According to Pat Buchanan: "Pat Buchanan acknowledged to MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall on Tuesday that his party is facing a severe "demographic problem" in the years to come -- specifically, the GOP is on its way to becoming an all-white party. "There's a real demographic problem with the Republican Party," Buchanan said. "It is a heavily white party, quite frankly. And as a share of the electorate, that is diminishing and Hispanics are growing very rapidly, Asians are growing rapidly, and by two-thirds they tend to vote Democratic." Buchanan told Hall that the party is losing young people as well. "Young people increasingly are more liberal and more socially moderate, and they move away from the Republican Party," he said. "These things are undeniable, the Republican party ... is in tough shape." Seneca
The GOP is TOAST. If there EVER is a "Republican" president or if they get control of the legislature again, it will be "in name only". That is, it will be the Socialist Republicans... and of course, the Socialist Democrats on the other side. Soon the "I don't pay no income tax" group will be greater than 50% of the electorate. All future elections (at least until The Revolution) will be won by whichever Socialist party promises the greatest freebies to the "gimme a handout, something-for-nothing, why should I bother working for mine?" voting block. And thus ends the great American experiment. Nice try, and THANKS... Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War fighters.
Another element in the equation working against the GOP is the baby boomers who in 1969 went to Woodstock to smoke their drugs and elected GBush in 2004 to pay for their drugs. IMO, this is a very active group in terms of voter turnout who won't vote in a party that wants to cut their social security and medicare which is about the only way to make govt smaller unless you want to cut defense. Seneca
By AAA's reckoning, all of these non-white and young voters are racist. There can be no other reasonable explanation, don't you know.
Obviously, if you aren't in favor of what master Rush commands, you must be a racist. We need a second party simply because the only thing worse than the Reps in control is the Dems in control. At this point with the GOP picking Rush as their front man and with Cheney whining in the background, the Dems. have a bright future. Let's see the trend again going against the GOP: young people, latinos, blacks, Asians, Baby Boomers (at least the ones who need medicare and SSN), and women. In their favor: gun nuts, some evangelicals (at least the ones who don't give a crap about the environment), grumpy old men who watch Faux News, and pro lifers who have yet to figure out that blocking universal health insurance kills people in huge numbers. Seneca
Well, sure. Life at conception is far more valuable and precious than life outside the womb, especially if those out-of-wombers are not voting Republican.
When did the GOP claim Rush as its leader? And why are liberals so damn worried and obsessed with it?
In my mind voting for a candidate based on his race is the very definition of racism. Liberals are very quick to throw the label around when a minority doesn't attract white votes. For some reason, they can't see the converse. This election was all about race. If Obama were white, he would be about as important as the guy closest to him on the issues, Dennis Kuchinich. He would have trailed a douchebag like John Edwards. Edwards is far better looking and has better hair, crucial factors in democrat primaries. The opportunity to vote for a minority who isn't obviously crazy, corrupt, has a criminal record or is a thug (ie,Jesse Jackson) is one of those once in a lifetime windfalls for white liberals that they just cannot pass up. That explains much of the media orgasm over him. Sadly, young people have become increasingly ignorant in our country, and many of them vote on the basis of celebrity, which of course Obama had courtesy of Opra and the media and his own skillful positioning. These factors may or may not endure into the next election. In truth, Obama faces challenges greater than almost any president of recent memory. His chances of success are very limited, with the caveat that the media sets the tone and will give him A++ no matter what he achieves. The demographic factor definitely cuts against the GOP, largely due to the vast increase in hispanics, legal and illegal. Perhaps Bush's greatest failure was his refusal to secure the border and clamp down on illegals. It hurt the GOP last election and will continue to hurt them. Obama and the democrats will amnesty and grant citizenship to tens of millions of uneducated, poor hispanics and indoctrinate them to vote for the same policies that wrecked the countries they came from. The "solution" to the republicans' challenges as presented in the mainstream media always seems to boil down to "be more like democrats." Left unsaid is why voters would prefer fake democrats over the real item, or why republicans won the presidency consistently when they ran conservatives but lost when they ran guys the media liked like McCain. Also left unsaid is what is the point of a political party anyway? Clearly for voters, it is not to ensure cushy jobs for party elites. Rather, it is to see the issues and positions you favor be pushed and to protect you against erosion of your rights. If the republicans aren't willing to do that, we need to find someone who will.
It was a defacto coup when he told the "listening tour" to change to a teaching tour and when he made Steele cower over who was the leader. I don't think the Dems are worried and obsessed, rather they are rejoicing in it. What planet are you from to have missed this. BTW- liberals are: 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor. 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts. 13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. ânoun Synonyms: 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample. Antonyms: 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly. NOW THAT sounds like a REPUBLICAN to me. BTW-did you see the latest poll where Republicans were asked who they wanted to run in 2012? Just over half picked Palin. A similar poll of Democrats favored Palin by over 90%. Seneca (;
I've forgotten more about election stats than you'll ever know. Yes, as always, AAA is correct. Your post is full of shit. You might want to look at exit polls. "Registered" voters are meaningless. Chicago city workers including cops and firemen wouldn't dare register as GOP but they vote 75% Republican. Around 1 out of 3 Hispanics voted for McCain. Around 1 in 10 blacks voted for McCain and 2 out of three people who identified themselves as Christian with children voted for McCain. Cripes you act as if the guy got 12% of the vote. 9 out of 20 people voted for him. Given the fund raising disparity, trhe media imbalance, the economy, his poor debate performances and the firestorm of anti-Palin publicity, Obama's win-as his lackluster Clinton victory-was hardly a mandate. And before you answer "well because white folks refused to vote for him". I'll retort that Obama received the highest % of white votes of any Democrat since Carter.