Was This Election The Beginning of The End of The Republican Party.

[BigLouie]

Did this election mark the beginning of the end of the Republican party as we know it today. Is the party of Rush and Glen and Ann and Newt dying and they just don't realize it.

The Republican party is based on white males, rich white males. At one time they made up the majority of the voting public. You won an election if you could get enough to vote for you. In this election Romney won the largest percentage of white male votes ever and lost easily. The standing of the Republican party with non-whites and females is so low many are saying that they will never contend for the presidency again.

Could the same be happening to the Senate. The Democrats were in control of the Senate and picked up more seats. Could it be that the Republicans lose more Senate seats in the future never again to control the Senate? And how long before this starts happening in the House. While Republicans hold a majority how long before, district by district do the Republican lose the House?

The question is, how long can the Republican can stay with their anti-women's reproduction rights, anti-illegals, basically anti- anyone and anything not white male and expect to be able to contend on a national level.

[camouflage]

Its a pretty mixed bag at the state level

Rising number of states seeing one-party rule
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ne-party-rule/

In a little-noticed footnote to last week’s election, state legislature elections this year have produced the highest number of states with one-party rule in 60 years. Democrats or Republicans now have sole control of the governorship and both legislative chambers in 37 state capitals around the country.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks party representation in the country’s 50 state governments, Democrats now control all three bases of power – the governorship and both houses of the state legislature – in 14 states and Republicans in 23, with only 12 states sharing power. (Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is considered nonpartisan.)

Conversely, after last week’s vote, the GOP for the first time since 1872 now controls the Arkansas House and Senate. Just 20 years ago, Republicans didn’t have a majority in a single legislative house in the states of the old Confederacy – now they control all 11.
The number of states with divided government is down from 31 just 16 years ago to 12 today, prompting speculation on the country’s evolving partisan geography.

With state legislatures often seen as by the parties as the “farm team” for recruiting national candidates, both Republican and Democratic party officials were trying to spin the results of last week’s voting in their favor. Two years ago, Republicans scored stunning state-level gains in the 2010 wave election that also brought them control of the U.S. House of Representatives, but this year the results were far more mixed.
Democrats reclaimed majorities they had lost in 2010 in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the Minnesota House and Senate. They also took control of the Colorado House, the Oregon House, the Maine House and Senate and the New York Senate, for a total of eight pick-ups.
In addition to the Arkansas sweep, Republicans could point to only one other pick-up, but it was a satisfying one: the Wisconsin state Senate, where Democrats enjoyed a brief majority as a result of a number of recall elections this summer. GOP officials said the final tally was not as bad as it could have been, considering the defeat of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the party’s weak showing in U.S. Senate races.

[JD Barleycorn]

I had to see if Louise posted something stupid or just pasted something stupid. I think I was right on both counts. Louise do yourself a favor and look up 1994, 2006, 2008, and 2010. There is always an announce from some idiot that one party or the other is dead. I would be more worried about your party. Though the democrats may have won this election, look at what they stood for: pro-islam, pro-arab, pro-abortion (not the same as choice), anti-god (any god but Allah I guess), anti-US military, anti-US strength, anti- US foreign policy, and a blind eye on terrorism. I would worry that the democratic party has become the Progressive-Islamist party in all but name.

[Poet Laureate]

Everything is cyclical. The Republicans could have defeated Obama if they had fielded a stronger candidate. If the President has another four year term like the first one, then the Republicans should bounce back, at least on the national level.
-
And pay attention to to fact that the Republican control more states top to bottom than do the Democrats. The problem is that in a national election, the Democrats start with many more electoral votes in their pockets than the Republicans. The Democratic stranglehold on California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania gives them a solid base, and a need to win fewer than ten other states, if they're the right ten. The only solidly Republican state with a high number of electoral votes is Texas, and if the GOP doesn't start courting the Latino vote soon and aggresively, they could lose that, too.

[i'va biggen]

Keep making excuses for your loss.When the republicans decide they want to represent all Americans instead of the privileged they will have a better chance of winning.

[Jackie S]

Yes, perhaps as we know it.
But as the link provided by Camouflage noted, the Repubican Party is alive and well at the State and Local Level.

Tip O'neil frequently stated that all politics is local. The Tea Party, and many of the factions that have similiar ideas, recognize this.
If you look at the electoral map by Counties, the darned thing looks almost Red. The Democrat Party has concentrated on pockets of dense population, the Republican everything else.

The truth is, while the Republicans did not gain the White House and lost Senate Seats, they gained one Governorship, and now controle over 30 percent of the State Governments out right.

Keep in mind, political tides change. The voting population seems to go through eras of conservative thought, then more liberal, only to swing back again, and then back. Just in my adult life I have seen The Johnson years, then the Nixon Years, The Carter Years, then The Reagan Years, (Bush 41 included in this), followed by the Clinton Years, Then the Bush 43 years, and Obama. At each one of these, Americans were thinking, 'the tide is changing'.

And it did, for about 4 to 8 years. Then, it's the other sides turn again.

I think the American Electorate is very fickle. What it gives, it takes away. Maybe that is why the system, despite all of it's flaws, does seem to work.

[I B Hankering]

The heir apparent to carry the Dimocrat banner in 2016 is Joe "The Gaffe" Biden. Should the Dimocrat party choose the reject Joe "The Gaffe" Biden and every other Old White Guy in 2016, and subsequent elections, how long will those Old White Guys still remain in the Dimocrat party? How long will it be before the American labor movement again rises up and opposes unrestrained immigration as it did in the 1880s and 90s under the leadership of Samuel Gompers.

Gompers, like most labor leaders of his era, opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe because it lowered wages, and opposed all immigration from Asia because it lowered wages and represented (to him) an alien culture that could not be easily assimilated. He and the AF of L strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Actof 1882 that banned the immigration of Chinese. The AF of L was instrumental in passing immigration restriction laws from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_...oreign_affairs

[JD Barleycorn]

Bear in mind that the Tea Party picked up two more Senators with Cruz and Fischer. it is expected to lose a few seats, that is politics but the big story that our lefties are missing is that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are building a base.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Louie do yourself a favor and look up 1994, 2006, 2008, and 2010. There is always an announce from some idiot that one party or the other is dead. I would be more worried about your party. .

As totally clueless and insulting as always. With people like you backing the Republican party it will happen sooner rather than later. The failure to connect across racial lines has doomed the Republican party. You just cannot accept it.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Bear in mind that the Tea Party picked up two more Senators with Cruz and Fischer. it is expected to lose a few seats, that is politics but the big story that our lefties are missing is that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are building a base.

There is a word that will surely spell the demise of the republican party...Sara Palin...Especially if you get Bachman involved...

[Fast Gunn]

Some political parties eventually just go out of style.

Who even remembers the Whigs and the Tories now?

To remain relevant, a political party must represent enough people to get elected.

The GOP is becoming irrelevant and Bush pushed them over the cliff!

. . . I thought John McCain was a weak candidate, but even he got about 94,000 more votes than Romney in this election!

[trynagetlaid]

It should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. Then they trotted out guys like Romney, Herman Cain, Santorum, Huntsman, Perry...and chose Romney who was the most electable. Then instead of choosing one of the other guys as his running mate he went with a radical Teanut from a state with a Teanut governor, which they didn't even win!!! Comedy of errors. They couldn't have fucked it up any worse if they tried. Most of the inner circle knew they were doomed a month or two before the election, but they were hoping for a miracle. And in spite of all their blunders, they almost got one.

[Guest040616]

I do not believe this is the end of the Republican Party but they do have some serious soul searching to do. As has been pointed out they can no longer handily win the old, white male vote and regularly win elections. They have not invited mainstream minorities or women into their tent. Until they figure out a way to cross that bridge they are doomed for failure.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

It should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. .

There was no way this should have been a slam dunk. Even before the election Romney's camp knew that had to get 38% of the Hispanic vote to get elected. Their problems with non-whites was known by the Republican number crunchers. They just could not make the numbers budge. When he made that stupid 47% speech it was all over. As long as Republicans keep attacking non-whites they are doomed.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Bear in mind that the Tea Party picked up two more Senators with Cruz and Fischer. it is expected to lose a few seats, that is politics but the big story that our lefties are missing is that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are building a base.

It is just a sub-set of current white Republicans. Big Whoop. Not going to make any difference at all.