Governors
30 Republicans, 19 Democrats

Romney lost by 2%. Furthermore the black vote might have been mainly to stop the remarks like "Carter was a loser he was a one termer". Romney actually gained black vote from 2008. Romney flipped flopped so much nobody really knew what he stands for. I voted Romney.

The big problem for republicans is the deficit is going to be less than $1 trillion in 4 years, if we don't get collapse. Many will mistakenly give credit to the democrats, sort of the way FDR was given credit for helping the depression, even though he caused the depression.

I lol'd at this and my fiance wanted to know what was so funny, me: "you would never get it."

Just read it to her. And give the first sentence a sharp, complainy intonation. And give the second sentence exactly the same intonation as the first. And throw in a one second pause between them.

Yes

No

More concise, and yes

Are you being serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...United_States)

You are accusing someone of literally the exact same thing that you just did. Incredible.

So which is it LK, historical ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty?

One of the most accurate things he said was "Corporations are people my friend." The morons like Sanders and the 99% could not understand what he meant. To them government is the savior. Taken everything Romney as a whole, I voted for him.

How can anyone vote for someone that wants to use taxpayer money to fund a television show? Maybe a show to explain government programs like food stamps, but not an entertainment show for kids and adults.

That's it? That was the tipping point? Couldn't stand any more kids growing up with Big Bird?

Republicans are a joke. Let them implode. No one can change their rhetoric for them, they have to change it within, and right now the don't know how.

It's not a good thing to have no real choice, but they weren't a choice for me since I was 18. So what's the difference? F em.

It is not the point. You have 100s of cable channels and 1000s of youtube channels trying to get viewership. Then you got government supporting a specific channel and show. Not only supporting them but supporting them with salaries in far excess of $5000 per year. Yes five thousand per year. To be fair the government should support every youtube channel that wants to do childrens programming at the same amount.

Over the air I get about 20 channels and I get about 20 government pbs channels. Even cable is loaded with these government channels. I unsubscribed to all of them as I do not support communism. If I have to watch Nova I will on youtube.

It is the tipping point.

Obama won by roughly 4%.

How much is that in non-Diebold numbers?

The Republican primary is going to be fascinating. Up until recently, I thought Christie would win and become a transformational leader for the Republicans, bringing them back toward sanity.

I think I underestimated just how far right the party has moved, though. All I keep seeing from the GOP is "we need a REAL conservative next time". Hope I'm wrong because I agree with OP - this is bad for America.

Nothing bugs me more about the GOP than this. It's unreal.

Don't get yourself so upset, there is not a Democrat around that cares about the truth. They just ignore what doesn't work for them, throw the base a bone to keep them in line voting and breeding then rewrite the history books.

It always help to have the press in your pocket.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Republicans awkwardly try to court the Latino vote.

Agreed. Power is practically split, at this point, across the government. There isn't even a Democratic majority, let alone a "permanent" one.

Of course some ideas associated with Democratic party social policy are largely going to win out in the long term (as demographic trends make clear), but that's not the same thing.

The stupid thing would be for Latinos to vote Democratic if the GOP was offering real policy proposals just because Dems like them better. Demographics that are taken for granted don't have a lot of influence. Obama is basically the president of upper-middle-class whites, because those are the people most likely to vote republican.

The GOP will be back because its purpose is to be in power not blind fealty to an ideology.

The idea that they can flip flop on immigration to court Latinos doesn't make a lot of sense.

1) It presumes that Latinos are single issue voters on the issue of amnesty. But they aren't? This is the big Republican problem. Man, Latinos are PEOPLE. Just like whites they hold a variety of values and interests and balance them. Also, P.S., it's pretty racist and insulting to think that just because someone's family comes from Puerto Rico or whatever they care a lot about Mexican illegals.

2) But OK, let's pretend it's true, so the GOP flip flops here. Will they get the Democrats to start talking about building the dang wall? How do you frame this flip flop to get voters? "We grudgingly accept that there are enough of you dirty ******** around that we can't publicly support SB1070 anymore, and my opponent has been right on immigration all along. Rand Paul 2016!"


The idea that Latinos vote D because Rs oppose amnesty is getting the causal relationship all twisted. Anti-immigration laws are symptoms of GOP racism, actual voters are already citizens. Latinos vote D because they know the Rs are the party of white people, and they ain't white. They aren't Real Americans.

It's funny how you are doing the same thing he did. And you even take the time to pull up wikipedia and then ignore the parts right before the area you bold.

Yes, the party which overturned slavery was labeled the Republican Party. However, since then all the southern, socially conservative racists have migrated to that party. You'll notice, or perhaps you won't, that the wikipedia article you link talks about how the Republicans, back then, dominated the North. And now they dominate the South. Surely you can understand the historical significance of the parties swapping members over time, right?

Here's a bit more from your chosen source of historical text:

About what you'd expect for someone running on a platform of "I'm going to raise taxes," eh?

I like how you start off by pointing out that Latinos aren't single-issue voters on immigration, but end up concluding that they're actually single-issue voters on the issue of Republicans are Evil. I don't think it's racist to suggest that immigration is important to many Latinos (either because they have family who would like to come over, because they bear the brunt of immigration paranoia, because they would like to see a more-developed Latino-American culture, etc.).

It's unclear to me whether Republicans can actually pursue meaningful immigration reform. But one of the points of the OP is that, to the extent the Republicans have totally lost the ability to appeal to minorities and progressives, it's very bad for minorities and progressives. On immigration, the Obama presidency has resulted in record deportations and a token sop to the liberal conscience. I don't know how Obama the man feels, but in the current environment, Obama the politician simply does not care about minority issues, civil rights issues, foreign policy issues, environmental issues, etc., because his base will fire themselves up enough on GOPhate to hold their nose and vote for him no matter what he does on those issues.

The only thing missing from this thread is reason to believe there is a need for change in the republican party.

Considering the number of Lations that are catholic (aka pro-life) and work hard it seems like a pretty easy game.

What? No. They care about it, but they aren't single issue voters on it. The GOP loses the Latino vote badly. In fact, they lost the Latino vote by nearly exactly what they lost the Asian vote. Are Asians also big amnesty fans?

Obama is bad for minorities compared to who?

In what? He already won. About 2 months ago, 2 1/2 maybe.

So, playing around on election sites, as I too often do. In 2012, Obama was down 6 percentage points with the 18-29 crowd, stayed the same with the 30-44 crowd (which I'm in, though I didn't vote for O in 2012 and did in 2008 so don't blame me), and lost 2 and 3 points with 45-59 and 60+ (or 45-64 & 65+, depending on the site you use, which may make things harder to compare).

So, he lost ground, and nearly 5.2% of the popular vote he had in 2008. Clearly 1/20th of his previous supports won't hold their noses and vote for him.