CDZ Is the GOP truly close to collapsing, or is that just media scaremongering? Honest question/concern.

[eruntalon3434]

So... the state of the Republican Party... yikes. I don't keep up with politics on an in-depth basis, but for those who know, exactly how bad is it right now? Like, "the party might collapse" bad? It looks pretty awful from the outside, but the media has a vested interest in making things look worse than they are, if only because drama means ratings. I'm an independent, so I wouldn't exactly weep for the GOP's passing, but the prospect of a single dominant national party in the wake makes me understandably apprehensive.

If Republican collapse is a real possibility, would the third parties that aren't totally insignificant (which pretty much means the Green and Libertarian parties) step up to prominence in its place, or would an entirely new party form in the power vacuum?

The last time America was under a one-party system (defined in this case as a party that has no appreciable competition for the White House and consistently holds more than two-thirds of both Congressional houses), it was from 1817 to 1827, during James Madison's presidency and shortly after. In an era before the internet, before television, before radio, before the telephone, even before the telegraph, it "only" took ten years before national races became competitive again.

On the other hand, the founding of the country was still in living memory at that time. The way of doing things was much more fluid, and we were still having to figure things out as we went along. Change was easier. Now? Not so much. Would the near-infinite improvements in communications make a successor party materialize faster, or would the now-much-stronger power structures in Washington slow the process down?

 

[Fishlore]

Speaker of the House, the second most powerful job in Washington, is the highest office currently held by a member of the GOP. The assassination of Mr. Boehner and the turbulent reign of his successor, Mr. Ryan, speak eloquently of the deadly nature of the internal struggle within the GOP.

There have already been incidents in which legislation has passed by a Republican coalition with moderate Democrats and over the vociferous objections of the Liberty Caucus. This is open warfare. Two resolutions are possible: either the Republicans are able to rule in coalition with Democrats and starve the Liberty Caucus into submission or the Caucus will achieve enough votes in the caucus to take control of the party officers and agenda.

A third outcome is too horrible to contemplate but quite possible nonetheless. A strong congressional victory and capture of the White House by Democrats in November could lead to defections by moderate Republicans in a mirror image of the defenctions by Southern Democrats to the GOP in the 1990s. This would ensure Democratic control for a generation such as the Dems had under FDR and GOP had with Ronald Reagan.

These tectonic shifts in party alighnment are brought about over major legislative programs (the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution) and driven by demographic change and the state of the national economy. Both these drivers seem, at the moment, to favor the Democrats.

 

[Stephanie]

We've heard this about the Republican party every election now for at least the last 10-15 years. Funny how they never assume the Democrat party is collapsing? I've shortened this assessment, the whole article is the site

Snippet
The numbers are staggering. In 2010, the GOP captured the House by gaining 63 seats. In 2014, they took control of the Senate. And the damage has been just as ruinous for the Democrats at the state level. The Republicans now have 31 governors and fully control 30 state legislatures.


snip:
Obama has destroyed the Democrats
LeRoy Goldman, GUEST COLUMNIST 12:41 p.m. EDT September 4, 2015
LeRoy Goldman lives in Flat Rock. He was a member of the federal government’s senior executive service for many years.

By the time a president reaches the last couple of years in office, his attention inevitably turns to his legacy. A president’s legacy, whether good or ill, is built upon accomplishments, not rhetoric. Therefore, it’s not hard to identify what this president would point to as the legacy bookends of his eight years in office. At the front end is the enactment of Obamacare. At the back end is the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Presidential scholars, political pundits, and the American people will debate and disagree regarding the worthiness of both of these two monumental undertakings. You can be certain that when the Obama Presidential Library opens in Chicago it will make the case that healthcare was reformed by Obamacare, and the world was made safer by the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Alternatively, it’s entirely possible that the voters in 2016 and beyond will make the countervailing argument.


. Obama has virtually destroyed the Democratic Party. And the Democrats, like lemmings, have been willing accomplices in their own demise.

It was opposition to Obamacare that produced the enormous gains the GOP made in 2010 and 2014. Rather than delaying health care reform in the face of an imploding economy in 2009, Obama chose to ram it through Congress with only the support of Democrats. It was a catastrophic blunder.



In a recent column in Politico entitled, Democratic Blues, Jeff Greenfield says, “In fact, no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party.”


Obama has decimated the Democratic Party. What remains is a geriatric joke: Hillary 69, Sanders 74, Biden 74, Kerry 73, Warren 66, Reid 75, and Pelosi 75. A political party, unwilling to challenge its president when necessary, deserves its ignominious fate.

all of it here:
Obama has destroyed the Democrats

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Republican Party is engaging is a little periodic house cleaning. Too many 'rats. Nothing more.

 

[320 Years of History]

So... the state of the Republican Party... yikes. I don't keep up with politics on an in-depth basis, but for those who know, exactly how bad is it right now? Like, "the party might collapse" bad? It looks pretty awful from the outside, but the media has a vested interest in making things look worse than they are, if only because drama means ratings. I'm an independent, so I wouldn't exactly weep for the GOP's passing, but the prospect of a single dominant national party in the wake makes me understandably apprehensive.

If Republican collapse is a real possibility, would the third parties that aren't totally insignificant (which pretty much means the Green and Libertarian parties) step up to prominence in its place, or would an entirely new party form in the power vacuum?

The last time America was under a one-party system (defined in this case as a party that has no appreciable competition for the White House and consistently holds more than two-thirds of both Congressional houses), it was from 1817 to 1827, during James Madison's presidency and shortly after. In an era before the internet, before television, before radio, before the telephone, even before the telegraph, it "only" took ten years before national races became competitive again.

On the other hand, the founding of the country was still in living memory at that time. The way of doing things was much more fluid, and we were still having to figure things out as we went along. Change was easier. Now? Not so much. Would the near-infinite improvements in communications make a successor party materialize faster, or would the now-much-stronger power structures in Washington slow the process down?

There's no doubt 1776 was still in living memory, but what was most closely in memory was that we damn near lost, in the War of 1812, the nation and independence we'd fought so hard to gain. Our capital was burned and only the weather stopped the entire city, rather than just the White House, from being burned to the ground and worse than they were overall (outside D.C.), which were so bad in D.C. and in total that the only military victory of note in the entire two years of the war came after a treaty ending it had been negotiated.

The U.S. “won” only in the sense that it got itself into a war with a far more powerful Britain that was distracted by a much larger conflict [Napoleon], and so survived in much better shape than it otherwise would have. In that respect, the U.S. had the dubious distinction of indirectly assisting one of the more aggressive and destructive rulers of the 19th century when his power was already going into decline. It was the “second war of independence” only in that the U.S. proved that it could survive launching a foolish war, that the people on whose behalf it was waged didn't want, against a superior adversary without forfeiting its existence. The War of 1812 should of course be studied and commemorated, but there is very little in it that Americans have to celebrate.

That anyone even refers to the U.S. as having won is little more than evidence that even in the early 19th century there were "spin doctors." Nothing's ever really new when all that's old becomes new again.

 

[eruntalon3434]

There's no doubt 1776 was still in living memory, but what was most closely in memory was that we damn near lost, in the War of 1812, the nation and independence we'd fought so hard to gain. Our capital was burned and only the weather stopped the entire city, rather than just the White House, from being burned to the ground and worse than they were overall (outside D.C.), which were so bad in D.C. and in total that the only military victory of note in the entire two years of the war came after a treaty ending it had been negotiated.

The U.S. “won” only in the sense that it got itself into a war with a far more powerful Britain that was distracted by a much larger conflict [Napoleon], and so survived in much better shape than it otherwise would have. In that respect, the U.S. had the dubious distinction of indirectly assisting one of the more aggressive and destructive rulers of the 19th century when his power was already going into decline. It was the “second war of independence” only in that the U.S. proved that it could survive launching a foolish war, that the people on whose behalf it was waged didn't want, against a superior adversary without forfeiting its existence. The War of 1812 should of course be studied and commemorated, but there is very little in it that Americans have to celebrate.

That anyone even refers to the U.S. as having won is little more than evidence that even in the early 19th century there were "spin doctors." Nothing's ever really new when all that's old becomes new again.

Uhh... I didn't say anything about whether or not the War of 1812 was a good idea, nor did I imply any such viewpoint. What brought that on? My statement was merely that the traditional power structures in Washington had not solidified yet at the time of the Democratic-Republicans' consolidated rule. However, further research on my part has showed that I was in error in thinking that ten-year period was as unique as it was. The party had earlier experienced a period of complete dominance from 1803-1813. Similar, shorter periods of dominance occurred from 1865-1871 under the Republicans, 1935-1939 under the Democrats, and from 1965-1967 under the Democrats again.

What did NOT require research was realizing that I meant "James Monroe", but I wrote "James Madison" because I'm an idiot.

 

[320 Years of History]

There's no doubt 1776 was still in living memory, but what was most closely in memory was that we damn near lost, in the War of 1812, the nation and independence we'd fought so hard to gain. Our capital was burned and only the weather stopped the entire city, rather than just the White House, from being burned to the ground and worse than they were overall (outside D.C.), which were so bad in D.C. and in total that the only military victory of note in the entire two years of the war came after a treaty ending it had been negotiated.

The U.S. “won” only in the sense that it got itself into a war with a far more powerful Britain that was distracted by a much larger conflict [Napoleon], and so survived in much better shape than it otherwise would have. In that respect, the U.S. had the dubious distinction of indirectly assisting one of the more aggressive and destructive rulers of the 19th century when his power was already going into decline. It was the “second war of independence” only in that the U.S. proved that it could survive launching a foolish war, that the people on whose behalf it was waged didn't want, against a superior adversary without forfeiting its existence. The War of 1812 should of course be studied and commemorated, but there is very little in it that Americans have to celebrate.

That anyone even refers to the U.S. as having won is little more than evidence that even in the early 19th century there were "spin doctors." Nothing's ever really new when all that's old becomes new again.

Uhh... I didn't say anything about whether or not the War of 1812 was a good idea, nor did I imply any such viewpoint. What brought that on? My statement was merely that the traditional power structures in Washington had not solidified yet at the time of the Democratic-Republicans' consolidated rule. However, further research on my part has showed that I was in error in thinking that ten-year period was as unique as it was. The party had earlier experienced a period of complete dominance from 1803-1813. Similar, shorter periods of dominance occurred from 1865-1871 under the Republicans, 1935-1939 under the Democrats, and from 1965-1967 under the Democrats again.

What did NOT require research was realizing that I meant "James Monroe", but I wrote "James Madison" because I'm an idiot.

Red:
I know that; I can read, you know.


Blue:
What inspired my remarks was my thinking that while the Framers were certainly still part of "living memory," just as Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt are today, and like those modern Presidents, their memory and deeds were invoked with proudly puffed chests, or alternately with outcries of indignation -- which it be depended, of course, on who was speaking -- in the early years of the decade you cited, the War of 1812 and the fiasco of events that led the U.S. to declare it, and, though I didn't say so, in its later years the throwing to the House the choice of President and Vice President, were what loomed foremost in the minds of most of the enfranchised citizenry of the day were the Founding Fathers and the instance and progression of, in turn, securing independence from England, founding the nation, and ratifying the Constitution. It was just a thought that crossed my mind, and that I chose to share, as I reflected on that one tiny bit of your post vis a vis the stories my ancestors and their few corresponding friends from that era recorded in various letters and diaries. It's not that I sat here reading them as I wrote that post, for I was not, but rather that I was thinking back to what I recall from when I did read them years ago.

I suppose too the conversational tone of your OP set my mind to rambling and inspired me to think beyond the immediate aim of your post, much as in face-to-face chats one person's remarks inspire new, unrelated thoughts in the mind of other parties to the discussion. Perhaps I should have written "off topic" at the start of my comments?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is the GOP truly close to collapsing..."

No.

But the GOP is badly divided, moderates at war with reactionary extremists fearful of change and hostile to sound, responsible governance.

The extremists want to implement policies which are clearly wrong, unwarranted, and opposed by a majority of the American people.

It's usually at this point a rightwing extremist will chime in and ask:

“What's 'extreme' about wanting a balanced budget?”

There's nothing extreme about wanting a balanced budget, what's extreme is how most on the reactionary right wish to achieve a balanced budget – by cutting funding for necessary, proper, and Constitutional social programs and regulatory measures, by seeking to balance the budget on the backs of low income working Americans, the disabled, retired Americans, and children, while at the same time cutting corporate taxes and increasing spending on the military and corporate welfare.

No, the GOP isn't going anywhere, but as long as sensible moderates are in conflict with wrongheaded extremists and reactionaries, their success on a National level will be limited.

 

[320 Years of History]

So... the state of the Republican Party... yikes. I don't keep up with politics on an in-depth basis, but for those who know, exactly how bad is it right now? Like, "the party might collapse" bad? It looks pretty awful from the outside, but the media has a vested interest in making things look worse than they are, if only because drama means ratings. I'm an independent, so I wouldn't exactly weep for the GOP's passing, but the prospect of a single dominant national party in the wake makes me understandably apprehensive.

If Republican collapse is a real possibility, would the third parties that aren't totally insignificant (which pretty much means the Green and Libertarian parties) step up to prominence in its place, or would an entirely new party form in the power vacuum?

The last time America was under a one-party system (defined in this case as a party that has no appreciable competition for the White House and consistently holds more than two-thirds of both Congressional houses), it was from 1817 to 1827, during James Madison's presidency and shortly after. In an era before the internet, before television, before radio, before the telephone, even before the telegraph, it "only" took ten years before national races became competitive again.

On the other hand, the founding of the country was still in living memory at that time. The way of doing things was much more fluid, and we were still having to figure things out as we went along. Change was easier. Now? Not so much. Would the near-infinite improvements in communications make a successor party materialize faster, or would the now-much-stronger power structures in Washington slow the process down?

The GOP is on the verge of implosion, IMO. How can it not be? There are essentially three major groups in the party -- the ultra conservatives/Tea party, the centrist/establishment/moderate Republicans, and the "Trumpeteers" -- and no two of them is willing to let the other one ascend to power within the party any more than any one of them is willing to compromise with Democrats.

• The very conservative set won't build bridges with anyone, and they can't stand Mr. Trump.
• The "Trumpeteers" won't yield on a damn thing, which is strange because their leader, Mr. Trump, isn't firm about a damn thing.
• The centrists would build bridges with someone, but the Tea Party folks won't, the centrist abhor the "Trumpeteers" and the Democrats are, well, not Republicans, so there's no bride to build at this time.

Jeb Bush, the one Republican who had the organization and financial backing to easily go toe to toe with whomever the Democrats nominate was driven out of the race by the Trumpeteers. Cruz is too far right to collect enough independent and cross-over Democrat votes in the general election that only if tons and tons of Democrats stay home can he win. Mr. Trump is too crazy and wishy-washy to get centrist GOP voters' votes in the general, so he'd have to get a ton of Democratic and independent votes, a dubious proposition at best, and hope a ton of Democrats stay home, in order to win. That leaves Mr. Rubio, ostensibly a centrist and Mr. Kasich, who is something of a centrist. Both of them need Democrats to stay home in order to win.

I've mentioned several times this idea of Democrats staying home. That's far from a foregone reality. Yes, much of the primary focus is clearly on what is the GOP Primary circus, which has overshadowed the Democratic primary races and policy discussion. If nothing else, it's certainly entertaining to watch -- thank Mr. Trump for that -- no matter what be one's political position. And why shouldn't it be so? At the end of the day, most Democrats know that Hillary is likely going to be their nominee and that both she and Mr. Sanders are good candidates for Democrats. Once the primaries are done, however, it'll be a new ballgame and excitement among Democrats will build. But, if Mr. Cruz or Mr. Trump is the nominee, there's no way in hell Dems will, en masse, stay home.

Lastly, why is it unlikely that Dems and Indies will cross to Mr. Trump? Mainly, IMO, because both groups have lots of intellectuals and they can see right through Mr. Trump's BS.

 

[Fishlore]

Our parties, particularly the two major parties with quasi-constitutional control over the electoral and legislative processes of the federal government, are marketing vehicles, not ideological or philosophical centers. Think of them as advertising agencies. What they say and do is controlled by their clients, the paying customers who hire them to promote various candidates and legislative products.

The Republican Party has "shifted to the right" over the past twenty years because the customers are selling different products. Trump is a new customer in the market. His brand is selling heightened hostility to immigration, and end to so-called "free trade," a flat tax system, and, of course, Donald J. Trump for President. None of these products are new on the market but the Trump brand has an angry, confrontational style noticeably different from the products of former clients such as McCain and Romney.

Those of us who remember the TV series Mad Men can imagine how a shift in clientel can cause an ad agency to take on a very different public image. We have also seen how an agency can be bought from its senior partners as part of a corporate transformation or take-over. Both are under way in the GOP.

Like similar corporations, the Republican Party is a corporate shell. The money comes in, the staff earns its salary by spending the clients' money to get the clients the popularity and the sales that the clients want. The Republican Party doesn't make the legislative products it sells and it doesn't necessarily chose the candidates it advertises. In both cases, the decisions are made behind the scenes by the folks who put up the dough.

Corporations are people too, my friends.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I do not support various political candidates and organizations because I agree with them. I support them because they agree with me.

 

[Mac1958]

So... the state of the Republican Party... yikes. I don't keep up with politics on an in-depth basis, but for those who know, exactly how bad is it right now? Like, "the party might collapse" bad? It looks pretty awful from the outside, but the media has a vested interest in making things look worse than they are, if only because drama means ratings. I'm an independent, so I wouldn't exactly weep for the GOP's passing, but the prospect of a single dominant national party in the wake makes me understandably apprehensive.

If Republican collapse is a real possibility, would the third parties that aren't totally insignificant (which pretty much means the Green and Libertarian parties) step up to prominence in its place, or would an entirely new party form in the power vacuum?

The last time America was under a one-party system (defined in this case as a party that has no appreciable competition for the White House and consistently holds more than two-thirds of both Congressional houses), it was from 1817 to 1827, during James Madison's presidency and shortly after. In an era before the internet, before television, before radio, before the telephone, even before the telegraph, it "only" took ten years before national races became competitive again.

On the other hand, the founding of the country was still in living memory at that time. The way of doing things was much more fluid, and we were still having to figure things out as we went along. Change was easier. Now? Not so much. Would the near-infinite improvements in communications make a successor party materialize faster, or would the now-much-stronger power structures in Washington slow the process down?

I don't how this thing gets put together again. It's now in three pieces: Traditional right-leaning moderates, Christian conservatives and this weird Trump-inspired nationalist/populist group.

This would be no big deal if the three could just calm down and get along, but does anyone see that happening any time soon?
.

 

[Agit8r]

It's a rebuilding year for them in federal elections. They won't be in danger of going extinct until Democrats start voting in state and local elections, and in mid-term elections.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's a rebuilding year for them in federal elections. They won't be in danger of going extinct until Democrats start voting in state and local elections, and in mid-term elections.

Mid-terms most especially. LOL

I may have to check at some point. I wonder if there historically have been an unusual number of cause-driven fundraisers, PTA meetings or something hosted on the night of most mid-term elections, the competing priorities thereby keeping Dems away from the polls? LOL

 

[Maryland Patriot]

"Is the GOP truly close to collapsing..."

No.

But the GOP is badly divided, moderates at war with reactionary extremists fearful of change and hostile to sound, responsible governance.

The extremists want to implement policies which are clearly wrong, unwarranted, and opposed by a majority of the American people.

It's usually at this point a rightwing extremist will chime in and ask:

“What's 'extreme' about wanting a balanced budget?”

There's nothing extreme about wanting a balanced budget, what's extreme is how most on the reactionary right wish to achieve a balanced budget – by cutting funding for necessary, proper, and Constitutional social programs and regulatory measures, by seeking to balance the budget on the backs of low income working Americans, the disabled, retired Americans, and children, while at the same time cutting corporate taxes and increasing spending on the military and corporate welfare.

No, the GOP isn't going anywhere, but as long as sensible moderates are in conflict with wrongheaded extremists and reactionaries, their success on a National level will be limited.

are you sure those social programs are constitutional?
I don''t think that's what the constitution indicated when written.
Social Welfare

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Oh, and I personally think the GOP as we now know it is going to collapse.
They have strayed so far from what the conservative voters are looking for that a total change and reorganization of the party has to take place. I think thats the reason that Trump is doing so well. He regardless of his lack of experience and knowledge (lets leave it at that) represents a backlash from the voters that can only be a warning that all politicians seats are in danger should they continue on their current course.
So, Yes, I think that the collapse is coming, but I dont think it means that the republican party is going to become extinct, I think that its just going to be reformed by bringing in regular people to do the job.
I have to question if it was ever intended that congressmen be allowed to stay in their seats for 40 or so years. Term limits on everyone except the Supreme Court is needed.

 

[Disir]

So... the state of the Republican Party... yikes. I don't keep up with politics on an in-depth basis, but for those who know, exactly how bad is it right now? Like, "the party might collapse" bad? It looks pretty awful from the outside, but the media has a vested interest in making things look worse than they are, if only because drama means ratings. I'm an independent, so I wouldn't exactly weep for the GOP's passing, but the prospect of a single dominant national party in the wake makes me understandably apprehensive.

If Republican collapse is a real possibility, would the third parties that aren't totally insignificant (which pretty much means the Green and Libertarian parties) step up to prominence in its place, or would an entirely new party form in the power vacuum?

The last time America was under a one-party system (defined in this case as a party that has no appreciable competition for the White House and consistently holds more than two-thirds of both Congressional houses), it was from 1817 to 1827, during James Madison's presidency and shortly after. In an era before the internet, before television, before radio, before the telephone, even before the telegraph, it "only" took ten years before national races became competitive again.

On the other hand, the founding of the country was still in living memory at that time. The way of doing things was much more fluid, and we were still having to figure things out as we went along. Change was easier. Now? Not so much. Would the near-infinite improvements in communications make a successor party materialize faster, or would the now-much-stronger power structures in Washington slow the process down?

It's a war between rich folk. Tea versus the Chamber of Commerce. The party, in and of itself, will go nowhere. It will simply reinvent itself. And when the people decide what it is they want then it will change into a war between the people and the folks that profit off of bs. These morons have decided that they want it all and in doing so have allowed the wages to decrease or the layoffs to occur to the point that people cannot survive.

They have spent years pointing the finger at Obama or liberals they don't have anything.

Democrats are in a similar position.

 

[Disir]

We've heard this about the Republican party every election now for at least the last 10-15 years. Funny how they never assume the Democrat party is collapsing? I've shortened this assessment, the whole article is the site

Snippet
The numbers are staggering. In 2010, the GOP captured the House by gaining 63 seats. In 2014, they took control of the Senate. And the damage has been just as ruinous for the Democrats at the state level. The Republicans now have 31 governors and fully control 30 state legislatures.


snip:
Obama has destroyed the Democrats
LeRoy Goldman, GUEST COLUMNIST 12:41 p.m. EDT September 4, 2015
LeRoy Goldman lives in Flat Rock. He was a member of the federal government’s senior executive service for many years.

By the time a president reaches the last couple of years in office, his attention inevitably turns to his legacy. A president’s legacy, whether good or ill, is built upon accomplishments, not rhetoric. Therefore, it’s not hard to identify what this president would point to as the legacy bookends of his eight years in office. At the front end is the enactment of Obamacare. At the back end is the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Presidential scholars, political pundits, and the American people will debate and disagree regarding the worthiness of both of these two monumental undertakings. You can be certain that when the Obama Presidential Library opens in Chicago it will make the case that healthcare was reformed by Obamacare, and the world was made safer by the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Alternatively, it’s entirely possible that the voters in 2016 and beyond will make the countervailing argument.


. Obama has virtually destroyed the Democratic Party. And the Democrats, like lemmings, have been willing accomplices in their own demise.

It was opposition to Obamacare that produced the enormous gains the GOP made in 2010 and 2014. Rather than delaying health care reform in the face of an imploding economy in 2009, Obama chose to ram it through Congress with only the support of Democrats. It was a catastrophic blunder.



In a recent column in Politico entitled, Democratic Blues, Jeff Greenfield says, “In fact, no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party.”


Obama has decimated the Democratic Party. What remains is a geriatric joke: Hillary 69, Sanders 74, Biden 74, Kerry 73, Warren 66, Reid 75, and Pelosi 75. A political party, unwilling to challenge its president when necessary, deserves its ignominious fate.

all of it here:
Obama has destroyed the Democrats

When it doubt, blame the Democrats or the liberal because any type of reflection on the GOP is forbidden.

 

[320 Years of History]

When it doubt, blame the Democrats or the liberal because any type of reflection on the GOP is forbidden.

I can't deny that I was torn between ticking "funny" or "agree" re: your comment.

 

[Fishlore]

I do not support various political candidates and organizations because I agree with them. I support them because they agree with me.

This is a cute conceit; however, you are voting for someone to lead you, someone who, in all likleyhood has no idea who you are. In this context, your agreement with them seems more plausible than their agreement with you.