Written on Friday, November 21st, 2008 at 6:36am by Alan Bedenko | 35 Comments
The Wilderness
(HT Sullivan)
35 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Astroturf -
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Chris Smith
Latest: Economic Development 2.0 -
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups -
Eric Saldanha
Latest: Friday YouTube Nugget
-
Advertisement
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
We get it. Are you going to have a new and exciting post each day kicking the Repulican Party while it’s down? As if the elections did not demonstrate loudly and clearly enough that the national sentiment has obviously turned against the GOP, we need a new poll to show it. Thanks, no one knew that before this data came to light.
Like I said yesterday, enjoy it while you can. Things will turn around in due time, as they always do.
@Russell – buckle in….we’re just getting started.
Or have you been oblivious to the 8 previous years of “Clap Louder for Dear Precious Leader, you pinko commie Islam-loving hippie”
Take your national rejection like a man.
Oh, I can take. I just think it’s funy the way you guys are reacting, or over-reacting, to it all.
Good…you should be in for quite a lot of laughs as Pundit dissects the utter collapse of the Republican Party
And then in a few years, we can all have plenty of laughs as we discuss its rise from the ashes and the fall from grace of the Democratic Party.
Both parties suck.
“You guys”? The “Republican wilderness” idea is being discussed and debated by everyone right now, most especially by Republicans themselves.
As with most comments by Russell, I have no idea what he’s even complaining about.
Still, I like the sound of Republicans whining in the morning.
I’m sorry, Byron, I didn’t realize BP was merely entering the conversation among party faithful and supporters to help the GOP find its direction again. I just thought he was revelling in the fall of the Republicans.
Why is any dissenting view or criticism of the prevailing opinions expressed on this site so often labelled as whining? It’s like you guys just want to have conversations with people that agree with you, rather than discuss opposing views. I thought that’s the key to our democracy, but I’m just representing the anti-intellectual, anti-discourse, anti-ideas pary, so what do I know?
@ Russell – that is rich coming from someone who’s idea of “mature discussion of opposing ideas” is to call an Iraq War veteran by a child’s name.
I’d feel a lot better about the Republicans being out of power if I had any reason to think the Democrats were much of an alternative. The record over the last 8 years, unfortunately, shows that most of the time, and especially on the issues that mattered most, there was no shortage of “bipartisanship.” And now that Obama’s stocking his cabinet with a bunch of unrepentant hawks, I have even less reason to hope for change.
“Opposing view”? I must have missed that. Looks to me as if you’re simply complaining that BP is devoting too many posts to the Republican malaise – a topic that, as I said, is being discussed everywhere. It’s what – 3 weeks since the election? We’re supposed to have moved on already? Pfft. So yeah, I don’t get it.
But of course you’re welcome to your opposing view, such as it is. No one’s stopping you.
Democrats = FAIL
Republicams = FAIL
Humanist, it’s not exclusively a child’s name. It’s a diminutive form of the name, but there are plenty of adults that go by it. I don’t see why being a war vet disqualifies such usage. There are also plenty of war vets that go by diminutive forms of names and even nicknames.
And talk about whining and carrying on, I haven’t said anything at all about Jonny in weeks and yet you’re still bringing things up. You’ve tried it on a few threads now. He was never beyond criticism. You’re the one who’s continually acting childish these days. Get over it already.
@Russell – I bring up your “Johnny Powers” posts to remind you of what an utter ass you can be on these threads.
I have nothing to get over. In case you forgot, my guy won. And it looks like only the lizard-brain diehards are propping up the bankrupt Republican brand these days.
Byron, everyone has moved on from the election and are now talking about the future, either that of the in-coming president and the make up of his Cabinet, or that of the losing party. I never said there was anything wrong with that. What I did say was getting ridiculous was what’s shaping up to be a possibly daily posting from BP bashing, mocking, or kicking the Republican party while it’s down. I said go ahead and enjoy it while you can. There’s no doubt this is going to turn around in the future. But where my view was opposing yours was where you seem to think this is akin to the constructive criticism going on in other circles, where I just think it’s pathetic piling on. And I still wonder how that constitutes “whining”.
Humanist, Jonny didn’t win. What you need to get over is constantly bringing him up on threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him or anything about that election. I don’t get why you think it’s necessary to be a bigger ass in order to remind me you thought I was an ass. I don’t even get why it’s necessary to remind me of that. I know what everyone on here thinks of me.
I also don’t know what you mean by lizard-brain diehards propping up the bankrupt Republican Party. Is that supposed to refer to me? I never denied the Republican Party is currently bankrupt. All I’ve said is that this is something that both parties go through from time to time, usually after being in power for some length of time. Certainly, the Republican Party is not going away. It will stage it’s comeback in time just as the Democratic Party will decline once again. It’s the cyclical nature of our political system, especially being a two-party system.
I haven’t been here for a while, but right now I see a poll on the Repubs favorable/unfavorable rating, and an Economist article on the same basic topic. A Gallup poll and an Economist article are too harsh for you? And “you’re bashing us and not constructively!!!!!!!” is whining in my book, Russy.
I think I read that this is the first time that a party has gained more than 20 seats in the House in two consecutive elections ever. As in, the first time ever in American history. Besides the fact that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was elected President in a landslide. This is kind of A Big Thing. It’s arguably bigger than ‘94, which was of course a huge thing, and one that Repubs gloated about for about 3 years. Discussion of it – even “daily” discussion, assuming that is actually occurring here – is right and proper. But if you don’t like the “balance of posts” here, the door is right over there. *points*
It always kill me how many people show up here to tell Alan and Chris how they should be running this place.
I agree with you on one point – the Repubs will be back. The two party system virtually ensures that.
Russel-Awwww, is somebody sad?
I am not sad and I am not whining. I think you guys are so hoping everyone on the right feels devastated and depressed that you’re just going to tell them they are. I’ve admitted things are bad for Republicans, really bad. It’s pretty obvious. I don’t think it’s the worst we’ve ever seen, but even if it is, the GOP will still recover. That’s all I’ve been saying.
Why is saying that you don’t think something is constructive or thinking Alan’s way of “discussing” this issue is more for bashing rather than discourse “whining”?
I’m not telling Alan how he should run this site and Chris has nothing to do with it. All I’m doing is laughing at his attempts to find different ways to say the same thing even though the worst story was told a few weeks ago and we all know it. I’m just pointing out I think he’s being a little ridiculous. Why can’t I have an opinion on Alan’s views and what he posts?
Who says you can’t? Why can’t I have an opinion on your opinion?
“…the door is right over there. *points*” ???
“if you don’t like the “balance of posts” here”??
Maybe you’re unclear on how these here message board thingies work, but I can’t actually kick you out.
But suggesting someone leaves is certainly akin to telling them they shouldn’t express their opinions here.
@Russell – I can think of no greater pursuit than kicking a bankrupt, soulless Republican party in the teeth when it’s down, then delivering a curb stomp. The arrogance, ignorance, callous indifference and McCarthyesque jingoism we’ve been subjected to for the past 8 years of Dear Leader Bush and the 6 years before that of the GOP jackals running Congress have come home to roost. I’m reveling in the trend of the GOP becoming a narrow regional party which counts on the most ignorant segments of our nation for support.
You may well be right about the cyclical nature of national elections…however, the polling on how young voters across the country went for Democrats overwhelmingly does not bode well for the Republican party draws its electoral strength from a voter segment that is getting older and dying off.
Talking about cycles….the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the better party of 26 years (1955-1981) and controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years (1955-1995). It took the Republicans all of 12 years (1995-2007) to give it right back. That must be the “spin” cycle.
Well your spin seemed to ignore the presidency which the GOP controlled for the better part of the past 40 years. In fact, Clinton was the first President from the Democratic Party to get re-elected since FDR.
Yes, the House is certainly easier for the Democrats to win and they have controlled it for a much longer period in recent history, but the presidency has been dominated by the GOP in recent history and the Senate has been in play for most of that period.
Just because young people voted in higher numbers for Democrats this time around does not mean those voters are tied to the Democrats for life. The trends seen in this election for young voters were not much different than trends seen among young voters for the past 40 years. You may be reading too much into this and what it means for the future of either party.
Lexington pointed out in the article from The Economist that BP posted yesterday, although in paragraphs that BP conveniently excluded, that the Conservatives in the US today are not much different than the Liberals in the US in the 1970s. Just as the Liberals have recovered, the Conservatives will, too. It will not be a narrow, regional party. This is not a parliamentary system. It’s a presidential, single member district system; hence, a two-party system. It’s nearly impossible for one party to completely dominate a two-party system for any extended period of time.
Go ahead, deliver your curb stomps while you may. The time will come when it is your party getting stomped once again.
“Suggesting someone leaves is certainly akin to telling them they shouldn’t express their opinions here.
Yeah, you’re not being a big baby. Not at all. LOL.
You’re really a piece of work Byron. How is what I said any different from what you’ve said? You asked me who said I cannot express my opinion here. I replied that you said it in not so many words by telling me where the door is. So for answering your question, now I’m a “big baby”? Was this a pathetic attempt at baiting or are you just an ass? Perhaps you just can’t handle me pointing out you’re speaking out of both sides of you mouth.
@Russell – “the Senate has been in play for most of that period…”
Of the 28 Congresses since 1955, the Republicans have controlled the Senate in exactly seven of them.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses)
I don’t know in what universe you consider a .250 winning percentage as “being in play”….maybe the one where conservative pundits on the teevee are still claiming, with a straight face, that this is a “center-right” nation.
I’m not assuming the the young voters will be tied to the Democratic party for life….however, the GOP has little to offer to appeal to this progressive demographic. Railing about gays, gods, guns and dirty illegal aliens is not going to over with a population that will be much more ethnically and socially diverse than the generation before it.
The trend from this last election that should scare the shit out of any Republican is that almost 24 million young voters turned out for the 2008 election (the second highest percentage turnout since 1972, the first election in which 18 year olds could vote) and those voters went almost 2-1 for Obama (66% to 32%).
forgot to qualify terms in the last paragraph
“young voters” = 18-29
Russell, you’re the ass. As usual. I said:
“But of course you’re welcome to your opposing view, such as it is. No one’s stopping you.
See, it’s right up there at 12:48 p.m. But as you insisted (again, as usual) on criticizing the tone (or balance, or something – I already said I don’t even get your stupid point, if there even was one) of BP’s posts, I then added, IF you really didn’t like it here that much you could of course leave. You have a problem with me stating obvious facts? If you can’t see how that is whining, I don’t know what else to add. So I won’t.
Humanist, in the last 20 years, it’s been 8 Republican Senates and 6 Democrats. In the period 1951 to 1960, neither party had a majority, evne though the Senate was controlled by Democrats. I did not say the GOP won more, I merely said is was in play, competitive. 8 of 14 in 20 years plus a decade of no majority sounds competitive to me, but that’s fine if you don’t agree. The GOP has still been dominant in the White House and that position carries more clout in power in the modern system.
You trend that should scare the shit of the Republicans is merely restating what you said before. No, it doesn’t matter. Young voters only made up 1% more of the electorate this time around than last time (17%-18%) and Bush did just fine last time around. They won’t always come out in those numbers and they won’t always break for the Democrat in those numbers. You even stated yourself what a rarity it was.
The GOP’s appeal this time around is not going to be the GOP’s appeal for the rest of our existence. In fact, the way you classified it was the strategy 4 years ago, not this time around. The party will change as will its focus as will its strategy just as the Democrat’s has and will. The GOP was much more ethnically and socially diverse just 4 years ago in Bush’s re-election and there’s no reason to think it won’t be again. Why are you thinking that the state of both parties today will be the state of both parties for all time?
Thanks for pointing that out, Byron. That’s exactly why I said you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You said I’m free to express my opinions in one post and then in response to my opinion tell me if I don’t like it I should leave. I don’t see how what you posted contradicted me. It actually backed up what I said. And yeah, still no whining, but thanks for backing me up.
Russell, the lefties who comment on this blog want a circle-jerk like that DailyKos that I looked at once. Their inane, senseless noise is what keeps them warm, not real debate.
Yeah and thanks for confirming what a whiny little tool you are Russy.
Honestly, people need to get away from debating republicans vs. democrats and start focusing on conservatism vs. Liberalism.