quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

quote:

I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

Agreed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

I've always loathed Trump..

Race is over - New York is the nail that finished the republican race.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

Agreed

quote:

Every Democrat I speak to is utterly convinced that if Trump gets the nomination it'll be a Clinton landslide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


I've always loathed Trump..

Race is over - New York is the nail that finished the republican race.

I loathe the guy too...

I rather lean towards something I heard dana perino say last night, that she wants to see the Indiana results before she puts any nails in ted cruz's coffin.

quote:

With support for candidates calcifying in many of the upcoming states on the Republican primary calendar, there are few true battlegrounds left that could swing the outcome of the race, either handing the GOP nomination to Donald Trump or stopping him in his tracks.

Indiana, which votes May 3, is one of them...

Due to a dearth of public polling in Indiana, however, it’s not clear how large Cruz’s advantage might be, if he indeed has one. One recent private poll not affiliated with any of the presidential campaigns showed Cruz leading in two congressional districts, Kasich in one, and Trump dominating in two more. Three other congressional districts, meanwhile, showed Cruz and Kasich essentially tied.

For Cruz’s campaign, Indiana presents a landscape not unlike Wisconsin, where Cruz dominated Trump by 13 points. In the Badger State, Cruz used an endorsement by Gov. Scott Walker to capture momentum; in Indiana, he will likely hope for the same from Pence, whose policies closely align with Cruz’s. Meanwhile, his organization is expected to ratchet up in kind...

Although there are just 57 delegates at stake in Indiana, the contest is one of the few remaining wild cards on the primary map. If Cruz or Kasich do not win, the Republican race could quickly spiral out of their control. If Trump does not win Indiana, however, his delegate math becomes exceedingly difficult to win the nomination before Cleveland.

The tension between Cruz and Kasich has seemed to build in the days since the New York primary, particularly with Indiana now looming. “[Kasich’s] plan apparently rests on losing 49 states, going to the convention, and having all the delegates say, ‘The guy who lost every state in the union except his home state, he should be our nominee,’” Cruz said at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Florida. “That, quite simply, is not going to happen. What John Kasich is doing is he’s helping Donald Trump.”

"At this point,” Cruz added, “John Kasich is an honorable and decent man whose only role in this election is as a spoiler.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

I think there's a certain ebb and flow to consider here. After all, one might have thought that the Democrats were down and out after the Civil War, when the Republicans had most of the country and were still able to ride the coattails of Lincoln's popularity and reveling in their victory. From 1868 to 1912, we had 8 Republicans and only 1 Democrat in the White House. Teddy Roosevelt may have been partly responsible for a split in the party, although that was starting already. Wilson won in 1912 and 1916, then the Republicans enjoyed a brief comeback in the 1920s. But once the Great Depression took hold, the Republicans were discredited in the voters' eyes, which paved the way for FDR's victory in 1932, which is when American politics took a different direction.

By the end of WW2, the old guard and mostly isolationist Republicans were out of the picture, while the internationalist Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. were gaining greater influence in the party. The Cold War and the second Red Scare also helped boost the careers of men like Nixon and McCarthy. Truman was also in a position where he had to distance himself from some of the more progressive members of the FDR Administration, since they were seen as a bit too friendly to the Soviet Union. Then the Dixiecrats also started falling out. Lodge was also influential in convincing Ike to run on the Republican ticket, which was a big boost for the GOP. The Republicans came back with a vengeance and were a force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were starting to fall apart. Although they won in '60 and '64, they might consider Pyrrhic victories in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assassination, and the escalation of the war in Southeast Asia - not to mention the tumultuous Civil Rights movement and the GOP's adoption of their Southern Strategy. Despite signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Great Society, LBJ's popularity plummeted among the younger progressives who were against the Vietnam War and who also wanted more far-reaching changes that the old guard Democrats were resistant to. 1968 was a very bad year for Democrats, what with the assassinations of RFK, MLK, and violence at their political convention. And it didn't stop there.

The problem for the Democrats is that a lot of the party leadership was falling all over itself to avoid being branded as "radical." Even George McGovern, who was lambasted as a radical, didn't really act like one. He could have doubled down and put a full court press on Nixon over the Watergate affair, but that never became a major issue in the campaign. There were a lot of things they could have attacked Nixon on, but it's like they just got soft and lost the fire in their bellies. They turned into a party of wimps who had no balls anymore. They only barely won in '76 due to Ford's pardoning of Nixon and his mishandling of the economy, thinking that wearing "WIN" buttons would somehow magically end inflation. Carter's major failure was his ineffective way of handling the Iranian hostage crisis. There were still divisions within the Democratic Party, and Reagan was able to capitalize on that.

Reagan also introduced the famous "11th commandment": Thou shalt speak no ill will of your fellow Republicans. While they were always outnumbered by Democrats, the Republicans appeared far better organized and far more unified than the disorganized, divided Democrats. In '84 and '88, the Democrats nominated two more wimps who lost badly to the GOP. I still chuckle over the image of Michael Dukakis riding on a tank in the '88 election. I was a bit surprised at Clinton's victory in '92, but after seeing how he managed to muscle other Democrats and ramrodded NAFTA into passage, I realized the reason why he won. Just as "only Nixon could go to China," only Clinton could have gotten NAFTA passed. Perot was also a factor, although he was opposed to NAFTA, he may have taken some social conservative votes away from the GOP in '92 and '96.

Gore was a joke. I never forgot Tipper Gore's mad crusade against filthy rock lyrics which totally pissed me off and seemed unbecoming and irrelevant to the core issues of the Democratic Party. The Democrats started to go into la-la land, abandoning working people in favor of anti-smoking crusades, higher cigarette taxes, and other social issues which had nothing to do with making life better for working people. And the President who "didn't inhale" was also against the legalization of pot. I recall a debate between William F. Buckley, a conservative in favor of legalization versus Charles Rangel, a liberal who was against it. I wondered what the fuck had happened to the Democrats. Where were their principles? Where were their balls?

The Republicans may be unpopular, but the only reason they're still in the running is because the Democrats have few people who will stand up for working people. Sanders is a breath of fresh air, but look at how the Democratic machine is handling it. They need more agitators, people to stir the shit and rile the masses into a frenzy. The people are angry, and they need a political leader who can reflect and embody that anger. I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

I think there's a certain ebb and flow to consider here. After all, one might have thought that the Democrats were down and out after the Civil War, when the Republicans had most of the country and were still able to ride the coattails of Lincoln's popularity and reveling in their victory. From 1868 to 1912, we had 8 Republicans and only 1 Democrat in the White House. Teddy Roosevelt may have been partly responsible for a split in the party, although that was starting already. Wilson won in 1912 and 1916, then the Republicans enjoyed a brief comeback in the 1920s. But once the Great Depression took hold, the Republicans were discredited in the voters' eyes, which paved the way for FDR's victory in 1932, which is when American politics took a different direction.

By the end of WW2, the old guard and mostly isolationist Republicans were out of the picture, while the internationalist Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. were gaining greater influence in the party. The Cold War and the second Red Scare also helped boost the careers of men like Nixon and McCarthy. Truman was also in a position where he had to distance himself from some of the more progressive members of the FDR Administration, since they were seen as a bit too friendly to the Soviet Union. Then the Dixiecrats also started falling out. Lodge was also influential in convincing Ike to run on the Republican ticket, which was a big boost for the GOP. The Republicans came back with a vengeance and were a force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were starting to fall apart. Although they won in '60 and '64, they might consider Pyrrhic victories in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assassination, and the escalation of the war in Southeast Asia - not to mention the tumultuous Civil Rights movement and the GOP's adoption of their Southern Strategy. Despite signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Great Society, LBJ's popularity plummeted among the younger progressives who were against the Vietnam War and who also wanted more far-reaching changes that the old guard Democrats were resistant to. 1968 was a very bad year for Democrats, what with the assassinations of RFK, MLK, and violence at their political convention. And it didn't stop there.

The problem for the Democrats is that a lot of the party leadership was falling all over itself to avoid being branded as "radical." Even George McGovern, who was lambasted as a radical, didn't really act like one. He could have doubled down and put a full court press on Nixon over the Watergate affair, but that never became a major issue in the campaign. There were a lot of things they could have attacked Nixon on, but it's like they just got soft and lost the fire in their bellies. They turned into a party of wimps who had no balls anymore. They only barely won in '76 due to Ford's pardoning of Nixon and his mishandling of the economy, thinking that wearing "WIN" buttons would somehow magically end inflation. Carter's major failure was his ineffective way of handling the Iranian hostage crisis. There were still divisions within the Democratic Party, and Reagan was able to capitalize on that.

Reagan also introduced the famous "11th commandment": Thou shalt speak no ill will of your fellow Republicans. While they were always outnumbered by Democrats, the Republicans appeared far better organized and far more unified than the disorganized, divided Democrats. In '84 and '88, the Democrats nominated two more wimps who lost badly to the GOP. I still chuckle over the image of Michael Dukakis riding on a tank in the '88 election. I was a bit surprised at Clinton's victory in '92, but after seeing how he managed to muscle other Democrats and ramrodded NAFTA into passage, I realized the reason why he won. Just as "only Nixon could go to China," only Clinton could have gotten NAFTA passed. Perot was also a factor, although he was opposed to NAFTA, he may have taken some social conservative votes away from the GOP in '92 and '96.

Gore was a joke. I never forgot Tipper Gore's mad crusade against filthy rock lyrics which totally pissed me off and seemed unbecoming and irrelevant to the core issues of the Democratic Party. The Democrats started to go into la-la land, abandoning working people in favor of anti-smoking crusades, higher cigarette taxes, and other social issues which had nothing to do with making life better for working people. And the President who "didn't inhale" was also against the legalization of pot. I recall a debate between William F. Buckley, a conservative in favor of legalization versus Charles Rangel, a liberal who was against it. I wondered what the fuck had happened to the Democrats. Where were their principles? Where were their balls?

The Republicans may be unpopular, but the only reason they're still in the running is because the Democrats have few people who will stand up for working people. Sanders is a breath of fresh air, but look at how the Democratic machine is handling it. They need more agitators, people to stir the shit and rile the masses into a frenzy. The people are angry, and they need a political leader who can reflect and embody that anger. I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

I agree with most of this except that the post WWII repubs became corporatists who actually managed to get the govt. to take a union into receivership (consent decree forced upon it) for its corruption. Something you will never see the govt. do to a corrupt corp.while even the courts likely wouldn't let that happen, (see FDR/Truman) essentially declaring the corp. being a private entity dueto its 'private' wealth. Whereas we know of course..labor is not legally 'private' wealth at all so the unions or 'institutions' do not enjoy such immunity.

BUT the OP is about the dems having the white house 16 of the last 24 years and receiving more votes for the house while having the smallest minority in years on top of the wretched state of the union as it were when Bush II left office. It is about how they doubled down on states and house districts and for example how if the dems were pulling now in the senate vis-a-vis the supreme court, would have the pres, on AF I going to every state and district lambasting dems for their failure to even give a hearing to a nominee let alone...a vote. That's where the dems should be now. Pounding into every independent and fence-sitter out there how this is unprecedented.

So you somewhat accurately reflect history before Reagan but the OP more accurately reflects the repub party today and of the last 22 years and what we may see...for the future especially if HRC wins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

I think there's a certain ebb and flow to consider here. After all, one might have thought that the Democrats were down and out after the Civil War, when the Republicans had most of the country and were still able to ride the coattails of Lincoln's popularity and reveling in their victory. From 1868 to 1912, we had 8 Republicans and only 1 Democrat in the White House. Teddy Roosevelt may have been partly responsible for a split in the party, although that was starting already. Wilson won in 1912 and 1916, then the Republicans enjoyed a brief comeback in the 1920s. But once the Great Depression took hold, the Republicans were discredited in the voters' eyes, which paved the way for FDR's victory in 1932, which is when American politics took a different direction.

By the end of WW2, the old guard and mostly isolationist Republicans were out of the picture, while the internationalist Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. were gaining greater influence in the party. The Cold War and the second Red Scare also helped boost the careers of men like Nixon and McCarthy. Truman was also in a position where he had to distance himself from some of the more progressive members of the FDR Administration, since they were seen as a bit too friendly to the Soviet Union. Then the Dixiecrats also started falling out. Lodge was also influential in convincing Ike to run on the Republican ticket, which was a big boost for the GOP. The Republicans came back with a vengeance and were a force to be reckoned with.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were starting to fall apart. Although they won in '60 and '64, they might consider Pyrrhic victories in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assassination, and the escalation of the war in Southeast Asia - not to mention the tumultuous Civil Rights movement and the GOP's adoption of their Southern Strategy. Despite signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Great Society, LBJ's popularity plummeted among the younger progressives who were against the Vietnam War and who also wanted more far-reaching changes that the old guard Democrats were resistant to. 1968 was a very bad year for Democrats, what with the assassinations of RFK, MLK, and violence at their political convention. And it didn't stop there.

The problem for the Democrats is that a lot of the party leadership was falling all over itself to avoid being branded as "radical." Even George McGovern, who was lambasted as a radical, didn't really act like one. He could have doubled down and put a full court press on Nixon over the Watergate affair, but that never became a major issue in the campaign. There were a lot of things they could have attacked Nixon on, but it's like they just got soft and lost the fire in their bellies. They turned into a party of wimps who had no balls anymore. They only barely won in '76 due to Ford's pardoning of Nixon and his mishandling of the economy, thinking that wearing "WIN" buttons would somehow magically end inflation. Carter's major failure was his ineffective way of handling the Iranian hostage crisis. There were still divisions within the Democratic Party, and Reagan was able to capitalize on that.

Reagan also introduced the famous "11th commandment": Thou shalt speak no ill will of your fellow Republicans. While they were always outnumbered by Democrats, the Republicans appeared far better organized and far more unified than the disorganized, divided Democrats. In '84 and '88, the Democrats nominated two more wimps who lost badly to the GOP. I still chuckle over the image of Michael Dukakis riding on a tank in the '88 election. I was a bit surprised at Clinton's victory in '92, but after seeing how he managed to muscle other Democrats and ramrodded NAFTA into passage, I realized the reason why he won. Just as "only Nixon could go to China," only Clinton could have gotten NAFTA passed. Perot was also a factor, although he was opposed to NAFTA, he may have taken some social conservative votes away from the GOP in '92 and '96.

Gore was a joke. I never forgot Tipper Gore's mad crusade against filthy rock lyrics which totally pissed me off and seemed unbecoming and irrelevant to the core issues of the Democratic Party. The Democrats started to go into la-la land, abandoning working people in favor of anti-smoking crusades, higher cigarette taxes, and other social issues which had nothing to do with making life better for working people. And the President who "didn't inhale" was also against the legalization of pot. I recall a debate between William F. Buckley, a conservative in favor of legalization versus Charles Rangel, a liberal who was against it. I wondered what the fuck had happened to the Democrats. Where were their principles? Where were their balls?

The Republicans may be unpopular, but the only reason they're still in the running is because the Democrats have few people who will stand up for working people. Sanders is a breath of fresh air, but look at how the Democratic machine is handling it. They need more agitators, people to stir the shit and rile the masses into a frenzy. The people are angry, and they need a political leader who can reflect and embody that anger. I've always loathed Trump, but I get the sense that the Democrats are underestimating the guy. This may be a mistake. I expect there to be some fireworks at both conventions, and things will likely heat up as we get closer to November.

I agree with most of this except that the post WWII repubs became corporatists who actually managed to get the govt. to take a union into receivership (consent decree forced upon it) for its corruption. Something you will never see the govt. do to a corrupt corp.while even the courts likely wouldn't let that happen, (see FDR/Truman) essentially declaring the corp. being a private entity dueto its 'private' wealth. Whereas we know of course..labor is not legally 'private' wealth at all so the unions or 'institutions' do not enjoy such immunity.

BUT the OP is about the dems having the white house 16 of the last 24 years and receiving more votes for the house while having the smallest minority in years on top of the wretched state of the union as it were when Bush II left office. It is about how they doubled down on states and house districts and for example how if the dems were pulling now in the senate vis-a-vis the supreme court, would have the pres, on AF I going to every state and district lambasting dems for their failure to even give a hearing to a nominee let alone...a vote. That's where the dems should be now. Pounding into every independent and fence-sitter out there how this is unprecedented.

So you somewhat accurately reflect history before Reagan but the OP more accurately reflects the repub party today and of the last 22 years and what we may see...for the future especially if HRC wins.

Obviously you haven't heard about Southeast bank. Or diversified mortgage. Or Countrywide.

As for popular vote: votes are always decided by electoral college. Cities have always been underrepresented - deliberately so, since cities throw off cash, they represent opportunities for corruption. This is why most states are arranged along the lines of the us government - house and senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Willfully missing the point.

Being forced out of business is worse than receivership.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Willfully missing the point.

Being forced out of business is worse than receivership.

None of those businesses were forced out of business, they went bankrupt. If you had bothered to read the link. There was Southeast bank and Southeast Holding Co. The two institutions suffered different fates: the bank was seized by federal regulators (to insure depositors like any other bank) and sold to First Union, while the holding company filed for bankruptcy. As I said and to the point, was that there was no consent decree with the DOJ forcing them under govt. control such as the Teamsters union.

BP can blow 11 people to smithereens, coal companies can blow people up or bury them alive. There are are no consent decrees, they're fined and that was it. And in fact, down on the gulf with BP...nothing has changed. They and other oil co. or coal co. are free do it all over again...get clean away with murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

FR to the OP

Suggested reading for all Republicans.

The Constitution. The WHOLE FUCKING THING, including the preamble. Not just Article 2 where some seem to believe it begins and ends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Willfully missing the point.

Being forced out of business is worse than receivership.

None of those businesses were forced out of business, they went bankrupt. If you had bothered to read the link. There was Southeast bank and Southeast Holding Co. The two institutions suffered different fates: the bank was seized by federal regulators (to insure depositors like any other bank) and sold to First Union, while the holding company filed for bankruptcy. As I said and to the point, was that there was no consent decree with the DOJ forcing them under govt. control such as the Teamsters union.

BP can blow 11 people to smithereens, coal companies can blow people up or bury them alive. There are are no consent decrees, they're fined and that was it. And in fact, down on the gulf with BP...nothing has changed. They and other oil co. or coal co. are free do it all over again...get clean away with murder.

Still missing the point. But its not worth explaining to you or zonie. Your argument is unpersuasive, I feel no need to elaborate. Anytime you think the government is too biased in favor of corporations - just take a look at GM, or the EEOC, or the NLRB.