Once Texas goes from red to blue,

[HudsonGator]

it is game, set and match for the Republicans.

For Their Next Trick, Democrats Will Turn Texas into a Blue State
Robert Kessler

For Their Next Trick, Democrats Will Turn Texas into a Blue State Perhaps you've heard the Democratic Party — fresh off an electoral landslide in 2012 — has set its sights on a new goal: turning Texas into the nation's biggest swing state. Yes, gun-toting, secession-threatening Texas. But don't spit-take your kombucha just yet, because it's a completely feasible idea; here's why.

This week Politico reported Democrats were creating an organization called Battleground Texas aimed at getting traditionally Democratic minorities more engaged in the political process. It's understandable why it sounds ridiculous; Texas and its obscene 38 electoral votes have been red as a beet for years.

The key to the Democrats' success in Texas, however, is the minority vote (which is, ironically, the majority in Texas). Organizers behind Battleground Texas understand turning the Lone Star State blue could take years, saying "there's a realistic view that that will take more than one cycle." In fact, the state is seen as such a lock for the Republicans no exit polls were even conducted there in 2012. But, for several reasons, Battleground Texas' mission is completely feasible.

The Hispanic population in Texas is underrepresented politically. Spending money and time getting them more involved would have enormous consequences on the GOP's stranglehold. According to the 2010 Census, about 38 percent of Texans identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, while only 45 percent of the state is white non-Hispanic. However, using exit polls from 2008, only 20 percent of voters are Latino. This unrepresented 18 percent of the population is about 4,526,200 people. Granted, many of those 4 millon are likely ineligible to vote, but even a third of those people are enough to overpower the 1,261,719 votes Mitt Romney won Texas by in 2012.

What's more, the Hispanic population in Texas (just like the rest of the country) is growing much faster than the white population—up nearly 42 percent from 2000 to 2010.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Barack Obama managed to pull 41 percent of the vote in 2012 by essentially ignoring the state. Obama made a stop in Texas on Aug. 31, but this was to commemorate the anniversary of the end of combat in Iraq and was hardly a campaign stop. Obama visited Ft. Bliss, an Army camp located on Texas' border with New Mexico (a blue state in 2012) in El Paso County. Sixty-six percent of El Paso County residents voted for the President in 2012. Obama also stopped by San Antonio, another heavily blue area, in July. Were a candidate to pay more attention to Texas, he/she would feasibly garner more support there as well....


http://gawker.com/5979051/for-their-next-trick-democrats-will-turn-texas-into-a-blue-state

[Dreamliner]

If the dems want to turn Texas blue ... they're going in the wrong direction. They lost the state by 13% in 2008. They lost the state by 16% in 2012.

So, logically, if the dems can say they're going to turn Texas blue, then I suppose the pubs are allowed to yammer about turning California red.

[wgbgator]

2016 or even 2020 is probably a little unrealistic. Demographically it will probably happen eventually though.

[MichiGator2002]

I still find the implication that race demographics are political manifest destiny to be about the most authentically racist concept tainting American politics today. Way more than saying "Chicago".

[mastoidbone]

Not too long ago CA was a red state----things can change---
In fact, from 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except the landslide loss of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

[wgbgator]

I still find the implication that race demographics are political manifest destiny to be about the most authentically racist concept tainting American politics today. Way more than saying "Chicago".

Hispanic = not a race.

[MichiGator2002]

Hispanic = not a race.

Response = lacks a point. The vast and awe-inspiring majority of the Hispanic expansion in Texas is Mexican, so there really is no point wasting bandwidth on that distinction, especially considering that liberals consider each and every race of Hispanic derivation except possibly Cubans to all fit that bill of "non-Caucasians will vote how we tell them", which was sort of my point at the outset.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm sure it will be right around the time Oklahoma goes blue

[gatorman_07732]

Hispanic = not a race.

Yep they are just group together like a piece of meat for a prize. Yeah yeah yeah, I know it was Nixon.

[wgbgator]

Response = lacks a point. The vast and awe-inspiring majority of the Hispanic expansion in Texas is Mexican, so there really is no point wasting bandwidth on that distinction, especially considering that liberals consider each and every race of Hispanic derivation except possibly Cubans to all fit that bill of "non-Caucasians will vote how we tell them", which was sort of my point at the outset.

Well, Mexican is not a race either.

[wgbgator]

Yep they are just group together like a piece of meat for a prize. Yeah yeah yeah, I know it was Nixon.

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time based on a generic identity?

[gatorman_07732]

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say or what your point is. I understand how polititicians like to group people for their own selfish purposes but I'm not following where your going.

[dangolegators]

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time based on a generic identity?

No, it's nothing new. Certain posters here are pretending to be offended by it.

[CHFG8R]

This kind of hubris - and the eternal wisdom of our founding fathers - is exactly why the (D)s will never get complete victory and why they'll be licking their wounds in 2016.

[dangolegators]

This kind of hubris - and the eternal wisdom of our founding fathers - is exactly why the (D)s will never get complete victory and why they'll be licking their wounds in 2016.

It's similar to Karl Rove's quest to create a permanent Republican majority. It's what political parties do. It never seems to work because once one party gets too much power for too long, they screw it up and the country goes the other way.

[CHFG8R]

It's similar to Karl Rove's quest to create a permanent Republican majority. It's what political parties do. It never seems to work because once one party gets too much power for too long, they screw it up and the country goes the other way.

And our founding fathers - smart guys they were - created a system where it's almost if not completely impossible for "one side" to get all the power. Can't wait to start laughing at the (D) here in a year or so as it all starts to slip away. You know, as it did with Obama's mirror image GWB.

[dangolegators]

And our founding fathers - smart guys they were - created a system where it's almost if not completely impossible for "one side" to get all the power. Can't wait to start laughing at the (D) here in a year or so as it all starts to slip away. You know, as it did with Obama's mirror image GWB.

I don't know that it will swing back to the Republicans in a major way any time soon. GWB and the repubs had complete control for 6 years and screwed it up pretty good. The country rejected it in 2006 and 2008.

Obama/Dems had control only for 2 years. And the repubs in Congress, with their primary objective being to obstruct anything and everything proposed by Obama without offering any kind of realistic alternative, are doing their best to make sure they don't gain more seats or the presidency.

[HudsonGator]

2016 or even 2020 is probably a little unrealistic. Demographically it will probably happen eventually though.

Exactly.

Look at the numbers from the last election, Obama got 74% of the Hispanic vote. As the numbers of Hispanics continues to grow in States like Texas, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, Mexican is not a race either.

People need to hire Mark Harmon to go around headlsapping people, for exactly moments like this. Is perception reality? Can I will a Gibbs-slap into existence as a nonverbal response to pointless semantic parsimony?

Person are not pinkish = person are vote democrat when told. That is the prevailing sentiment to which I refer, the quite racist one for my taste.

[DaveFla]

Just wait till the government $ handouts end... Then we'll see.

[CHFG8R]

I don't know that it will swing back to the Republicans in a major way any time soon. GWB and the repubs had complete control for 6 years and screwed it up pretty good. The country rejected it in 2006 and 2008.

Obama/Dems had control only for 2 years. And the repubs in Congress, with their primary objective being to obstruct anything and everything proposed by Obama without offering any kind of realistic alternative, are doing their best to make sure they don't gain more seats or the presidency.

9-11 bought GWB a lot in terms of "obstruction." If not for that, the (D)s would have looked a lot like today's (R)s. Fact is, 90% of the motivation of the average politician - or should I say the ones you "see" in the media and who are allowed to frame the debates - is to counter the other party. Nobody (that we ever hear of at least) ever looks at a problem and tries to figure out the best way to solve it. Everything is framed in terms of extracting of a pound of political flesh from the opposition.

It's pathetic, really. The last two administrations, in particular, seem more concerned with seizing opportunities to further their personal agendas rather than addressing and solving the problems of this country than any I've ever seen (I've been alive for 9). We really have seen the worst that the two have to offer in these last 12 years.

[CHFG8R]

Exactly.

Look at the numbers from the last election, Obama got 74% of the Hispanic vote. As the numbers of Hispanics continues to grow in States like Texas, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win.

Maybe. Maybe not. A lot of that depends on whether the "hispanics" see themselves as a monolithic entity and throw in with one side over the other. Hopefully, they won't make that tragic mistake. It's the road to nowhere . . . unless you are the Jesse Jackson of the mythical monolithic "hispanic" voting block.

[madgator]

So if your plan is to focus on policies that attract white voters it's racist.

but

if you focus in policies that attract voters of color then it's not racist.


got it!

[gatorev12]

This is assuming all Hispanic Texans vote Democratic--when the reality is completely different.

The Texas GOP is way ahead of the curve in attracting Hispanic voters--with many state offices going toward Hispanic Republicans and most of the state party leaders speak Spanish. In fact, the GOP is looking at Texas right now to learn how they're able to attract so many Hispanic voters:

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/texas-gop-touts-its-hispanic-model-84465.html

[HudsonGator]

In Texas, the best data so far show a 70-30 split for Obama among Hispanic voters, according to Rice University political science chairman Mark Jones. Romney performed several points worse than Sen. John McCain did in 2008. At the same time, Jones points out, Hispanics became a larger share of the vote in Texas, going from 20 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2012.

http://www.chron.com/news/falkenberg/article/Hispanic-vote-should-be-clue-for-Texas-Republicans-4018150.php

[JerseyGator01]

Is it really so hard for someone to respond to questions with more than a link.

And did a neo-con come up with the term "electoral landslide" when it only applies to one race. Stupid article.

[Distant Gator]

This is assuming all Hispanic Texans vote Democratic--when the reality is completely different.

The Texas GOP is way ahead of the curve in attracting Hispanic voters--with many state offices going toward Hispanic Republicans and most of the state party leaders speak Spanish. In fact, the GOP is looking at Texas right now to learn how they're able to attract so many Hispanic voters:

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/texas-gop-touts-its-hispanic-model-84465.html

Exactly. And didn't Texas just elect a Hispanic tea-party Republican Senator?

Sometimes the problems aren't in our conclusions- they are in our assumptions. The premise of this thread is that Hispanics will vote D. And just looking at 2012 and thinking of Hispanics as monolithic single party voters, that conclusion is valid.

But the assumptions aren't necessarily valid. W got 44% of Hispanics- and the Republicans know they can't lose Hispanics in the future and win a national election. They will work hard to win back Hispanics (hopefully)

And again- a Hispanic Republican was just elected Senator. I'm assuming he will work to build the R brand among Texas Hispanics.

Hispanics are more culturally conservative and from the polls I have read are also economic conservatives. It's not difficult to imagine them trending back Republican.

And then Texas will remain red a long time.

[Dreamliner]

Hispanics have, I believe, surpassed Anglos as the largest ethnic group in Texas. Yet, GOP wins Texas by 13% in 2008, 16% in 2012.

[gatorman_07732]

Hispanics have, I believe, surpassed Anglos as the largest ethnic group in Texas. Yet, GOP wins Texas by 13% in 2008, 16% in 2012.

So the have to brainwash a bunch of latinos

[trekcid]

Who cares Red or Blue, Democrat or Republican. If the country does not get its debt under
control with 10,000 people a day retiring which will not slow down for years because of the baby boomer era. America will drastically change to where no one will like the outcome. If the country has 20 trillion of debt in four years and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities it will be interesting to see if can survive without a major transformation into something no one will like, Red or Blue.

[Dreamliner]

Who cares Red or Blue, Democrat or Republican. If the country does not get its debt under
control with 10,000 people a day retiring which will not slow down for years because of the baby boomer era. America will drastically change to where no one will like the outcome. If the country has 20 trillion of debt in four years and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities it will be interesting to see if can survive without a major transformation into something no one will like, Red or Blue.

Texas and states like it will still be economic havens, relatively speaking. No, it doesn't have balmy breezes and mountains in proximity to the ocean, like California. But it has and likely will continue to have jobs. And these days nothing is hipper than jobs.

[HudsonGator]

Hispanics have, I believe, surpassed Anglos as the largest ethnic group in Texas. Yet, GOP wins Texas by 13% in 2008, 16% in 2012.

Exactly, as the article points out, the Hispanics do not vote in Texas anywhere near their total numbers. The Democrats are trying to change that and get them more organized and involved.

Once that happens, the Republicans will essentially become the Whigs, they'll be a party, but they won't be able to elect a President because it will marginalized as basically a regional party.

[Dreamliner]

Exactly, as the article points out, the Hispanics do not vote in Texas anywhere near their total numbers. The Democrats are trying to change that and get them more organized and involved.

Once that happens, the Republicans will essentially become the Whigs, they'll be a party, but they won't be able to elect a President because it will essentially be regional party.

Except that Hispanics in Texas aren't as lockstep Democrat as in other states.

It's wishful thinking, the notion of Texas going blue anytime soon.

[HudsonGator]

Except that Hispanics in Texas aren't as lockstep Democrat as in other states.

It's wishful thinking, the notion of Texas going blue anytime soon.

70% of them voted for Obama, (http://www.chron.com/news/falkenberg/article/Hispanic-vote-should-be-clue-for-Texas-Republicans-4018150.php) that's within a few percentage points of what he got Nationally. I'd say they're doing OK in Texas.

It is actually wishful thinking to believe that Texas will remain Red forever.

I'd give it 4 to 6 years to turn blue.

[wgbgator]

70% of them voted for Obama, (http://www.chron.com/news/falkenberg/article/Hispanic-vote-should-be-clue-for-Texas-Republicans-4018150.php) that's within a few percentage points of what he got Nationally. I'd say they're doing OK in Texas.

It is actually wishful thinking to believe that Texas will remain Red forever.

I'd give it 4 to 6 years to turn blue.

4 to 6 years seems like wishful thinking too.

[HudsonGator]

In Texas, the best data so far show a 70-30 split for Obama among Hispanic voters, according to Rice University political science chairman Mark Jones. Romney performed several points worse than Sen. John McCain did in 2008. At the same time, Jones points out, Hispanics became a larger share of the vote in Texas, going from 20 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2012.

Those trend lines are hard to ignore.

[CHFG8R]

Exactly, as the article points out, the Hispanics do not vote in Texas anywhere near their total numbers. The Democrats are trying to change that and get them more organized and involved.

Once that happens, the Republicans will essentially become the Whigs, they'll be a party, but they won't be able to elect a President because it will marginalized as basically a regional party.

And what happened to the Whigs? Please refresh my memory, I'm drawing a blank. . . :laugh:

Keep planning your Conan-esque "see them driven before you. . . lamenting of the women" party. But I'm here to tell you it will never happen.

[gatorman_07732]

And what happened to the Whigs? Please refresh my memory, I'm drawing a blank. . . :laugh:

Keep planning your Conan-esque "see them driven before you. . . lamenting of the women" party. But I'm here to tell you it will never happen.

He has a dream, let it be

[HudsonGator]

And what happened to the Whigs? Please refresh my memory, I'm drawing a blank. . . :laugh:

Keep planning your Conan-esque "see them driven before you. . . lamenting of the women" party. But I'm here to tell you it will never happen.

Good reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

Although I must ask you, if it is true, as you and no doubt many others on this board believe, that Obama is the worst president in history, how did he ever get reelected?

[Dreamliner]

Hispanics have been flooding into Texas for decades now. Meanwhile, Texas was 19 points to the right of the popular vote in 2012, 19 points to the right of the popular vote in 2008, 20 points to the right of the popular vote in 2004, 15 points to the right of the popular vote in 1996.

Sorry, just not seeing the movement. Hell, Romney nearly won Houston-Harris County.

[Dreamliner]

Hispanics have been flooding into Texas for decades now. Meanwhile, Texas was 19 points to the right of the popular vote in 2012, 19 points to the right of the popular vote in 2008, 20 points to the right of the popular vote in 2004, 15 points to the right of the popular vote in 1996.

Sorry, just not seeing the movement. Hell, Romney nearly won Houston-Harris County.

[CHFG8R]

Good reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

Although I must ask you, if it is true, as you and no doubt many others on this board believe, that Obama is the worst president in history, how did he ever get reelected?

I never said that. He's currently tied for worst in my lifetime with his brother from another mother GWB. Personally, I think Wilson was the worst in history (not to be confusted with most ineffective).

[gatorman_07732]

Good reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

Although I must ask you, if it is true, as you and no doubt many others on this board believe, that Obama is the worst president in history, how did he ever get reelected?

Good question, he has been unable to bring unemployment down a tick and in fact has increased it, he has spend us into oblivion and has been the least transparent president I can recall. Energy prices are at an all time high as well. I certainly can't explain it, but wait until we see what shape this country is in at 2016.

[CHFG8R]

Like GWB's "Vote for me or you are a traitor/hate the troops" campaign of 2004, I think Race and a complient media (who sees in Obama the realization of their PC wet dreams) were major factors.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

If the dems want to turn Texas blue ... they're going in the wrong direction. They lost the state by 13% in 2008. They lost the state by 16% in 2012.

So, logically, if the dems can say they're going to turn Texas blue, then I suppose the pubs are allowed to yammer about turning California red.


:laugh:

Indeed. The OP is delusional.

[HudsonGator]

Time will tell.

[madgator]

Time will tell.

love to hear your thoughts on the trends of all the blue states that are voting republican at a much faster growth rate than Texas is going blue

[Dreamliner]

I thought I'd remembered reading that Nate Silver (remember him ?) opined that the GOP has a better chance of flipping PA, soon, than the Democrats have of flipping a Red state.

[HudsonGator]

love to hear your thoughts on the trends of all the blue states that are voting republican at a much faster growth rate than Texas is going blue

Not sure I understand, when I look at the map of the 2012 elections, it looks to me like other than Texas, every State that really matters went Democratic.


http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012electoralmapresultsfinal110812.jpg

[madgator]

Not sure I understand, when I look at the map of the 2012 elections, it looks to me like other than Texas, every State that really matters went Democratic.



not that difficult of a point so not sure where you're understanding is falling short.


the point is for you to examine the voting trends over the past say 15 years of the "solid blue" states.

You will find that many of these states are trending heavily red.....still not there yet. But the trends are obvious.

I would like your opinion on these trends

[HudsonGator]

I am not going to do the work for you.

If you want to show me the support for your argument, I'll look at it and offer any comments I might have.

[Dreamliner]

I am not going to do the work for you.

If you want to show me the support for your argument, I'll look at it and offer any comments I might have.

I don't think that was his point. I think his point was that the swing states are tending more Republican than Democrat. specifically, Romney chopped into Obama's numbers in reliably blue states like PA, MI, WI, et.al., whereas Obama did not chop into reliably red states so much.

Ex: PA is a much better bet to swing red than Texas is to swing blue.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I am not going to do the work for you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Dreamliner]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That's all I'm saying. Bigfoot ? Sure, I suppose he could be real. But Texas going blue ?!?!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

TBut Texas going blue ?!?!

Yep

http://media2.onsugar.com/files/2013/02/08/0/192/1922283/64054f4192da66c3_theron_reaction.xxxlarge.gif

[HudsonGator]

That's all I'm saying. Bigfoot ? Sure, I suppose he could be real. But Texas going blue ?!?!

Hopefully the Republicans share your confidence.

[CHFG8R]

Hopefully the Republicans share your confidence.

Still haven't told me what happened to the Whigs? They all just jump in the sea and swim back to England?

[wgbgator]

Many of the Whigs became dead-ender Know-nothings/Anti-masons. The ones that were anti-slavery became Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens. The ones that werent became Democrats. The point is, they splintered. They didnt just become the GOP. But the GOP did rapidly grow in the vacuum they left, mostly because of their stance on the slavery question.

[CHFG8R]

Many of the Whigs became dead-ender Know-nothings/Anti-masons. The ones that were anti-slavery became Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens. The ones that werent became Democrats. The point is, they splintered. They didnt just become the GOP. But the GOP did rapidly grow in the vacuum they left, mostly because of their stance on the slavery question.

Policywise (excluding slavery), how were they different from the Whigs? Did they not represent the conservative side of the argument, the decendents of the Optimates if you will?

Bottom line, the (D)s will never see the complete victory the OP salavates for. But I will enjoy his frustration and drink his tears like fine wine when the realization hits him like a brick in the face in a couple years.

[HudsonGator]

Still haven't told me what happened to the Whigs? They all just jump in the sea and swim back to England?

I see someone has answered your question.

In the furture, remember this, Google is your friend.

You can find the answers to many questions simply by looking.

[wgbgator]

Policywise (excluding slavery), how were they different from the Whigs? Did they not represent the conservative side of the argument, the decendents of the Patricians if you will?

Bottom line, the (D)s will never see the complete victory the OP salavates for. But I will enjoy his frustration and drink his tears like fine wine when the realization hits him like a brick in the face in a couple years.


The Whigs were a strange bunch. They were tradition minded, somewhat progressive conservatives with some vague populist sentiments (anti-papacy, etc), who had a great deal of suspicion of expertise and elitism (anti-Mason), but also a deep seated distrust of popular democracy too. I think you could make a case that Whigism died a natural death. Jacksonian-style democracy more or less ensured universal manhood sufferage, while Irish immigration killed anti-Catholicism as a viable electoral strategy. The GOP was a single issue party (free labor) when it began, freed of all the backward and obsolete predjudices and obsessions of the Whigs, and therefor free to court the votes of immigrants, Catholics or anyone who was remotely hostile to the institution of slavery.

[CHFG8R]

I see someone has answered your question.

In the furture, remember this, Google is your friend.

You can find the answers to many questions simply by looking.

Good one.

[ATLitigator]

Good reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

Although I must ask you, if it is true, as you and no doubt many others on this board believe, that Obama is the worst president in history, how did he ever get reelected?

the answer is simple...

two foxes and a chicken vote on what's for dinner?

[CHFG8R]

The Whigs were a strange bunch. They were tradition minded, somewhat progressive conservatives with some vague populist sentiments (anti-papacy, etc), who had a great deal of suspicion of expertise and elitism (anti-Mason), but also a deep seated distrust of popular democracy too. I think you could make a case that Whigism died a natural death. Jacksonian-style democracy more or less ensured universal manhood sufferage, while Irish immigration killed anti-Catholicism as a viable electoral strategy. The GOP was a single issue party (free labor) when it began, freed of all the backward and obsolete predjudices and obsessions of the Whigs, and therefor free to court the votes of immigrants, Catholics or anyone who was remotely hostile to the institution of slavery.

Thank you. That's very interesting (no sarchasm).

Nevertheless, Conservatism didn't go away, correct?

[Dreamliner]

My gggg-uncle was murdered by Whigs. F****** Whigs.

[wgbgator]

Thank you. That's very interesting (no sarchasm).

Nevertheless, Conservatism didn't go away, correct?

Well, there was really no 100% conservative / liberal party then, but no. The Whigs were only a certain kind of conservative. There were conservative Democrats too. The GOP was certainly not "conservative" in its entirity. When roughly half the country was slave states, free labor wasnt a conservative position, per se. Guys like Seward were tempermentally conservative, you had moderates like Lincoln, and radical egalitarians like Stevens, Sumner and others.

[CHFG8R]

Well, there was really no 100% conservative / liberal party then, but no. The Whigs were only a certain kind of conservative. There were conservative Democrats too. The GOP was certainly not "conservative" in its entirity. When roughly half the country was slave states, free labor wasnt a conservative position, per se. Guys like Seward were tempermentally conservative, you had moderates like Lincoln, and radical egalitarians like Stevens, Sumner and others.

Well, once that "slavery" stuff was wrapped up, didn't take long for the classic lines to be drawn again, would you not agree? I think you know the overall point I'm trying to make. Optimates and Populares all over again, as it is today, as it will be in 4 years and 40 and 400. Unless you're suggesting the (D)s have an Octavian up their sleeve.

[wgbgator]

Well, once that "slavery" stuff was wrapped up, didn't take long for the classic lines to be drawn again, would you not agree? I think you know the overall point I'm trying to make. Optimates and Populares all over again, as it is today, as it will be in 4 years and 40 and 400. Unless you're suggesting the (D)s have an Octavian up their sleeve.

Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.

Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.

[CHFG8R]

Interesting points. Forgive me, but what is a Movement Conservative? Is this the Goldwater types or post assimilation of the Dixiecrats?

Agreed on 2 parties and one will seemingly always represent the power elite (or, at least the argument will be positioned that way).

[gatorman_07732]

Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.

Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.

Yes the New Deal Movement is dead and now we have the sh!t deal

[HudsonGator]

Good one.

Thanks

[HudsonGator]

Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.

Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.

Very well put.

[MastaG8r]

Well, the parties were pretty much aligned as they were before and after the Civil War. Dems in the South, Pubs up North. Slavery was settled, and white Anglo supremacy was a unifying sentiment after Eastern, Southern European immigration and Chinese immigration increased, testing our commitment to equality.

Sure, in a two party system, there are always going to be 2 parties. But what they stand for will change over time, because things change. To say there will be a permanent Movement Conservative party seems unlikely, because it was a reaction to New Deal liberalism, which is dead now too. Those Movement Conservatives won (which they dont seem to realize, because they lost the culture wars), and there's really not much else they can achieve politically in their current form. But there will always be conservatives in the lower case sense, absolutely.The important point you're acknowledging is that there will always be two parties. Thank you for educating your less-learned friend who seems to think the day will come when his team will be automatic league champion every year.

I also agree somewhat with your comment that what the two parties stand for will change over time, but only as to the particular issues that will likewise come and go. However the two parties at their respective cores will always be the same type of people you find on either side now.

I've talked about this before on this forum and always begrudgingly acknowledge Chris Matthews, that tool, with coming up with one of the simplest and most fundamentally accurate observations ever made about the political divide: It's the Daddy Way of thinking versus the Mommy Way. Pragmatic and rational vs. nurturing and emotional. Irrespective of the automatic gender identification we all tend to lean more toward one or the other of those two ways of looking at the world. It has always been that way and it always will.

People always talk about the need for a third party, but no third party of wayward kids will ever successfully challenge the Mommys and the Daddys. The names may change but it will always come down to the same two groups. Look around the world at other democracies where there are more than two political parties: Come election time they inevitably form alliances and coalesce into the same two groups: The Daddy Way vs. the Mommy Way.

Sorry, all you dreamers of an everlasting Mommy World. It might not be true in a lot of those deep blue urban areas where 0bama won 100% of the votes, but in America at large, the Daddys are here and we're here to stay.

[dangolegators]

Mommy, why is daddy so mad? Because mommy took away his assault rifle, son.

[wargunfan]

It is difficult to envision the country becoming a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican super majority. Due to the genius of the founders there will always be ways to throw rocks in the gears.

[MastaG8r]

Yes, Mommy can't wait to take Daddy's assault rifle away. After all, why does he need one?

Meanwhile her and all the other Mommy's keep spending money like it grows on trees. Daddy tries to get them to spend less but all they do is ask for more. They don't understand that eventually it may run out. Then all the nice policemen who protect the Mommy's and the Daddy's might just walk off the job like many of them did in post-Katrina New Orleans when they weren't getting their paychecks.

Not only that but...guess who else won't be getting their checks? A lot of spoiled, angry kids who grew up without a Daddy's discipline and are basically subsidized by the government to not commit crimes. No more subsidy checks? No more cops? Uh oh. Now, where did Daddy put his assault rifle?

Oops. Mommy wouldn't let him keep it. Damn.

[vertigo0923]

that's a weird supposition, masta.

[CHFG8R]

It is difficult to envision the country becoming a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican super majority. Due to the genius of the founders there will always be ways to throw rocks in the gears.

Bingo!