Why Democrats Are in Trouble

[rightwinger]

We'll see whether James Carville's and Stan Greenberg's words from a Democracy Corps survey stand up better than the consensus of November 1965, following the Lyndon Johnson-led slaughter of almost every Republican downwind from Barry Goldwater. Johnson, father of the Great Society, was all but run out of Washington on a rail after mucking up the Vietnam War.

Johnson didn't run in 1968 because he couldn't. Not because he was "run out of town"

Johnson was eligible for a "third term"....he chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary

He was unelectable

 

[Cammmpbell]

We'll see whether James Carville's and Stan Greenberg's words from a Democracy Corps survey stand up better than the consensus of November 1965, following the Lyndon Johnson-led slaughter of almost every Republican downwind from Barry Goldwater. Johnson, father of the Great Society, was all but run out of Washington on a rail after mucking up the Vietnam War.

Johnson didn't run in 1968 because he couldn't. Not because he was "run out of town"

Johnson was eligible for a "third term"....he chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary

He was unelectable

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You've been watching too much FAUX!!

After Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term they changed the rules. Two terms is it...fini, over, ended, cou de gras, etc. etc. etc.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

We'll see whether James Carville's and Stan Greenberg's words from a Democracy Corps survey stand up better than the consensus of November 1965, following the Lyndon Johnson-led slaughter of almost every Republican downwind from Barry Goldwater. Johnson, father of the Great Society, was all but run out of Washington on a rail after mucking up the Vietnam War.

Johnson didn't run in 1968 because he couldn't. Not because he was "run out of town"

Also, he didn't want to get shellacked and humiliated by his own party when RFK kicked his ass in the democrat primaries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Truman and Johnson each could have run for a second term for re-election. They both succeeded presidents who died in office. The two-term amendment for them went into effect and the end of the dead president's normal term.

Look it up.

Johnson didn't run in 1968 because he couldn't. Not because he was "run out of town"

Johnson was eligible for a "third term"....he chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary He was unelectable

ROTFLMAO!!!!! You've been watching too much FAUX!! After Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term they changed the rules. Two terms is it...fini, over, ended, cou de gras, etc. etc. etc.

 

[rightwinger]

Johnson didn't run in 1968 because he couldn't. Not because he was "run out of town"

Johnson was eligible for a "third term"....he chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary

He was unelectable

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You've been watching too much FAUX!!

After Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term they changed the rules. Two terms is it...fini, over, ended, cou de gras, etc. etc. etc.

Not true...

After LBJ finished up JFKs term he was eligible for two terms of his own

You can look it up

 

[Cammmpbell]

Johnson was eligible for a "third term"....he chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary

He was unelectable

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You've been watching too much FAUX!!

After Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term they changed the rules. Two terms is it...fini, over, ended, cou de gras, etc. etc. etc.

Not true...

After LBJ finished up JFKs term he was eligible for two terms of his own

You can look it up

You're exactly right. It seemed like two terms. I was a Republican back then....voted for Nixon three times.

 

[Freewill]

.

If I'm reading this correctly, the writer is saying (1) it's okay that we lost, the other guys will screw up anyway, and (2) we don't need to change anything, the electorate will like us more next time. I'm inferring, of course.

Yikes. Don't know if that's a great strategy.

.

I think the electorate will like Republicans more in 2016. Voters tend to switch control of the White House every eight years or so.

The problem for the Republicans is the degree of nastiness that they tolerate coming from their party. Offending Hispanics does not win you votes, offending young women does not win you votes, neither does offending blacks, gays or working Americans

Republicans need to respect those groups who have abandoned them. Let them know that you understand their struggles and believe that republican solutions are the answer

There is a small core of Republicans who are nasty and disrespectful to those Americans who do not conform to the GOP ideal of what Americans should be. Until there is a price to pay for some of the nastiness coming from this small group, ALL Republicans will pay the price

Have you bothered to notice the degree of nastiness from the Democrats here? It's both sides but to portray the Republicans as the most nasty runs contrary to what one can observe at least here anyway.

republicans being nasty is the we liberal story line.

 

[Freewill]

We can go back and forth about where the GOP should stand on the issues, but I'd think the first thing that should be examined is the way the message is being delivered. We have some in the GOP screaming "Nazi socialist Marxist commie" at every opportunity, others making absurd and unnecessary comments about rape and pregnancy, others essentially ignoring the burgeoning minority vote, and still others shoving "pledges" into the faces of their representatives, threatening to "primary" them if they are so crazy and un-American as to actually work with the other side.

As was said earlier, the GOP is making it too easy for the Dems to paint them as crazies, and that's even before we get deep into the issues.

.

WHO, WHO in the Republcian party is screaming "Nazi socialist Marxist commie?" Not some internet bloggers but someone actually working for or in the Republican party.

No, the only thing that will satisfy some is that Republican become as democrats, to that I say "nuts."

What the hell difference does it make if a crazy is "actually working for or in the Republican party"? Holy crap, pretty much all of the radio talk show hosts say it, pundits say it, blogger say it, writers say it.

Politics is about IMAGE, whether we like it or not. And right now, the GOP brand is broken. The party can ignore and divert, but that's why they couldn't beat a President who's sitting on an 8% unemployment rate. No excuse for that.

.

Then provide a link to a republican making such statements. Should be easy,

 

[JakeStarkey]

The whole campaign, the statements of Walsh and West and Akin and Mordoosh and the far right haters here on the Board ~~ all of that is what the mainstream leadership of the GOP is condemning.

The 'party of stupid' has to stop or it will die.

 

[Cammmpbell]

WHO, WHO in the Republcian party is screaming "Nazi socialist Marxist commie?" Not some internet bloggers but someone actually working for or in the Republican party.

No, the only thing that will satisfy some is that Republican become as democrats, to that I say "nuts."

What the hell difference does it make if a crazy is "actually working for or in the Republican party"? Holy crap, pretty much all of the radio talk show hosts say it, pundits say it, blogger say it, writers say it.

Politics is about IMAGE, whether we like it or not. And right now, the GOP brand is broken. The party can ignore and divert, but that's why they couldn't beat a President who's sitting on an 8% unemployment rate. No excuse for that.

.

Then provide a link to a republican making such statements. Should be easy,

Mitt Romney’s Defeat and the Republican Brand | Caffeinated Thoughts

The gender gap – If you look at the exit polling objectively you can see we have a problem. It’s nothing new, but when women made up 53% of voters it’s going to be a huge problem and it expanded in 2008. Women broke for Obama 55% to 45%. Now what I find interesting is that married women went with Romney 53% to 46%, those are the security moms. Romney’s economic message resonated. They made up 31% of the electorate, but Romney was killed among non-married women which made up 23% of voters. They overwhelmingly went with the President 67% to 31%.

The race gap. Mitt Romney beat President Obama among Caucasian by 20 points. They made up 72% of the electorate which is a 3% drop from 2008 (with fewer voters). He still lost. Romney lost Hispanics (which made up 10% of the electorate which is a 2% increase from 2008) 71% to 27%. That is a four percent drop from what McCain had in 2008, and President Bush garnered, I believe, around 40% (I don’t remember the exact number. There was a slight shift among Black voters (13% of the electorate). Romney picked up 2% percent than what McCain had in 2008, but it was still 93% to 6%, so nothing to write home about. Romney lost 73% to 26% among Asians (3% of the electorate), and among the “others” (2% of the electorate) President Obama had a 20 point advantage. Also among Catholics a group that over all saw movement toward Republicans this year, President Obama won this group by two points which is a 4% drop from 2008. Romney won among white Catholics by 19 points. President Obama won among Hispanic Catholics 75% to 21% gaining three points from 2008.

The base didn’t turn out. That alone didn’t sway the election, but when you consider Mitt Romney garnered about 1.7 million less votes than John McCain did in 2008 that’s saying something. Romney needed to improve upon those numbers not receive less. President Obama had slightly more that 8 million less votes than he had in 2008 and he still won. It made for a closer race, but President Obama did a better job turning out his base than Mitt Romney did. The Washington Post exit poll shows that 38% of voters were Democrat while only 32% were Republicans. 29% were independent or third party. Why didn’t they turn out? More on that later. Evangelicals represented 27% of the electorate nationally – a record high and the same percentage of evangelicals went for Romney as did for President Bush in 2004 – 79%, but with fewer voters this time around (about 10-11 million) that 27% isn’t nearly as impressive. So I can’t say with certainty that the evangelical vote showed up like it could have. Then it also begs the question in what states did they turn out where it made a difference?

The youth vote. Mitt Romney made a five point gain among 18-29 year-olds who made up 19% of the electorate. He still lost 60% to 37%. Three percent voted some other way – Ron Paul or Gary Johnson anyone?


ROTFL......maybe he needed Sarah Palin instead of Paul Ryan

 

[Mac1958]

WHO, WHO in the Republcian party is screaming "Nazi socialist Marxist commie?" Not some internet bloggers but someone actually working for or in the Republican party.

No, the only thing that will satisfy some is that Republican become as democrats, to that I say "nuts."

What the hell difference does it make if a crazy is "actually working for or in the Republican party"? Holy crap, pretty much all of the radio talk show hosts say it, pundits say it, blogger say it, writers say it.

Politics is about IMAGE, whether we like it or not. And right now, the GOP brand is broken. The party can ignore and divert, but that's why they couldn't beat a President who's sitting on an 8% unemployment rate. No excuse for that.

.

Then provide a link to a republican making such statements. Should be easy,

Is this a joke?

Here, Google "democrats socialists communists". I just did. If you claim that you can't find myriad examples, then you're either lying or in deep denial.

And if you want to save some time, check out a few thousand posts on this board.

And you're going to pretend that you don't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, Levin? They all use those terms like water.

Come on.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have so many such hate posts on this board from the Far Right.

We have so many stupid posts on the board from the Libertarians.

We have Walsh, West, Akin, Mordoosh, Hannitty, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, and the rest of the losers.

The hate has to stop. We can't do anything about the Democrats, but we can change ourselves.

 

[J.E.D]

Why Democrats Are in Trouble

I think the board needs a new sub-forum:

Obama's Win Is Really A Loss For Democrats

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our GOP loss is really a victory for ourselves: Far Right Logic 101.

 

[Contumacious]

Why Democrats Are in Trouble

Incorrect.

Because the welfare/warfare state politicians have taken over our government we are ALL in trouble.

The stupid motherfuckers want the rich to pay for their boondoggles.

The rich will either take their wealth to Switzerland, or pass their additional cost to the middle class.

That is exactly what happened when the fascists enacted the 16th Amendment.

.

 

[Greenbeard]

The base didn’t turn out. That alone didn’t sway the election, but when you consider Mitt Romney garnered about 1.7 million less votes than John McCain did in 2008 that’s saying something.

Romney didn't actually end up getting fewer votes than McCain.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The base didn’t turn out. That alone didn’t sway the election, but when you consider Mitt Romney garnered about 1.7 million less votes than John McCain did in 2008 that’s saying something.

Romney didn't actually end up getting fewer votes than McCain.

I'm not saying he did but I'd like to see your reference. I hope to fuck it isn't Fox News. I'd sooner believe my german shepherd dog.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Meanwhile, as everyone these days seems to know, the unstoppable alliance of unmarried women, young people, Hispanics and Blacks is set to remake America: the minute Americans agree on what a remade America ought to look like.

Well.....we Libs/Progressives have.....

....The PRESIDENCY covered!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . ​

 

[Greenbeard]

The base didn’t turn out. That alone didn’t sway the election, but when you consider Mitt Romney garnered about 1.7 million less votes than John McCain did in 2008 that’s saying something.

Romney didn't actually end up getting fewer votes than McCain.

I'm not saying he did but I'd like to see your reference. I hope to fuck it isn't Fox News. I'd sooner believe my german shepherd dog.

Most states haven't certified their results yet and a number of places are still tabulating votes but from preliminary results it seems pretty clear Romney will finish about 60 million votes.

 

[lukelk]

It's simple freewillard here is a fool. The end.