I've only read (most) of the first article in Sean Trende's three part "analysis" of what ails the Republican party. (I was quickly getting bored with his statistical charts and trying to make his point by citing "two standard deviations from the mean" since we all know the bromide concerning "lies, damn lies, and statistics." When you resort to citing statistics to buttress your argument, it's probably more likely that you have no blanking idea what you're talking about.

When I get around to reading parts two and three of Trende's brilliance, it will be interesting to see what (if anything) he has to say about the losing candidate himself - namely Mitt Romney. Why Republicans thought it was a good idea to nominate a super rich guy who refused to release his tax returns and openly disparaged nearly half of the population is beyond me - unless it's really true that Republicans love money more than they love their own children. When Romney made his "47 percent" remarks, it confirmed (in spades) what a lot of people already suspected about this guy - that he just doesn't give a sh*t about people he considers below him.

On the issue of Mitt's tax returns and his stubborn refusal to do what every other Presidential candidate for at least the last twenty years has done, (namely release them!), Mitt reinforced the notion that here we have a super rich guy who repeats the Republican mantra, (i.e. that "the American people are already taxed too much!"), at the same time that he is paying hardly any taxes at all on a massive income. If Romney had been paying anywhere close to the same percentage of his income in taxes as President Obama, he would have released those returns in a flash. The fact that he adamantly refused simply exposed his hypocrisy. Here's another rich guy who publicly bitches and moans about paying "more than my fair share" of taxes while simultaneously taking advantage of every tax loophole - and every tax avoidance scheme - under the sun.

So, given what happened to the GOP in the debacle of 2012, the big question for 2016 is whether Republicans will step in doo doo again by nominating another out-of-touch super rich guy who refuses to release his tax returns and flaunts his wealth - and how well off he is compared to most people - as if being "rich" is a badge of honor. (Romney actually bragged out on the stump about how he was not going to apologize for his "success". He just couldn't resist rubbing it in peoples' faces - and some befuddled Republicans wonder how it is even possible that Romney managed to lose ...)

There may be - probably are - a lot of Republicans who think nominating rich guys for the Presidency is the way to go, but if the party nominates another Mitt Romney as their standard bearer in 2016; it's probably President Hillary Clinton in 2017.

I wonder what (if anything) Ivy-league educated statistics expert Sean Trende had to say about uber rich guys trying to get elected President? Probably nothing because Trende is probably out of touch too. After all, he works for another rich guy - namely publisher (and former Presidential candidate) Steve Forbes. I seem to recall Mr. Forbes spending tens of millions of dollars of his own money back in 1992 trying to get the Republican nomination. When he managed to amass the staggering total of one percent of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary, Mr. Forbes quickly decided he would rather hang on to his money rather than blowing it on a hopeless dream of becoming President. Maybe the "readjustment" needed by the GOP is to quit nominating out-of-touch rich guys who only give a damn about themselves.

Before any of you die hard (rock solid) conservatives on here (like say steelhouse) dismiss my argument as a pile of steaming "class warfare BS," answer this rhetorical question: Who do you suppose we would be calling "Mr. President" right now if Mitt's foot-in-mouth 47 percent remarks had not been plastered all over the airwaves? Republicans did this to themselves.

I wonder if republicans like Forbes, Romney, Trump, Coors, and the Koche's can start a party focused around how to grow, or at least not lose, enormous inherited wealth. It seem to be the primary subject that concerns them. Well, maybe not Trump, who seems to have squandered most of his father's real estate money.

Kind of a bummer, work you ass off doing deals with the assets you inherited, losing (or making less) than you would have had you done nothing and simply collected stamps or became a beach bum while property values appreciated.

Have we adequately discussed the supposition that at the national level, the GOP is not particularly interested in gaining actual power and governing, but rather simply obstructing federal legislation while they engineer right-wing policy in enough States to strengthen their base? Because it sure seems like that's what's happening.

Yeah, that's basically why the whole "GOP is dying," thing is ludicrous at face value. Dems got a solid way to win national elections down pat, but still get slaughtered in every other imaginable way.

Yea we have, but to add the literal idea that the Republican Party is going to die is false. It usually takes a major catastrophic change to bring about a new party and simply being a**holes doesn't count. So I think if you read the title literally it's false but if you read it as the increasingly marginalization of the Republican party into a regional states oriented party then you might be correct.

The GOP probably won't die all that soon. But 2020 is a presidential year, so expect better Democratic turnout than in 2010. The districts as they are now are basically the best they possibly could be for the GOP. Democrats taking control of a few states (PA, WI, etc.) and redrawing the ludicrous lines in those states could flip the House. Then it's game over. We'll see if the GOP sees the writing on the wall before then.

The GOP giving up on national politics instead concentrating on minority obstruction while concentrating on five or six stronghold states long term IS death for a party.

What is the practical end goal of this, its not like states rights is absolute so they cannot overrule Roe v Wade and even with a key part of the VRA struck down - which can be returned when the Dems gain control of the House - the Federal government maintains a huge amount of power in blocking state legislatures moves to enact regressive changes to voting. As another example sooner or later gay marriage will be legal in Republican controlled southern states whether they want it or not because the SCOTUS will rule it legal under equal protection - something which will become increasingly more likely every time a SCOTUS retires/dies and gets replaced by a Democratic President.

Meanwhile many of these states are hugely reliant on the Fed for financial aid.

This also ignores that humans like to win regardless of what it is they are winning and the constitution is structured that states rights only gets you so far.

I get the feeling the ideal end game for a lot of prominent GOPers right now is a sweet pundit gig on Fox news. Compromise is antithetical to that goal.

That's clearly Rush Limbaugh's game. Every time his name is mentioned on a Sunday talk show, you can bet your paycheck Limbaugh will replay the clip the following day on his radio program. El Rushbo gets off on being taken seriously as he probably believes he's a player. The actual truth is a considerable number of Republicans hate and despise Limbaugh at the same time they fear him - which explains why they don't publicly criticize him. The few who have taken a shot at Limbaugh were immediately forced to their knees begging for forgiveness - some of them actually going on his radio program to grovel and "apologize" to the Great One while he puffed away on his cigar and finally blessed them like a priest in the confessional. ("OK, you're forgiven ..." And thanks for stroking my ego!)

As for Rush ever picking up a sweet pundit gig on Fox News, that will never happen. Rush has already amply demonstrated that he's not ready for primetime. He blew his golden opportunity to do color commentary on ESPN when he mouthed off about Donovan McNabb being an "affirmative action" quarterback. Limbaugh just could not separate his day job from the weekend gig, so he promptly put his foot in his mouth. Goodbye ESPN and Monday Night Football. It was funny listening to poor Rushy grumbling about how he was "not a racist" and how unfair it was when NFL owners rejected his application to join the club. Of course, the owners knew what would have happened if they allowed Limbaugh to become a partial team owner - an immediate players strike and no professional football. Limbaugh will never be a player in anything that really counts - he's too controversial and too divisive.

The sure sign Republicans have finally had it with Limbaugh will be when they lose big in another national election (along with the loss of the House and/or Senate) and finally realize that if Limbaugh had kept his big mouth shut, they probably would have won. That's when Republicans turn on Limbaugh and his ilk.

Rush has already validated the Peter Principle - he has risen to his level of incompetence. From here on out it's a slow gradual decline into irrelevance for El Rushy.

Obviously $200M/year or whatever Rush makes >>>>> anything in the republosphere. Although that's gotta start coming down now that his sponsors are jumping ship.

Christie signed a bill banning gay conversion therapy in NJ earlier today and according to the AP in a signing note said that homosexuality is not a sin and gay children are born gay.

This is the setup to the punchline the rest of the GOP will deliver about how he is a liberal in disguise. Bonus points if one of the wackos say he isnt a Christian.

So in his own words he knows where a lot of the attacks are going to be coming from. It is no surprise that several hate groups in America use the word "family" in their name

Sadly this was not posted by my aunt, but by a 2p2er who's my age. Love the broken link as a nice boomer-esque touch.

out him and let the vultures circle! (Dynasty?)

He's not a politics poster. I've met him IRL. Nice guy - totally fits the stereotype though - midwestern, family man. I brought up my uncle (who can't get private insurance) and here's his rebuttal.

His argument doesn't even make sense. "I don't have an answer for your non-insurable uncle, but the system that will allow him to get insurance is not the answer for him either"? What the **** are you blabbering about?

Lol i'm pretty sure the standard of care in much of northern europe slaughters the US.

Yes - but we win colon cancer. And that's all the average FoxNews viewer ever hears about.

But he feels things.

Id have replied just telling him I stopped reading at "I have no answer for that". If you have no suggestion on how to deliver UHC then you are not part of the adult conversation. Kiddy conversation down the street.

Starvation isn't a problem in America because we have some really great, expensive restaurants!

Homelessness isn't a problem in America because have you seen the mansions they have in Hollywood?

Cliffs: Little girl has undocumented father, asks GOP'ER what she can do to stay with him.

GOP'ER: "We have laws! We must follow the laws!"

*applause*

I'm sure he's been loudly calling for the prosecution of James Clapper, then

The only thing that changes these aholes is a personal experience like a gay child or alzheimers in the family. They will nevet change on being cruel and heartless towards the poor since none of them are poor.

This

In other lol GOP news, the governor of Maine has pulled a reverse Kanye West:

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/1...-white-people/

Guy is such a tool.