the original post. Things can change in a hurry. Left wing presidents like Jimmy Carter and LBJ made Reagan possible. Reagan was considered far out and extreme.

All it will take are a couple examples of failure in liberal states like California and Illinois to shift enough people back to the right. If Greece or Italy starts experiencing a lot more pain, left wing policies will be on full display as failures.

Chris Christie is certainly electable. If the deck runs out really well, Rand Paul could win a national election. And he is very conservative.

If only there was some tool that you could use to verify information in a matter of seconds or less.

A man can dream. A man can dream.

d+9 tho

also,

you just doubled down on the straw man. There's a wealth of history to draw upon that says fiscal and foreign policy etc. lies and false promises can fool voters. There's also a wealth of history that shows minorities don't switch parties based on lies or quick position changes regarding social policy and discrimination.

It wasn't even unreasonable to think that the Dems could be less fiscally irresponsible than the government during the Bush regime, but that aside, it's a terrible analogy. The idea that the GOP can just soften on immigration and they will become suddenly appealing to Latinos is based on the false assumption that Latinos because of Catholicism are prone to conservatism. But I don't necessarily buy that argument since I don't think it's really reflected in how they prioritize the handful of socially repressive platforms the GOP promotes against other issues.

And even if it was, that doesn't mean that the racist rhetoric spewing from everyday Republican base types is going to be overlooked. The GOP still has to woo a white population that by and large is racist and full of nativist sentiment regardless of what the official party postion is. The interest that minorities have in finding out who supports them innately from a ground up level is usually of paramount importance to them.

Yeah, that would be pretty cool. I did see that obama's margin of victory was less than it was in 2008 and was actually in the bottom 1/3'rd of all presidential elections.

OP, overact much?

No one ponied me on this?

Even though Lieberman and Saunders are independent, they still caucus with one party or the other and have a vote for Majority Leader. They voted for Reid, but they could have voted for McConnell.

This is reasonable.