Ed Rollins calls Republican party irrelevant

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

OMG ROLLINS IS TEH RINO HE NEEDZ 2 LISTN TO RUSH, RUSH IS RITE CUZ I SAID SO.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Explain why, within a year or two after two anti-republican elections, voters would immediately turn around to the Republican Party?

Is this kid serious?

Do you seriously not realize how the burden is entirely on your party's back now?

The likelihood of another anti Republican election when my party is completely shut out of power is close to zero.

Here's why people might suddenly turn to the GOP - for the same reason they suddenly turned to the Dems - they don't like the party in power!

Voters just don't turn around and vote for the opposite party after awhile. In fact, anyone who knows a thing or two of our political past knows the flip-flop in party control in congress in the past sixteen years or is is quite out of place historically and a fairly recent phenomenon.

In any case, yes I realize the "burden" of the Republican years weighs over us, but I think it's important to remember, as the public will, that this "burden" did not appear the day after election day, there's a reason we are where we are now. I wasn't implying that there would be another "anti-Republican" election either, so I'm not sure why you would float that out there as if that's something I said. Democrats are bound to lose House seats in the upcoming election but that doesn't necessarily mean an anti-Democratic election.

And as a side note, I'd just like to state for the record that I made about two or three other direct questions that you ignored. Par for the course, par for the course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no problem admitting that we're in a very rough spot right now. I don't believe the solution is abandoning what we believe. Sorry. I simply disagree with you. Get over it.[/quote]

Would you please point out where I suggested that here? Your mind has already jumped way ahead to some absurd conclusion. It's a strawman to say I would suggest that in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So that means we should forecast the political weather a year and a half ahead of time and act as if it's crazy to suggest that anything else can happen?

Let's just get you to stop being such a coward and admit it: You don't think that the GOP can ever come back unless they become a centrist party, correct? You think the Dems will end up with 65 U.S. Senate seats in 2010, correct?[/quote]

I didn't say that anything couldn't happen, just that we had to judge where everything was pointing at this time. I've said countless times on this website that I'd be happy to point out (again) on your request, but something tells me you're not really interested.

And if you're really going to keep bothering me on my "prediction" that the Democrats will hit the magic number of 60, I'll just say that I think, based on how everything seemed now and the trends and history of the races that I've seen so far, Democrats will pick up at least two senate seats and defend Illinois, coming to a total of 61+ Democratic seats (Pennsylvania and Ohio being the most likely pickups.) However, if things are even remotely better, Democrats could easily get 63, but no more beyond that number in my opinion. At the same time, Democrats will probably lose at least 10-15 House seats.

Also, I'm very happy that over the years you have been such a consistent individual, always cautious to buy into "hackish" political notions a couple of years beforehand!

An overrated clown who will fall. I really hope he runs for President so we can beat his "fat ass."

You're just,

Wow. I suggest that you not get too cocky over this, Rob. Winning an Illinois Senate race against some clown - huge accomplishment. Barack Obama has never won a tough race.

Remember this, Rob:

Bobby Rush - 60%
Barack Obama - 31%

You're going to be unpleasantly surprised come 2008.

so very very,

Put McCain at the top of the GOP ticket and you won't have the Dems carrying NH. Watch McCain's effect on the Senate race, too.

cautious and uninfluenced.

[Lunar]

I think you underrate Portman.  Also don't know how New Hampshire and Missouri aren't more likely pickups.

[Keystone Phil]

Voters just don't turn around and vote for the opposite party after awhile. In fact, anyone who knows a thing or two of our political past knows the flip-flop in party control in congress in the past sixteen years or is is quite out of place historically and a fairly recent phenomenon.

So that means it won't happen. Voters will walk into the booth and say, "Wait. We can't vote for the GOP. It's not historically appropriate! Duh!"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a little piece of information: Even if you think you're totally justified and think the Dems deserve more time to "fix" things, voters don't always agree. People get impatient. Welcome to politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two questions that I've answered before. I reject the premise that the GOP needs to win "traditionally Democratic states" to win again. That makes zero sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've said that we have to become a centrist party to ever attract certain types of voters/to ever win again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You say things could but will not happen. For an election so far away, that takes an amazing amount of arrogant.

And if you're really going to keep bothering me on my "prediction" that the Democrats will hit the magic number of 60, I'll just say that I think, based on how everything seemed now and the trends and history of the races that I've seen so far, Democrats will pick up at least two senate seats and defend Illinois, coming to a total of 61+ Democratic seats (Pennsylvania and Ohio being the most likely pickups.) However, if things are even remotely better, Democrats could easily get 63, but no more beyond that number in my opinion. At the same time, Democrats will probably lose at least 10-15 House seats.[/quote]

Ah, so no 65 just yet, right? And, of course, no GOP pick ups? Got it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have way too much time on your hands, kid. Maybe when I don't have a life/don't leave my house, I'll dig up your totally unrelated, wrong predictions.

I admit that I've learned from my arrogance. It'll be hilarious to watch when you guys have to do the same (that is, if you don't run away from the forum like children).

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think you underrate Portman.  Also don't know how New Hampshire and Missouri aren't more likely pickups.

You're suggesting Democrats could get more than 61 seats fairly simply?

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Obama is an economic flop, and costs the bourgeoisie to the point where their life style is substantially negatively impacted, those folks won't give a damn about social issues, etc.

Hard to see how he can be a flop since we have basically touched the floor with Bush. Obama is making some bold moves on the economy, most of which I agree with if not the timing of those actions. If those lead to the stabilization of the economy then look for a big Obama win. Right wing economics has really been discredited in many people's eyes and it is hard to see how the GOP would win with the same mantra of tax cuts and small government.

[Torie]

I don't pretend to have all the answers on this [economic] puppy sbane. Indeed, color me confused. I thought I "knew" a lot more than maybe I do.

[Mint]

Right wing economics has really been discredited in many people's eyes and it is hard to see how the GOP would win with the same mantra of tax cuts and small government.

I think people have moved on from the '20s, the last time we saw any semblance of "right wing economics".  Republicans are losing because they don't live up to their mantra.

I think that's part of it. Republicans preached smaller government, integrity, etc. but presided over massive earmarks, deficits, bureaucracies, and now bail outs (or at least, Bush did). But I think Conservatism and Libertarianism have both done a pretty poor job of explaining why 'small government' will help people struggling with healthcare costs, finding jobs, tuition, etc. Or worse, they don't have any real alternatives to the Democrats proposals just criticism. That doesn't necessarily make Republicans wrong on those issues, it just means they need to come up with better. Then there's the problem of the Evangelicalization of the GOP. You guys have basically focused on white, conservative-christian males to the exclusion of everyone else. At a time when demographics, social attitudes, etc. are shifting so rapidly that's an obvious losing strategy (but you know that already).

[Sbane]

I don't pretend to have all the answers on this [economic] puppy sbane.

Same here but the biggest thing that has been discredited is deregulation as it has continuously come back to bite us in the ass. Enron and the California energy crisis is an example in addition to this current mess. There needs to be a balance between too much regulation and too little.

[muon2]

The same could be said about the Democrat Party in 2002 and 2004.  Yawn.

The Republicans haven't had as many representatives as the Democrats have right now since the 1921-1923 Congress. As for the Senate, the Republicans have only 41. The Democrats have had at least 45 Senators since the 1931 Congress.

Also we've been gaining in critical areas in states like Ohio and Virginia. We won Indiana and Virginia which haven't gone Democratic in 44 years. Did Republicans win Massachusetts and Minnesota? Not only that but in terms of a net loss of Senators we only lost less than a handful and the 2004 re-election was historically close considering other Presidents' re-elections.

There is NO comparison.

If Obama keeps doing what he is doing, the GOP will get relevant again considerably sooner than you think. He is making the DLC types very nervous.

Republicans have pretty much almost lost a generation similar to the way Democrats did around and after Reagan. Even if Obama fails you're not going to see a rush back to the Republican Party, you're more likely to see a wash and a "who cares anymore" attitude sweep over the country because both parties failed.

That being said though, that is highly unlikely. It rarely (and possible never) happens to have a wild anti incumbent race in the congressional and presidential elections and then have another anti incumbent result in the congressional and presidential elections 2-4 years later. More than 80% see Obama as having inherited the mess created by the Republicans and Democrats enjoy almost double ratings on confidence in handling the economy. Alot would have to happen for the Democrats to mess that up within a year and ahalf or less.

It has happened in my lifetime, so though perhaps unlikely there are precedents. After the Nixon resignation and onset of the worst economic times since the Great Depression there was a huge anti-GOP vote in the 1974 Congressional election followed by the election of outsider Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter was unable to tame inflation and its root causes in the energy sector. In 1978 there was an anti-incumbent vote with 15 House seats and 3 Senate seats going to the GOP. In 1980 the process completed its return swing with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Any comparisons will derive from Obama's ability to turn around the economy he inherited. Carter was unable to sustain blame on his predecessors after two years in office, and I suspect Obama would have a similar problem. The fact that the young people of the 60's and 70's bolted from the GOP to the Dems provided no comfort in 1978 or 1980.

I think the nation judges the parties on recent performance of their top leader. That usually means a combination of domestic and foreign success. Yesterday's news carries little weight by comparison. It's been true for most of US history and I see no evidence that it will be any different in this century.

[Sam Spade]

When a few more people start calling the Republican party irrelevant, then one can become convinced that the party is back on the road to relevancy again.  That's the way these things usually go.

[Lunar]

When a few more people start calling the Republican party irrelevant, then one can become convinced that the party is back on the road to relevancy again.  That's the way these things usually go.

As I said earlier in this thread, but which got ignored, this is Mike Huckabee's campaign messenger, not, like, someone serious.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Poor Ed,

He's associated with a bunch of losers for the past twenty years.

Sadly, he's irrelevant.

[Sam Spade]

I don't pretend to have all the answers on this [economic] puppy sbane. Indeed, color me confused. I thought I "knew" a lot more than maybe I do.

This is an interesting comment to me, in that I believe I have the economic situation "figured out" (everything says it's a classic debt-deflation a la 1837, 1873, 1929), but I fear that these attempts to "ease the pain" or "turn the thing around" could well create a catastrophic set of events (henceforth my occasional ranting)

Please explain.

[opebo]

... but I fear that these attempts to "ease the pain" or "turn the thing around" could well create a catastrophic set of events (henceforth my occasional ranting)

It is too bad that in the course of your rants you can't explain yourself.

The downward spiral of deflation will stop only when the government orders economic activity through creation of money.  How could it be otherwise?  What do you imagine will cause the deflation to cease?  Will people's panic change once they get more desperate?  No, likely it will increase.. though there is peace in death.

The ultimate 'floor' under a deflation/depression - the level below which economic activity is unlikely to fall even without government action - is probably something like what we saw in the last depression.  That is, starvation and eventual elimination of a significant but not too overwhelming segment of the populace (say 10% of the working class), and dire privations for the rest of that class.  Owners of course either uneffected or actually benefiting in a relative sense (they must always enjoy improvement or at least statis or in fact something would be done).

I can certainly see why such an outcome has appeal to you and your class, but how do you propose we 'move up' from that condition?  Or would languishing there also appeal?  I suppose why not?