Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

They are going to have to legit get their shit together if they ever want to hold office again.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

They are going to have to legit get their shit together if they ever want to hold office again.

Pretty sure during the next President's term there will probably be another tragedy on American soil, so more than likely the other party will get elected in 2020. I hate the two-party system so much.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

75% of Republicans think Trump is a moron.

Remember Herman Cain? Michelle Bachmann? Me neither.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

Strat wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

There's more to government than the Presidency.

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

they will have a tough time nationally for awhile though, I think. I see more deadlock in our future. I suppose it could be worse.

turned2black wrote:I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

I agree. The demographic trends certainly hurt them in the electoral college.

turned2black wrote:I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

4/5 wrote:electoral college.

ugh. Don't even get me started.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Strat wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

There's more to government than the Presidency.

What?

What if John Titor was right, but things somehow just got delayed by 15 years?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

stip wrote:except the millions of people he has brought together and helped legitimate will still be here.

Nate silver has his support among the electorate as a whole, nation wide, at around 6-8%. That's the same amount of people that believe the moon landing was staged. There will always be that amount of batshit crazy people around. This isn't new.

Sure, but their mainstream presence legitimates the far larger percentage of people who sympathize with the general positions even if they aren't fully on board the trump train. Now the intolerance of the other candidates looks moderate.

4/5 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.