Republicans have lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections.

[LanceMcSteel]

Why cant they win elections?

[Workers' Friend]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

[Verily]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Rather, the lack of Republican fiscal responsibility has lost its appeal. The Republican Party hasn't had any fiscal responsibility since Ford. You can thank Reagan for that.

[paul718]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Rather, the lack of Republican fiscal responsibility has lost its appeal. The Republican Party hasn't had any fiscal responsibility since Ford. You can thank Reagan for that.

The Reagan debt was the price we had to pay in order to end the Cold War.  It was an acceptable trade-off, in my opinion. 

As for the last 5 elections:

1992: Bush overconfident; "no new taxes"; Clinton one of the most skilled politicians in American history; moderate Republicans don't do well

1996: Clinton's ability to work with a Congress in opposition; Dole fell off a stage

2000: Gore was VP in a popular administration

2004: N/A

2008: Effective Obama campaign; successfully tied economic crisis to Bush; successfully tied McCain to Bush; ineffective McCain campaign; America didn't like Republicans at the time

[Ronnie]

You might as well list that they have won 6 of the last 10 elections.

[panda_priest]

Because this is a center-right country?

[SPC]

Well, this election was the first one where the Democrat gota majority of the vote since 1976, and before that, 1964. In between, the Republicans have gotten a majority in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. This election was a repudiation of neoconservative policies and big-government Republicanism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Verily's right.  No President has been fiscally conservative in decades.  Sorry, your politics are the ones that have failed.

     Agreed. In fact, Clinton, a Democrat, was the closest that we've had to fiscal conservatism in recent years.

[Joe Biden 2020]

And, don't look now, but the Democrats have won 3 out of the last 5 Electoral Vote Counts.  We'll count 2000 as a win for the Republicans, even if it was decided by the Supreme Court.

So much for the Republicans being the better party for the White House.  I think they're even, now.

[cannonia]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Verily's right.  No President has been fiscally conservative in decades.  Sorry, your politics are the ones that have failed.

     Agreed. In fact, Clinton, a Democrat, was the closest that we've had to fiscal conservatism in recent years.

I still credit Newt Gingrich.

[Mint]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Verily's right.  No President has been fiscally conservative in decades.  Sorry, your politics are the ones that have failed.

     Agreed. In fact, Clinton, a Democrat, was the closest that we've had to fiscal conservatism in recent years.

I still credit Newt Gingrich.

He was a crucial component, but if we hadn't made the tax code more progressive we probably still wouldn't have balanced the budget (let alone achieved a surplus).

[opebo]

The Reagan debt was the price we had to pay in order to end the Cold War.  It was an acceptable trade-off, in my opinion. 

No, the Reagan debt had nothing to do with the Cold War.

But regarding 'fiscal conservatism' generally, it is glaringly bad economic policy - surely anyone can see that.

[MR maverick]

I have always said the electoral college setup is the only thing keeping the republican party from fading.

The  gop in its current form wouldn't win any elections decided by PV.

[wildfood]

The Reagan debt was the price we had to pay in order to end the Cold War.  It was an acceptable trade-off, in my opinion. 

No, the Reagan debt had nothing to do with the Cold War.

Gorbachev stated that cost was a big, big factor in his actions.

The Saudi's were even purposely lowering the price of oil in an effort to squeeze the Soviet's revenue from oil sales with encourgement from the U.S. (remember that the Arabs hatred the USSR for Afganistan).

The increase in American defense spending under Reagan really had the Soviets rattled.

As an answer to the economic condition of the USSR Gorbachev tried to loosten central control of the USSR and institute reforms which got way, way out of hand and ended with the demise of the USSR.


That said, the tax cuts under Reagan were nothing but pork for the rich, just as they were under Bush.

[SPC]

I know Duke and some others will crucify me for this, but I think Fiscal Responsibility is losing its appeal.

Verily's right.  No President has been fiscally conservative in decades.  Sorry, your politics are the ones that have failed.

     Agreed. In fact, Clinton, a Democrat, was the closest that we've had to fiscal conservatism in recent years.

I still credit Newt Gingrich.

He was a crucial component, but if we hadn't made the tax code more progressive we probably still wouldn't have balanced the budget (let alone achieved a surplus).

No, tax cuts help balance the budget by stimulating the economy, which thus generates more revenue. Reagan could have achieved a budget surplus if he hadn't been spending so much.

[opebo]

That said, the tax cuts under Reagan were nothing but pork for the rich, just as they were under Bush.

Yeah, that's partially my point.  My other point is that the military spending was pork too (for certain well connected rich), and had nothing to do with any reasoned or planned strategy to 'defeat' the Soviet Union.  Those were just excuses for the funnelling of money from the treasure to corrupting interests.. and the demise of the Soviet Union was just an unfortunate (for the Right) coincidence.

[LanceMcSteel]

And, don't look now, but the Democrats have won 3 out of the last 5 Electoral Vote Counts.  We'll count 2000 as a win for the Republicans, even if it was decided by the Supreme Court.

So much for the Republicans being the better party for the White House.  I think they're even, now.

lol yea. Hilarious how right wing hacks spin the fact that the Democrats were the party of losers that couldn't win elections but the tables have turned.

[Zarn]

There is a good reason why the popular vote is not used to elect a president, but lets not use this thread to discuss that.

Since it doesn't determine the president, it does not matter. Repubs are 2/5.