John Simkin Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 It is highly significant that McCain won the former Confederate states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee. These were all states that were held by the Democrats before the passing of the 1965 Voting Act. On the other hand, those states that supported Abraham Lincoln in the struggle against slavery voted overwhelmingly for Obama. One of the most interesting aspects of the polling concerns the views of Hispanics. In the 2004 election 56% of this group voted for Bush. Early surveys suggested that they were unhappy voting for a black man. This is not surprising as recent immigrants often display racist views as they wish to believe that one group is below them on the social ladder. (It is also the reason why the middle-class and the upward socially mobile are usually less racist than the white unskilled working-class.) However, exit polls show that 57% of Hispanics voted for Obama. They clearly saw Obama as someone on their side. It seems to me that the Republicans have similar problems to that encountered by the Conservative Party in 1997. Like the Republicans, they lost the middle-ground. The problem was that those left tended to hold right-wing views. They therefore elected a right-wing leader and developed policies that were unappealing to the middle-ground. After being beaten in three national elections they accepted their mistake and elected a moderate, David Cameron, as leader. He is now leading the polls and is expected to win the next general election. Like the Conservatives in the UK in 1997 the elected Republicans tend to be on the right. Moderate Republicans, such as Chris Shays of Connecticut, lost their seats. The Republicans also have the Sarah Palin problem. She was clearly popular with the right-wing forces in the US but was a complete turn-off for moderate voters. She is an ambitious politician and is bound to want to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. If she manages this, she will become another Barry Goldwater and will guarrantee a Democrat win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The Democrats are already guaranteed to win the next election, providing America still exists in its present form in four years. The stench from the Bush era will last much longer than four years, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Both parties have failed the citizens of the US. Both need to be dismantled. New parties need to emerge that actually maintain on all levels a commitment to the wellbeing of all the citizens, not just that of certain groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Deitche Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 As a registered Republican (for the time being at least), I was initially attracted to a party of small government, fiscal conservatism, strong defense, pro-law enfocrement. What we have now is big government, fiscal incompetence, scattershot defense and misguided law enforcement. We also have a Republican party that is obsessed with irrelevant social issues like banning gay marriage- which I don't support nor see a need for government to get involved in. The final nails are the anti-science, religious nutcases that have hijacked a significant portion of the party. As someone who voted against McCain and Obama, I can symnpathize with a need for a viable third party. Maybe I'll start my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 As a registered Republican (for the time being at least), I was initially attracted to a party of small government, fiscal conservatism, strong defense, pro-law enfocrement. What we have now is big government, fiscal incompetence, scattershot defense and misguided law enforcement.We also have a Republican party that is obsessed with irrelevant social issues like banning gay marriage- which I don't support nor see a need for government to get involved in. The final nails are the anti-science, religious nutcases that have hijacked a significant portion of the party. As someone who voted against McCain and Obama, I can symnpathize with a need for a viable third party. Maybe I'll start my own. So Scott, who did you end up voting for, independant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Eisenhower was the last of the true Republicans. He was the last president not controlled by the NEW WORLD ORDER gang. I voted for Ike. I still have my I LIKE IKE button. On leaving office, he warned of those who sought to control him. Those presidents after him did as they were told, except for JFK...and you know what he got for thinking he was in control. Every president since then has been a puppet, benign at best and criminal at worst (LBJ, Nixon, Bushes). The difference in the two parties "don't amount to a bucket of warm spit." Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 We also have a Republican party that is obsessed with irrelevant social issues like banning gay marriage- which I don't support nor see a need for government to get involved in. The final nails are the anti-science, religious nutcases that have hijacked a significant portion of the party.As someone who voted against McCain and Obama, I can symnpathize with a need for a viable third party. Maybe I'll start my own. I have read that the bulk of Republican candidates who were swept away in Obama's win were moderates. This is a bad sign for the future of the GOP because all that remains is a dried out husk of religious and economic conservative hardliners. The GOP was irrelevant to the bulk of Americans before the elections, so how irrelevant will they be now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Latest figures show that 55% of all white voters went for McCain. He also got the support of 74% of white evangelicals. This white bias can be seen when looking at other results. In Virginia, for instance, Obama beat McCain by 51% to 47%, while the white Democrat, Mark Warner, beat Republican Jim Gilmore among the exact same electors by 64% to 34%. That means that around 400,000 voted for McCain and Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It is highly significant that McCain won the former Confederate states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee. These were all states that were held by the Democrats before the passing of the 1965 Voting Act. On the other hand, those states that supported Abraham Lincoln in the struggle against slavery voted overwhelmingly for Obama. One of the most interesting aspects of the polling concerns the views of Hispanics. In the 2004 election 56% of this group voted for Bush. Early surveys suggested that they were unhappy voting for a black man. This is not surprising as recent immigrants often display racist views as they wish to believe that one group is below them on the social ladder. (It is also the reason why the middle-class and the upward socially mobile are usually less racist than the white unskilled working-class.) However, exit polls show that 57% of Hispanics voted for Obama. They clearly saw Obama as someone on their side. It seems to me that the Republicans have similar problems to that encountered by the Conservative Party in 1997. Like the Republicans, they lost the middle-ground. The problem was that those left tended to hold right-wing views. They therefore elected a right-wing leader and developed policies that were unappealing to the middle-ground. After being beaten in three national elections they accepted their mistake and elected a moderate, David Cameron, as leader. He is now leading the polls and is expected to win the next general election. Like the Conservatives in the UK in 1997 the elected Republicans tend to be on the right. Moderate Republicans, such as Chris Shays of Connecticut, lost their seats. The Republicans also have the Sarah Palin problem. She was clearly popular with the right-wing forces in the US but was a complete turn-off for moderate voters. She is an ambitious politician and is bound to want to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. If she manages this, she will become another Barry Goldwater and will guarrantee a Democrat win. the future of the GOP (Republican Party), as it currently exists? In one, short word **FINI** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It is highly significant that McCain won the former Confederate states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee. These were all states that were held by the Democrats before the passing of the 1965 Voting Act. On the other hand, those states that supported Abraham Lincoln in the struggle against slavery voted overwhelmingly for Obama. One of the most interesting aspects of the polling concerns the views of Hispanics. In the 2004 election 56% of this group voted for Bush. Early surveys suggested that they were unhappy voting for a black man. This is not surprising as recent immigrants often display racist views as they wish to believe that one group is below them on the social ladder. (It is also the reason why the middle-class and the upward socially mobile are usually less racist than the white unskilled working-class.) However, exit polls show that 57% of Hispanics voted for Obama. They clearly saw Obama as someone on their side. It seems to me that the Republicans have similar problems to that encountered by the Conservative Party in 1997. Like the Republicans, they lost the middle-ground. The problem was that those left tended to hold right-wing views. They therefore elected a right-wing leader and developed policies that were unappealing to the middle-ground. After being beaten in three national elections they accepted their mistake and elected a moderate, David Cameron, as leader. He is now leading the polls and is expected to win the next general election. Like the Conservatives in the UK in 1997 the elected Republicans tend to be on the right. Moderate Republicans, such as Chris Shays of Connecticut, lost their seats. The Republicans also have the Sarah Palin problem. She was clearly popular with the right-wing forces in the US but was a complete turn-off for moderate voters. She is an ambitious politician and is bound to want to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. If she manages this, she will become another Barry Goldwater and will guarrantee a Democrat win. the future of the GOP (Republican Party), as it currently exists? In one, short word **FINI** Well, I'll not shed a tear for them - but would add that I'd like to be able to see the same for the Democrats, as currently constituted, as well. We need new parties - likely a few new ones and proportional representation in the Congress - a whole new system and new paradigms for the new times. I don't see it in the 'cards', sadly - the Men Behind The Curtain love the 2 Party (really wings of one Corporate Business Party) System - they back both sides - so always win. This time is no different. When one of their 'horses' gets off track, they shoot horses - don't they!....... Obama knows well the limits he is confined in and doesn't seem to feel uncomfortable with the constraints. IMO.... Peter- I largely agree, but I will give Obama a little time before I cast judgment on whether he acts independently of the $604,000,000 that he received in campaign contributions. He certainly did an about face on material issues (e.g. his promise to only take public campaign funds and to pull out of Iraq on a pre-designated timetable) once he had HRC in the rear view mirror (which is a sight to behold, I might add). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Latest figures show that 55% of all white voters went for McCain. He also got the support of 74% of white evangelicals. This white bias can be seen when looking at other results. In Virginia, for instance, Obama beat McCain by 51% to 47%, while the white Democrat, Mark Warner, beat Republican Jim Gilmore among the exact same electors by 64% to 34%. That means that around 400,000 voted for McCain and Warner. They should at least rename themselves the white racist party. Truth in advertising is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 The Republicans were humiliated by the Democrats in 1964 but they survived. The Democrats in turn were humiliated by the Republicans in 1980 and in 1984 their presidential nominee, Walter Mondale, only carried Washington DC and (barely) his home state he only got 40% of the popular vote but the party survived. McCain got 46 – 47 % of the popular vote and was leading in the polls before the economy went south; history tells us the Democrats will probably lose seats in the House and Senate in 2010. Though I’d like to think otherwise reports of the death of the Republican Party - like those of Mark Twain during his lifetime – are premature. On the other hand the Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/1...residential-bid Sarah Palin confirmed her status as the most polarising figure in US politics yesterday with a shambolic and confused press conference and speech designed to promote her bid to be the Republican party's presidential candidate in 2012. The immediate public reaction appeared to be strongly divided, with derision from her critics and plaudits from her supporters. The former vice-presidential candidate, who was banned from giving press conferences by John McCain's campaign team during the election, finally held her first at the Republican governors' conference, now being held in Miami. But it lasted only 10 minutes, with a Republican official intervening to try to cut it off after she had answered only three questions. She eventually answered a fourth. Palin, who has given a string of television interviews this week to bolster her credentials for a presidential bid, appealed in her speech to the party's right. She called for a return to traditional Republican values, which she defined as restricting federal spending and limiting the role of the federal government in general. "Losing an election does not have to mean losing our way," she said, but she appeared nervous and uncertain. She used the press conference to try to put the 2008 campaign behind her, and to switch focus to the next test for the Republicans: the 2010 elections for Congress and 36 governorships. US political websites that normally only attract small numbers were inundated with hundreds of comments. On the Politico website, some hailed her as a political rock star while others said her performance confirmed the wisdom of the McCain team in keeping her away from the press. "She makes absolutely no sense when she talks," one said. She has not yet declared she will stand in 2012, but this week did tell an interviewer she was awaiting a signal from God. In Miami yesterday, she described her fellow Republican governors as the bedrock of the party, and well placed to help it rebuild. She will face competition from fellow governors such as Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist and Tim Pawlenty for the presidential nomination. But almost all the media attention at the conference was on Palin. Another potential candidate, Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, told other governors at the conference on Wednesday night: "Anybody here tonight that has thought about the 2012 presidential election needs to keep their eye on the ball. We don't need to talk about 2012." Asked at the press conference whether she planned to stand in 2012, Palin said: "As far as we're concerned, the past is the past, it's behind us. And I, like all of our governors, we're focused on the future. And the future for us is not that 2012 presidential race. It's next year, it's next year and our next budget, and the next reforms in our states, and in 2010 we're going to have 36 governors' positions open across the US." The governors' conference has turned into an inquest into what went wrong in the recent presidential and congressional elections. The governors have divided into two camps: those such as Palin who argue for a return to conservative values, and those such as Crist, the governor of Florida, who favour broadening the appeal of the party. In her speech, Palin called for the governors to support Barack Obama's administration, but at the same time urged them to act as a brake on the Democratic White House and Congress if they attempted to raise taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 The adage about being careful about what you wish for comes to mind but I hope she is the GOP nominee in 2012. That said perhaps 4 years is enough time for handlers and PR people to transform her from a female Dan Quayle into something more substantial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now