Are the Democrats Finished?

[Mac1958]

.

The Republicans have the advantage in 2014 due to the fact that Democrats have to defend so many Congressional seats.

The Democrats have the advantage in 2016 for the same reason.

Then there's the presidential election in 2016.

I guess we'll see. Since the Republicans have decided that there's no reason to tell the electorate why they should vote for them, it should be interesting.

.

 

[guno]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

You people really are deluded, with the demographic shift there is NO way the white christian party can survive, there just aren't enough bitter white people, the white christer party is a regional party and have been rightly marginalized to the uneducated bible thumping states also known as jesusland, The christer party cannot win national elections without the latino vote, the womens vote and the educated whites vote

 

[Mac1958]

.

The Democrats are so much better at messaging than the Republicans at this point that they're really not even in the same league.

And the Republicans don't even see it. How can that be?

.

 

[JoeB131]

Can anyone name a Reagan, ie Conservative Democrat, Moderate??

The moderates have been either drummed out of the party, like Lierberman, or so marginalized they can't speak. Seeing Sam Nunn on the campaign trail is a sad reminder of what they used to be.

Leiberman wasn't drummed out for being a "Moderate". He was drummed out for still thinking the Iraq war was a wonderful idea when everyone knew it wasn't

 

[JoeB131]

The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.

Guy, that's retarded. The ONLY Reason why the Republicans will do well is most of the Senate contests are happening in Red States this year with small, rural populations full of white people whose family trees don't fork.

This is the Special Olympics Mid-Term. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

2016, the GOP is going to have the same problem. Women and People of Color won't vote for you, and t here aren't enough angry old white guys to keep you afloat.

 

[JoeB131]

The Democrats are so much better at messaging than the Republicans at this point that they're really not even in the same league.

And the Republicans don't even see it. How can that be?

Because once again, it's not the message- it's the Product.

"Hey, we want you wage slaves to work harder for less money so a few rich assholes can have mansions and dressage horses!"

No amount of messaging in the world is going to make that sound good.

The real problem the GOP has is the "Shiny Things" like gays and abortion to get stupid white people like Rabbid to vote against their own economic interests don't work anymore either.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites?

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

So much ignorance, willing ignorance, in your posting.

You have to go back 160 years to call Democrats "racists".

What you forget is that back then, the Democratic Party, with it's base in the South, was the Conservative party and the fledgling Republican Party was the more Liberal party.

Through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, essentially, the two parties switched places.

Your ignorance is no less than astounding.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

They'll be finished when they run out of other people's money.

So will we. That's why we must rid the Democratic Party of these radical leftists.

 

[JoeB131]

This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

Guy, do you really think you are fooling anyone with that shit.

The point is, both parties were pretty cool with Jim Crow until 1964. And while the democrats were willing to lose the South for a couple generations to do the right thing, the Republicans were happy to give all the Cleetuses a home.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

Guy, do you really think you are fooling anyone with that shit.

The point is, both parties were pretty cool with Jim Crow until 1964. And while the democrats were willing to lose the South for a couple generations to do the right thing, the Republicans were happy to give all the Cleetuses a home.

Four words:

Nixon: Southern State Strategy.


That sums it all up.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites?

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

So much ignorance, willing ignorance, in your posting.

You have to go back 160 years to call Democrats "racists".

What you forget is that back then, the Democratic Party, with it's base in the South, was the Conservative party and the fledgling Republican Party was the more Liberal party.

Through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, essentially, the two parties switched places.

Your ignorance is no less than astounding.

We never switched places. Those democrats died democrats. Even the liberal side of your party weren't the friends of blacks. FDR installing Hugo Black on the SCOTUS, remember? So stop with the bullshit that republicans are the racists here. Our party was founded to free the slaves.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

Guy, do you really think you are fooling anyone with that shit.

The point is, both parties were pretty cool with Jim Crow until 1964. And while the democrats were willing to lose the South for a couple generations to do the right thing, the Republicans were happy to give all the Cleetuses a home.

More horseshit coming from the democrats. You can try to deny your party's heritage, but history is history and you haven't changed anything but your methods to keep the black man enslaved. Blacks are wising up. You won't be helped in this election, nor the next one in 2016.

 

[NoNukes]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites?

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

So much ignorance, willing ignorance, in your posting.

You have to go back 160 years to call Democrats "racists".

What you forget is that back then, the Democratic Party, with it's base in the South, was the Conservative party and the fledgling Republican Party was the more Liberal party.

Through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, essentially, the two parties switched places.

Your ignorance is no less than astounding.

We never switched places. Those democrats died democrats. Even the liberal side of your party weren't the friends of blacks. FDR installing Hugo Black on the SCOTUS, remember? So stop with the bullshit that republicans are the racists here. Our party was founded to free the slaves.

And you have been complaining about them ever since.

 

[NoNukes]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites?

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

So much ignorance, willing ignorance, in your posting.

You have to go back 160 years to call Democrats "racists".

What you forget is that back then, the Democratic Party, with it's base in the South, was the Conservative party and the fledgling Republican Party was the more Liberal party.

Through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, essentially, the two parties switched places.

Your ignorance is no less than astounding.

We never switched places. Those democrats died democrats. Even the liberal side of your party weren't the friends of blacks. FDR installing Hugo Black on the SCOTUS, remember? So stop with the bullshit that republicans are the racists here. Our party was founded to free the slaves.

Why do so few Blacks vote Republican?

 

[occupied]

The party most capable of adapting to social change will generally do better going forward. Republicans are starting to notice their demographic disadvantage (not favored by youth or minorities) but it hasn't worried them enough to change how they message themselves.

 

[NoNukes]

This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is only your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

Guy, do you really think you are fooling anyone with that shit.

The point is, both parties were pretty cool with Jim Crow until 1964. And while the democrats were willing to lose the South for a couple generations to do the right thing, the Republicans were happy to give all the Cleetuses a home.

More horseshit coming from the democrats. You can try to deny your party's heritage, but history is history and you haven't changed anything but your methods to keep the black man enslaved. Blacks are wising up. You won't be helped in this election, nor the next one in 2016.

And you can speak for Blacks because....????

 

[JoeB131]

More horseshit coming from the democrats. You can try to deny your party's heritage, but history is history and you haven't changed anything but your methods to keep the black man enslaved. Blacks are wising up. You won't be helped in this election, nor the next one in 2016.

It's not "my party". I voted Republican far more often than Democrats, until the whacks took over the party.

The only reason you guys will do well is because you are fighting in red states. You really haven't won anyone over or changed any minds. You are winning because NY and CA are largely sitting this one out.

IN 2016, Teabaggers in PA, WI, IL and other blue states are going to be up, and it won't be pretty.

 

[occupied]

2016 is going to be a republican bloodbath to rival 2006.

 

[Kosh]

The Democrats are not dead, but hopefully the far left is..