patrick.net

smaulgld says

Immigration reform may be off the table by then either through legislation or other concerns and not be an issue at all

As the world goes through re balancing and Mexico grows because of this I wonder if the immigration thing will take care of itself?

smaulgld says

Correct if you look at it from a macro level and assume the current issues are the ones that will matter in 2016.

Well, its safe to say that in 2012 the very same reasons for the GOP losing as the same as today. This is a very broad, far-reaching, historical trend in terms of the US population that has taken the GOP by surprise. The issue is that the GOP spent way too long catering almost exclusively to conservatives- and in particular social conservatives - which are a group that is shrinking.

So with that therein lies the reason the chances of a GOP win in 2016 becomes less likely and even more so with outside interests via the tea party trying to force the GOP into even more conservative positions that are also distasteful to the needed demographics the GOP needs in order to win.

indigenous says

As the world goes through re balancing and Mexico grows because of this I wonder if the immigration thing will take care of itself?

exactly- who knows what the view on immigration will be in 2016?

smaulgld says

Like saying George Bush Senior had the 1992 election sealed after the Gulf War ended in February 1991.

Guess I'm beating the drum the same here but in 1992 the US was a very different country. The same general population trends were not the same and thus 1992 has nothing to do with today or 2016.

edvard2 says

This is a very broad, far-reaching, historical trend in terms of the US population that has taken the GOP by surprise. The issue is that the GOP spent way too long catering almost exclusively to conservatives- and in particular social conservatives - which are a group that is shrinking.

And that is why the republican party will be dragged into spouting pseudo libertarian platitudes that appeal to social liberals

smaulgld says

exactly- who knows what the view on immigration will be in 2016?

I think the point is being missed. Its not necessarily about actual immigration but the attitude that the GOP has of it, and that is what matters to legal immigrants, whom compose of a large and growing voting block. Its rather clear that nothing will get done by the GOP on immigration and if they continue to elect the likes of Brat with his opinions of immigration then the assumption can be made that immigrants will once more turn away from the GOP.

edvard2 says

Guess I'm beating the drum the same here but in 1992 the US was a very different country. The same general population trends were not the same and thus 1992 has nothing to do with today or 2016.

Yes, if your prediction is a based solely on demographics. My analysis is based on issues changing.
Keep in mind demographics and party line voting also change.
African Americans moved from the Republican party of Lincoln to the Democratic party of LBJ (google "lbj civil rights act I'll have those voting for us") Republicans made massive inroads with Dixiecrats under Nixon and Reagan. Clinton won many of them back.

Between now and 2016 the traditional republican and democratic bases may change and independents may shift their allegances or they may be a third party.
Far too early to say a 2016 electorate is locked up

smaulgld says

And that is why the republican party will be dragged into spouting pseudo libertarian platitudes that appeal to social liberals

That has already been tried. The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology. The GOP's stance on libertarian ideas was essentially discredited as a result.

edvard2 says

Its not necessarily about actual immigration but the attitude that the GOP has of it, and that is what matters to legal immigrants, whom compose of a large and growing voting block. Its rather clear that nothing will get done by the GOP on immigration and if they continue to elect the likes of Brat with his opinions of immigration then the assumption can be made that immigrants will once more turn away from the GOP.

Right but the assumption is that Brat, the GOP and the electorate will not change at all between now and 2016. Far more likely that all change then they remain the same. The republican view may be forced to change by a number of events or it may become a discredited view, a non issue or a populist view. There is no way I can state that Cantor getting booted means the democrats win in 2016 or the Republicans lose in 2016

And then there is that connection between the Las Vegas shooters, the Miller's, and the Tea Party...that can't be good advertising.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/09/las-vegas-shooting-spree-product-tea-party-ideology.html

edvard2 says

attitude that the GOP has of it

Hard to define a country without borders.

What exacerbates this is Calif subsidizing the immigrants, destroying jobs because the immigrants have an unfair advantage.

smaulgld says

Between now and 2016 the traditional republican and democratic bases may change and independents may shift their allegances or they may be a third party.

Far too early to say a 2016 electorate is locked up

I suppose we will have to see. But traditional bases do not change overnight. The Democratic base is probably stronger than it ever has. The GOP base is shrinking and since the party is now in turmoil with a lack of a core message there is little reason to see their base strengthen.

I suppose I am just amazed at the GOP's inability to grasp the obvious, which is that they will HAVE to moderate their voice if they care to win in the future. I don't mean suddenly become liberals, but dial it back a bit- as in maybe dial it back to the 1980's or even early 90's. The party still thinks they can win primarily going after uber-conservatives while ignoring the rest. 2008 SHOULD have been something they learned from and if not, 2012 should have made things ridiculously clear and in fact, a lot of the politicians in that party were making such claims. But here they are again, going right back to their little holes and preaching far-right politics to a shrinking base and a growing demographic whom finds such rhetoric distasteful and hence its 2016 for them to lose and if they do, then they will surely... SURELY get the message then... but probably not.

edvard2 says

That has already been tried. The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology. The GOP's stance on libertarian ideas was essentially discredited as a result.

Republicans spout a libertarian brand of politics from time to time. The last two times they pushed it to the front of their platforms-they were split Goldwater -failed Reagan success.
They are set to push it out again in 2014-2016 with Rand Paul an other libertarian leaning pols.

The libertarian angle will bring in anti NSA spying anti foreign military aggression (Syria , Afganistan, Guantanomo)-issues that are not associated with the tea party. It's not where the Republican party is but MAY be in 2016. Again can't begin to predict 2016- just analyze what MIGHT happen.

indigenous says

What exacerbates this is Calif subsidizing the immigrants, destroying jobs because the immigrants have an unfair advantage.

There you go... its that exact same attitude that turns off immigrant groups and makes them vote for Democrats.

smaulgld says

They are set to push it out again in 2014-2016 with Rand Paul an other libertarian leaning pols.

Its going to take a LOT more than the GOP spouting off meaningless libertarian rhetoric for them to change anyone's minds. As I said, the tea party basically ruined that idea for them by making a farce out of it. Thus if the GOP wants to try that libertarian angle again nobody will take them seriously. It will be seen as nothing more than a desperate ploy to get people to ignore their actual stances on conservative politics.

edvard2 says

I suppose we will have to see. But traditional bases do not change overnight. The Democratic base is probably stronger than it ever has. The GOP base is shrinking and since the party is now in turmoil with a lack of a core message there is little reason to see their base strengthen.

Actually I think both parties have weak support. What does it mean to be either?

The republican establishment supports the Neocon/war mongering element and social conservatism which does not have majority support.

The democratic establishment supports big government intervention in everything (drug war, foreign intervention, NSA spying) which does not have majority support.

edvard2 says

There you go... its that exact same attitude that turns off immigrant groups and makes them vote for Democrats

So what.

I would contend that the real problem with the republicans is alloying themselves to this sort of mentality. Which might be the case with Cantor?

Yea there has to be more compromise on the beltway but the Republicans have to know who they are.

They have to be like Eisenhower or Coolidge.

edvard2 says

As I said, the tea party basically ruined that idea for them by making a farce out of it. Thus if the GOP wants to try that libertarian angle again nobody will take them seriously.

YOU won't take them seriously but they won't be courting your vote. The fake libertarian propaganda will be aimed at disaffected republicans, democrats and independents. Even in a Presidential election only half the people eligible to vote do so. Most of them as has been pointed by many here are "low information voters". You over estimate the intelligence of the electorate to fall for propaganda and underestimate the powers of manipulation that both parties have at their disposal.

Right now democrats are probably defined by Hillary Clinton which represents a sort of hope for a restoration of better times.

This is a powerful meme but will it stand up to scrutiny 2 years from now? If Hillary doesn't run or loses primaries can the Democrats redefine themselves with out Hillary?

The Republicans right now are defined by the remnants of George Bush and part tea party.

in 2016 George Bush will be long forgotten, if the tea party dies then there is possibility for a newly defined republican party. If the tea party lives it may be rejuvenated which may help or hurt it.

Will the "anti Hillary" party along be enough to boost Republican chances in 2016?

Again, too many unknowns.

indigenous says

So what.

Its only the reason the GOP Lost in 2012, so yeah... so what...smaulgld says

The fake libertarian propaganda will be aimed at disaffected republicans, democrats and independents.

Let's get real for a second. The only people who would even consider buying a load of libertarian bullshit from the GOP would be other GOP voters. Why would it be any different than it is now? Democratic voters wouldn't touch a GOP politician with a 10 foot pole and independents will know better after the tea party and its claim to being libertarian.

To get to the bottom of this, you should only believe the wingless media segment.

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

Actually it was reported as such in FOX news and so if all things conservative media related must surely be the truth to conservatives then the old hat trick of blaming the "left wing media" won't work on this one. The right wing media is reporting this as well...

Leave it to the liberal left to fuck up a mouse click.

smaulgld says

That was callitcrazy-not my comment!

edvard2 says

Let's get real for a second. The only people who would even consider buying a load of libertarian bullshit from the GOP would be other GOP voters. Why would it be any different than it is now? Democratic voters wouldn't touch a GOP politician with a 10 foot pole and independents will know better after the tea party and its claim to being libertarian

In analyzing rather than cheerleading it's best not to be conclusionary and absolutist- Politics makes strange bedfellows.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Republican-Rand-Paul-fires-up-a-Berkeley-crowd-5332740.php

SoftShell says

Leave it to the liberal left to fuck up a mouse click.

Do you have anything intelligent to add to the debate? Nope. Didn't think so...

smaulgld says

In analyzing rather than cheerleading it's best not to be conclusionary and absolutist- Politics makes strange bedfellows.

My conclusion on this as I think we've both made our points is that what matters is the big picture. The GOP needs to change and so so dramatically. So far they have not in the least and actually seem to be going th other way. The Democrat's formula is clearly working in regards to getting the vote and hence no need for them to change. As such I fail to really see any compelling evidence that there will be any meaningful difference between the two parties come 2016. As such my bets will remain for the Democrats. That's basically it. Of course I could be totally wrong. But I feel fairly comfortable with my opinions as of late.

edvard2 says

The tea party was "supposed" to be all about libertarianism before it rapidly fell into something that had a think outer shell that proclaimed libertarian ideals but in reality was an example of very far-right leaning ideology.

Yes, the irony is that the Tea Party should love immigration, if they really had the libertarian ideals they claim to have and cared about our economy as much as they claim:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-tea-party-should-favor-immigration-2014-06-11?link=MW_story_latest_news

They don't, of course, because most of them are astro-turfed hacks.

Call it Crazy says

Or, will people just vote for her because she could be the "First female president"??

They might

edvard2 says

The GOP needs to change and so so dramatically. So far they have not in the least and actually seem to be going th other way. The Democrat's formula is clearly working in regards to getting the vote and hence no need for them to change. As such I fail to really see any compelling evidence that there will be any meaningful difference between the two parties come 2016.

Last elections in 2010 and 2012 the Democrats lost the house. How is that being effective? Neither party is a shoo in for 2014 or 2016

smaulgld says

Last elections in 2010 and 2012 the Democrats lost the house. How is that being effective? Neither party is a shoo in for 2014 or 2016

Not talking about the house.

Call it Crazy says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

It was a pogrom to get rid of the only Jewish Republican in the entire Congress!!!

smaulgld says

YOU won't take them seriously but they won't be courting your vote

True, but also important is that the GOP never REALLY was trying to "get the minority vote". They were trying to get the disaffected, moderate white voters who can increase their coalition.

I think the minority vote is largely done, and will lean strong D for the foreseeable future. They know by policy who really hates them.

But that white swing voter at least wants to HEAR that you don't hate minorities, even if the rhetoric doesn't match the policy. The moderate white voter just can't bring themselves to vote for overtly racist bastards.

But the GOP can't resist, especially in the current climate, giving a big shout out to the former Dixiecrats whenever the opportunity presents itself.

corntrollio says

Yes, the irony is that the Tea Party should love immigration, if they really had the libertarian ideals they claim to have and cared about our economy as much as they claim:

The tea party is not about ideology its about protest, that is why it won't be used by the Repubs to try and win elections. (the same reason the Dems don't embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement)
The faux libertarian ideology will be trotted out by the Repubs, the Dems will trot out Hillary

edvard2 says

Not talking about the house.

AH you mean Presidential- I think that comes down to personality. Obama would have won in 2008 probably no matter who the Repubs put up- He could have been beaten by a more able candidate in 2012 if the Repubs had one.

If Hillary wins in 2016 it won't be because she is a democrat, but because she is Hillary. Similarly if Biden is the candidate and loses in 2016 it won't be because he is a democrat but because he is Biden

Uh.. considering the TeaParty just ousted one of the most important Republicans in the country... I'm not sure I'd say they're "done".

Obio99 says

Uh.. considering the TeaParty just ousted one of the most important Republicans in the country... I'm not sure I'd say they're "done".

Not done losing contests they can easily win, that's true.

A "victory" like this will encourage them to follow their repugnant ideologies, which turns off the electorate, and forces the GOP to defend the indefensible.

smaulgld says

The tea party is not about ideology its about protest, that is why it won't be used by the Repubs to try and win elections.

Let's stop giving the "Tea Party" more credit than it deserves. It isn't a party, a political movement or a grass roots organizations. Its simply a made-up thing with a convenient faux-libertarian veneer with far-right undertones which makes its eager followers think its some legit thing just for them and their outlandish right wing ideology. That's the veneer. The bulk is simply a tool in which conservative billionaires and the umbrella of industries, trade groups, lobbys, and other outside interests hide behind them without revealing their names use as a means to funnel in loads of money and use that to create campaigns and issues that are only done so in such a way as to stir up these followers and get them to vote for things that only helps these aforementioned outside interests. Its a total manipulation of the system, plain and simple, and all anyone has to do is spend 5 minutes looking it up online to trace where the money comes from and goes.

That alone is the reason I know the tea party is done. They have a totally unsustainable model because the politicians they install are for the most part useless once they're in power since most of their positions are so far removed from reality and hence a further hindrance to the GOP as a whole.

CL says

True, but also important is that the GOP never REALLY was trying to "get the minority vote". They were trying to get the disaffected, moderate white voters who can increase their coalition.

The Cantor election proves the Repubs don't have a strategy. Tea party goes one way, the establishment part of the Reps tries to distance itself. The repubs take the tea party vote but try to distance themselves from it, the same way Democrats took the union vote in the 70's & 80's but tried to distance themselves from it.

Both parties are tired and have suffered losses for lack of positive identity

Dems used to be the champion of the working class, they are now seen as the party of the big bankers (JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) and social elites and war (on drugs, on foreign nations).

Reps used to be seen as the party of small business/chamber of commerce, they are now seen as the party of big oil, big business and war (on drugs, foreign nations, women and immigrants)

There is generally not a positive connotation with either party.

edvard2 says

It isn't a party, a political movement or a grass roots organizations.

Agree the tea party isn't a party it's protest and well backed in most instances.
Most of the tea party candidates that make their way into the house are beholden to their masters.

There are very few independent people in the congress in recent years- Sanders, Kucinich (who caved on single payer and voted for Obama care), Paul (the elder) are but a handful. The rest- almost all owe their election to special interests not ideology or grass roots support.

smaulgld says

There is generally not a positive connotation with either party.

My follwing response isn't directed at you per say, but more my personal opinions.

I Don't know if I totally agree. As I grow older I generally grow more jaded with both parties. That said, these days there is such a HUGE delta between reality and what has become of the GOP that its ridiculous. That party has become a 3-ring circus. Their positions are not only outdated and hearken back to the 50's and McCarthyism, but they don't seem to be capable of coming up with any new ideas. Their one and only idea for the entire Obama Admin has been to be against not only healthcare, but basically anything his admin even thinks about coming up with. The only thing they have cared about from day one was how fast they could get back into the White House.

I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect angels. But seriously- they have repeatedly promoted legislation that is aimed squarely at the middle and working class ranging from everything from healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage, lower college tuitions, better workplace safety rules, and so on. Yet at EVERY step of the turn the GOP has been against ANY of those pieces of legislation making the exact same cookie-cutter argument.... that anything that would possibly serve as a potential betterment to the working or middle class would "hurt" the businesses that happen to be tied to those decisions. Never mind that the income gap is the largest in the western world and growing dramatically more so with each passing year. Never mind that college is rapidly becoming something only upper income parents can afford. Never mind that even though the largest employers in the country are all big box stores whom make untold billions and billions of dollars also happen to pay their workers poverty-level wages and work them 28 hours a week to avoid giving them any benefits. No- with each and every single piece of legislation proposed that could potentially- albeit minimally benefit people who are affected by such standards the GOP has flatly refused to vote for any of it.

Yes- I am sounding harsh and totally one-sided. But As someone who:

A: Was barely able to afford college even 20 years ago and now could in no way afford to do so now.

B: Worked for years at some of those crappy, low-paying jobs which even 20+ years after are barely paying more than what I made back then,

DO care because these things matter and if the GOP wants to be the party that doesn't want to makes things better for those who are in those situations then they will never get my vote.

There. I said it. Now I am stepping down from my stump.

edvard2 says

everything from healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage, lower college tuitions, better workplace safety rules, and so on.

The reason those stances don't resonate is government involvement in health insurance and college has been a mess making them more expensive and no better. That has nothing to do with republican obstructionism.

workplace safety rules? there are plenty of them not sure that is a burning issue for many.
minimum wage is also not a burning issue and can be handled locally if there is a groundswell for it.

San Francisco has a $10 an hour min and Seattle is going to $15*.

So if those are the issues the Dems want to hang their hat on they won't resonate with a majority.

and for the republicans it's more dismal. What exactly are their issues other than stop the above or horsetrade for parts of them?!

(btw I think there is such a discrepancy of economies across the US that one size does not fit all- eg. $50K a year salary or $15 an hour is a lot of money in Alabama but nothing in NYC or San Francisco- so national income tax brackets and national minimum wages are not suitable)

smaulgld says

The reason those stances don't resonate is government involvement in health insurance and college has been a mess making them more expensive and no better. That has nothing to do with republican obstructionism.

Now we're getting into another topic. But I don't buy that government involvement in healthcare or college doesn't work. Here's a perfect example: Post WW2 1950's America.

So here's what happened after WW2: Returning soldiers and veterans ( which was a HUGE percentage of the population. Anyway, the government handed out GI bills: low interest rate home loans, college education, and lifetime healthcare benefits.

Guess what happened? The US had a BIG boom. The middle class was at that point at its peak. The rate of people graduating from college increased at a rapid rate: The level of scientific research, technological advancement and medical innovation was also further increased.

Even as of now my 92 year old Grandmother still gets medical care from the VA because her husband fought in WW2, some 70 years ago.

So its ironic that even most conservatives would agree that the 50's were pretty damned good and on top of that, it was a great time to be in the middle class.

Now- I'm not going to say that it was all thanks to the US government. But the items I mentioned above are the very things that are imperative for a decent foundation when it comes to a sound economy and middle class.

Here is the reason why things are not working out now: the end of populism, which happened in and around the 70's with the creation of the campaign from the GOP to single out folks on social services. Those were easy targets and with that this still ever-present attitude amongst the right that not only is there a belief that people on welfare are lazy, but that the "Government can do nothing right".

So now you have a party that for all practical purposes has caused a huge swath of the population to truly believe that the government is totally incompetent and as such, any and everything proposed by it is to be seen with suspicion.

If you look back to the 30's-early 70's there was a higher degree of trust in the government. They were- afterall- an elected body of officials. And with that came more trust, more positive attitudes, and more willingness to go ahead with ideas. The thing is that just because a law is passed doesn't mean its the law forever. We have the ability to repeal laws with our votes and that's something people forget. As such these days anytime a new piece of legislation is proposed, the thing rarely makes it out in any shape or form that it started out as... and such is the case with Obamacare... a law that could have been so much better, but from the get go was mired in outright opposition by the GOP whom as I mentioned before has this attitude that any and everything proposed by the government is bad.

So- I'm not saying we should nod our heads in total agreement with everything the government proposes. Some ideas ( In fact a LOT) of ideas are actually awful. But the attitude that ANYTHING proposed must be bad is totally unproductive and it benefits nobody.

In the end its time to get back to an era where laws can be debated with intelligence, discussion, and maturity. That is what we are missing and need dearly.