Will we EVER have another Republican president????

[Katzndogz]

Given the state of the economy, there was no logical reason Romney should have lost in 2012

But Republicans insisted on being Republicans and pushed ideological positions that were unelectable

What will change in 2016?

Exactly what I said. Democrats will tell themselves they have a "mandate" for every new power grab they and their corporate sponsors can dream up and push it as hard as they can. It will scare or anger enough people to open the door for the Republicans to do likewise.

Democrats have a mandate to do whatever they can to keep Republican policies from taking effect

America has spoken

The free ride for the wealthy is over

The free ride for the wealthy is certainly over in France. That's why they are leaving. There is nothing keeping them in the US either.

 

[dblack]

What you characterize as "authoritarian power" being wielded by the Demorcats is just as easily interpreted as the thwarting of Republican attempts to force unwanted programs and idealogical positions on the citizens of the United States.

But that's exactly the problem. The Democrats haven't done this in a way that matters. Guantanamo is still open for business; The authoritarian surveillance state continues to expand; Obama indulges in the same kind of constitutional shenanigans (signing statements, executive orders, etc...) that Bush did; The drug war continues; Corporatism runs rampant; The promised 'transparency' has become a bad joke; Our military continues to waste an insane amount of our citizens earnings protecting international corporate interests (not to mention bombing brown kids with drones). Oh, ok. We're finally discussing gay marriage rights. With all due respect to my gay friends, 'big fucking deal'.

You'll likely claim that, nonetheles, liberal voters still support the things the Democrats have accomplished (health care, ramping up the welfare state, etc...) and you may be right. But it's the swing voters who end up making the difference and many of them aren't happy about the bait-and-switch. Without a re-election campaign to look toward, Obama will turn to even less popular ambitions and force more and more of the big government agenda down our throats. That might sit well with his base, but it will anger the rest of us.

Maybe I'm wrong. I honestly hope so. With all the new power the Democrats are creating for the federal government, the idea of giving the reigns back to the neo-cons scares the shit out of me.

 

[auditor0007]

Lots of combinations doom the GOP.

Lots of people who, like you said, like the government safety net. They'll trade off....they get a safety net, but forfeit any chance of every being filthy rich. The coming generation was raised on a sense of community sharing far more than individual greed.

The GOP outraged about 15,000,000 middle class folks when they attacked cops, firemen and teachers. Those groups are probably around 3,000,000 or so, and they all have families, kids, spouses, parents, friends, who love them and know how underpaid they are for their hard jobs. The GOP going on a crusade against them lost a LOT of support and votes for that party.

Pure demographics. Our country is becoming less white by the decade, which is bad for the GOP.

It's not about limiting how rich the rich can get. Here is the real problem. Conservatives have always told us that the rich people are not the problem because when the pie grows bigger, everyone benefits, and that the pie is not limited. The pie grows bigger and everyone benefits. What has happened over the past thirty years though is that while the pie did grow bigger, only the top 20% actually benefited. Everyone else actually saw their piece of the pie get smaller. Conservatives sold us a bill of goods that was a lie. The biggest problem with their lie is that they tried to sell us on this idea that when the rich got richer, everything would trickle down and those on the bottom would benefit too. Well the rich got richer and richer and richer. So where the fuck is all that trickle down? Those on the bottom are poorer today than they were before we started down this path. And the reason the economy sucks so bad is because those who got the shaft from this grand experiment no longer have the money to make the economy grow. You see, it's the bottom 80% that makes the economy grow, not the top 20%. The top 20% may be the ones putting the money out there to start businesses, but without anyone to buy their products, their is no point in making the products to begin with. We know how that works. The economy shrinks as do incomes and all of us end up with a lower standard of living, except of course for the super wealthy who continue to hoard their wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

Does that sound like I'm hateful of the wealthy? Not really, but I do believe their own greed has been our downfall. Eventually they too will pay the price if they refuse to right the ship.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, yeah, and the workers control the means of production and all that. We've heard it before and witnessed how well that worked. Give it up. The Industrial Revolution is over and the idealized "new world order" invariably collapses from its own infeasibility. Go find some teenagers to preach to, or guys like Jake and JoeB. They'll tell you how righteous and cool you are.

 

[JoeB131]

I have to say, I recall the Republicans tossing around terms like "Permanent Republican Majority" back in 2004. Then 2006 and 2008 came and they were shown the door. Then the Democrats tossed around the idea of the GOP being a "Regional Party" and in 2010 they were shown the door in the House.

We will likely have a GOP comeback in my lifetime, just as we had a Democratic comeback after the whooping they took in 2000 and 2004. It's inherent in the two party system.

Your premise is already faulty. The Democrats didn't take a "Whooping" in 2000, they won the popular vote and made gains in both houses of Congress. They barely lost in 2004, because there was a war going on.

I think a useful thing to do is to look though at WHY the GOP lost in 2012, and see if they're working on fixing those problems for 2016. From what I understand it boils down to:

1. Obama has a high personal likability factor: This won't be an issue in 2016, as Obama won't be on the ticket.

2. Obama had a better get out of the vote machine: This could change by 2016 with work. In 2000 and 2004 the GOP had the better machine, but in 2008 and 2012 the Democrats adapted to smart phone tech faster and built a better system. There's articles all over the net about how badly Romney's get out the vote machine failed.

There's some merit to this, but not as important as you claim.

3. Romney was a terrible candidate: Debate this if you want, but he was. He was out of touch and a liberal from a liberal state running for the party of the Conservatives. However, in 2016 you're going to see folks like Rubio, Jindal, and Christie making a play for the nomination. I personally detest Jindal, but any of those three would make a stronger candidate in the general than Romney.

Romney was a terrible candidate. However, I don't think any of those other guys are going to be any better. The GOP would be better served by someone like Mitch Daniels than these "crowd pleasers" who will appeal to people who vote Republican no matter who is on the ticket.

4. The GOP was actively working to alienate large blocks of the voting base: I think if you have one of the younger guns like Rubio or Christie running, this won't be as much of an issue. There will be a lot of pressure by the party to reign in the loose cannons who get the GOP in trouble and I don't think Jindal, Rubio, or Christie would tolerate a radio host saying stuff that could hurt them in the General. I think in 2016 you're going to see a lot of the crazy in the GOP kicked to the curb.

If all that happens, you could have a real shot at a GOP POTUS in 2016.

If you really think any of these guys are going to stand up to Limbaugh when he says something stupid, i think you are kidding yourself.

The problem isn't just the guys saying dumb things. It's the dumb things the GOP advocates as policy. It isn't just Limbaugh calling Fluke a bad name, it's the general policies that women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their own reproductive health.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, yeah, and the workers control the means of production and all that. We've heard it before and witnessed how well that worked. Give it up. The Industrial Revolution is over and the idealized "new world order" invariably collapses from its own infeasibility. Go find some teenagers to preach to, or guys like Jake and JoeB. They'll tell you how righteous and cool you are.

Dude, why do you live in mortal fear of working people getting a fair shake?

 

[Dot Com]

Yeah, yeah, and the workers control the means of production and all that. We've heard it before and witnessed how well that worked. Give it up. The Industrial Revolution is over and the idealized "new world order" invariably collapses from its own infeasibility. Go find some teenagers to preach to, or guys like Jake and JoeB. They'll tell you how righteous and cool you are.

Dude, why do you live in mortal fear of working people getting a fair shake?

becasuse they're req'd to read Rand. Remember when Ryan(R) said that?

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, yeah, and the workers control the means of production and all that. We've heard it before and witnessed how well that worked. Give it up. The Industrial Revolution is over and the idealized "new world order" invariably collapses from its own infeasibility. Go find some teenagers to preach to, or guys like Jake and JoeB. They'll tell you how righteous and cool you are.

Dude, why do you live in mortal fear of working people getting a fair shake?

becasuse they're req'd to read Rand. Remember when Ryan(R) said that?

The ironic thing is that at the end of her life, Rand had to rely on Social Security and Medicare to stay alive because she never made all that much on her writing.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, yeah, and the workers control the means of production and all that. We've heard it before and witnessed how well that worked. Give it up. The Industrial Revolution is over and the idealized "new world order" invariably collapses from its own infeasibility. Go find some teenagers to preach to, or guys like Jake and JoeB. They'll tell you how righteous and cool you are.

Dude, why do you live in mortal fear of working people getting a fair shake?

I can't speak for Meathead, but my opposition to minimum wage laws has nothing to do with giving working people a 'fair shake'. It's based in the deception at the core of these laws. They aren't about improving the lot of the working class, they - like most welfare state laws - are about keeping people in their place; keeping them working for peanuts and churning the wheels of the corporatist state.

As many here have pointed out, these laws don't really increase the buying power of the workers in question. They bump up the base line, and the market quickly adjusts around the 'new normal'. In point of fact, we - as a society - don't value some of the jobs people do a great deal and aren't willing to pay much for them. That's the very democratic reality you're trying to hide from.

What we fear about these laws is the ulterior motives behind them. As a few here have highlighted, what these laws really do is outlaw working for less than an established minimum wage. They essentially target those of us who either don't have valuable skills or simply don't want to work very hard. As a steadfast member of the 'lazy' class, I resent this effort. We should be free to do whatever jobs we want, whether they are considered valuable to the state or not.

Like most 'great society' laws, minimum wage laws are about state control, not make our lives better.

 

[rightwinger]

Has the next Republican President been born yet?

 

[JoeB131]

[
I can't speak for Meathead, but my opposition to minimum wage laws has nothing to do with giving working people a 'fair shake'. It's based in the deception at the core of these laws. They aren't about improving the lot of the working class, they - like most welfare state laws - are about keeping people in their place; keeping them working for peanuts and churning the wheels of the corporatist state.

As many here have pointed out, these laws don't really increase the buying power of the workers in question. They bump up the base line, and the market quickly adjusts around the 'new normal'. In point of fact, we - as a society - don't value some of the jobs people do a great deal and aren't willing to pay much for them. That's the very democratic reality you're trying to hide from.

What we fear about these laws is the ulterior motives behind them. As a few here have highlighted, what these laws really do is outlaw working for less than an established minimum wage. They essentially target those of us who either don't have valuable skills or simply don't want to work very hard. As a steadfast member of the 'lazy' class, I resent this effort. We should be free to do whatever jobs we want, whether they are considered valuable to the state or not.

Like most 'great society' laws, minimum wage laws are about state control, not make our lives better.

I think you fail to understand what the history and purpose of minimum wage laws were.

The purpose of them was to keep employers from using a recession as an excuse to fire thei workforce and get a new workforce willing to work for a pittance because it was the only job available, and they were introduced during the New Deal, not the Great Society.

the Minimum wage has been largely undermined by the fact that it hasn't kept up with inflation.

Now, if all workplaces were unionized, if you had wage transparency, and if you tied CEO compensation to employee compensation, yeah, maybe a minimum wage wouldn't be necessary.