For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, there is one vital takeaway from this year’s election. It starts with a graphic.
Behold the Blue Wall:
The Blue Wall is block of states in which no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even really trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.
Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there essentially without campaigning in a year when hardly anyone but Republicans showed up to vote and the GOP enjoyed its largest wave in modern history. Virginia would take that tally to 270. Again, that’s 270 out of 270.
This means that the next Presidential election, and all subsequent ones until a future party realignment, will be decided in the Democratic primary. Only by sweeping all nine of the states that remain in contention AND also flipping one very solidly Democratic state can a Republican candidate win the White House.
By contrast, Republicans control a far more modest Red Fortress, which currently amounts to 149 electoral votes. This election saw Georgia fall out of that shrinking and increasingly brittle base, after losing our previous lock on North Carolina and Virginia in recent years.
A few other items of interest from the 2014 election results:
– Republican’s failed to pick up a single Senate seat behind the Blue Wall. Not one. The only GOP candidate to win a Senate seat behind the Blue Wall was the party’s last moderate, Susan Collins of Maine.
– Behind the Blue Wall there were some new Republican Governors, but their success was very specific and did not translate down the ballot at all. None of these candidates ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition the ACA. Rauner stands out as a particular bright spot in Illinois, but Democrats in Illinois retained their supermajority in the State Assembly, similar to other northern states, without losing a single seat.
– Republicans in 2014 were the most popular girl at a party no one attended. Voter turnout was awful.
– Democrats have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry. That’s only ironic if you buy into far-right propaganda, but it’s interesting none the less.
– Vote suppression is working, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races, while kissing off minority votes more or less permanently.
– Across the country, every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states.
– Every personhood amendment failed.
– Almost half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. Total coincidence, just pointing that out.
– Democrats in 2014 were up against a particularly tough climate because they had to defend 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics.
– Republican support grew deeper in 2014, not broader. For example, new Texas Governor Greg Abbott won a whopping victory in the Republic of Baptistan. That’s great, but this is a race no one ever thought would be competitive and hardly anyone showed up to vote in. Texas not only had the lowest voter turnout in the country, a position it has consistently held across decades, but that electorate is more militantly out of step with every national trend then any other major Republican bloc. Texas holds a tenth of the GOP majority in the House.
– Keep an eye on oil prices. Texas, which is at the core of GOP dysfunction, is a petro state with an economy roughly as diverse, modern and complex as Nigeria, Iran or Venezuela. It was been relatively untouched by the economic collapse because it is relatively dislocated from the US economy in general. Watch what happens if the decline in oil prices lasts more than a year.
– For all the talk about economic problems, for the past year the US economy has been running at ’90’s levels. Watch Republicans start touting a booming economy as the result of their 2014 “mandate.”
– McConnell’s conciliatory statements are encouraging, but he’s about to discover that he cannot persuade Republican Senators and Congressmen to cooperate on anything constructive. We’re about to get two years of intense, horrifying stupidity. If you thought Benghazi was a legitimate scandal that reveals Obama’s real plans for America then you’re an idiot, but these next two years will be a (briefly) happy period for you.
This is an age built for Republican solutions. The global economy is undergoing a massive, accelerating transformation that promises massive new wealth and staggering challenges. We need heads-up, intelligent adaptations to capitalize on those challenges. Republicans, with their traditional leadership on commercial issues should be at the leading edge of planning to capitalize on this emerging environment.
What are we getting from Republicans? Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings. Lots and lots of hearings on Benghazi.
It is almost too late for Republicans to participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation. The opportunities we inherited coming out of the Reagan Era are blinking out of existence one by one while we chase so-called “issues” so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from our emerging needs that our grandchildren will look back on our performance in much the same way that we see the failures of the generation that fought desegregation.
Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or our opportunity will be lost for a long generation. Needless to say, Greg Abbott and Jodi Ernst are not that force.
“Winning” this election did not help that force emerge. This was a dark week for Republicans, and for everyone who wants to see America remain the world’s most vibrant, most powerful nation.
contact at gopliferchicago at gmail
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
Chris, thank you for this brilliant analysis. You’ve made this Houston Liberal so happy going into this holiday season. I was thinking, if there’s any slight “Hail Mary” possibility of a Republican presidency – he’d have to be a Favorite Son of a Blue State, and he’d have to carry that state, all the Reds, and most of the swings. That means the best bet – and maybe one last chance – is a Californian – as if Saint Ronnie Reagan was looking down to anoint. Now if somebody could just remind me, who’s the pro-life California Republican who is for immigration reform, the ACA, LGBT marriage, and pot legalization?
Arnold Schwartznegger. Too bad he got caught screwing his housekeeper.
As I look at your map I would say that NV is not blue. It is a swing state that has voted for the winner for the last 9 Presidential elections.
You have MO, WV, NC and GA as swing states but they are red states. MO has only gone Dem when Clinton won. He was from neighboring AR. NC went for Obama in 2008 because of Obama and huge black turnout but he lost it in 2012 against a centimillionaire. GA is solidly Republican and WV has been lost by the Dems.
That leaves us at 251 for the Dems and 205 for the Republicans. A Kasich/Rubio or Walker/Rubio ticket could easily make this a very competitive race with only 4 – 6 swing states.
There isn’t a blue wall, at least not yet.
Nevada is gone at the Presidential level and it is going to be increasingly tough for a GOP Senate candidate. Any political figure sufficiently tied to the national Republican Party to win a GOP Presidential primary is DOA in NV.
Over the last 25 years, one Republican (John Ensign) has won a statewide Federal race by more than a fraction of a percentage point. Bush peaked at 50.4. Ensign managed 55. Bush and Ensign are the only guys who have won a statewide Federal election in Nevada since Bush’s father in ’88. The trend is relentless, and it will have accelerated considerably in ’16 as the state has become more Hispanic.
Same dynamic is at work with New Mexico. Bush did fairly well there and it used to elect Republican Senators. That was a different GOP and a different set of demographic realities.
Kasich/Rubio? Really? How about Superman/Batman? Or Mr. Smith/Ghost of George Washington?
Remember, whatever dream team we want to imagine for the party in ’16 or ’20 has to win a nominating campaign in the Republican Party. Whoever survives that process will have spent several months on camera saying incredibly inflammatory things about Hispanics, women and minorities – or they won’t win the nomination. I’m not the one who’s dreaming.
Obama won NC in 08 and barely lost in ’12. Dems lost that Senate seat in a squeaker. The Democratic nominee will almost certainly win NC in 2016. And Missouri is about to get another Clinton. Obama lost GA w/ 45% in ’12. By the way, no one really noticed, but Obama lost SC w/ 44%.
The map is shifting in ways that have finished off the GOP as a national party. There is no way to reverse these dynamics without somehow finding a lot more of what Linsday Graham described as “angry white men” or a fundamental realignment of both parties.
That realignment is coming, but it won’t happen until the current crop of angry white men ages out just a bit more. Probably ’22 & ’24. Could be a very different country by then.
[…] the GOP faces in 2016 what Republican Chris Ladd calls the “blue wall.” This wall consists of states that have voted for a Democratic candidate in every election since […]
[…] admits at the end of the piece he “stole” almost every word from this work on the GOP Lifer blog (and picked up by the Houston Chronicle) written by Chicago Republican Precinct Committeeman Chris […]
[…] The Democrats firmly control 257 electoral votes. The Republicans firmly control 149 electoral votes. It only takes 270 votes to win the presidential election. You do the math. […]
I have always been registered Independent (“decline to state”). My “take away” from Lifer’s excellent analysis is the shifting of weight and responsibility onto the shoulders of the Democratic Party.
Because of the long running and continuing irresponsibility of the Republican Party politicos (I try to be honest and separate them from the Main Street rank and file Republicans), the Republican Party has been busy pushing me more and more into actively supporting Democrats. Including to the point of donating and campaigning for them — all while still remaining a registered Independent.
The responsibility increasingly falls to the Democratic Party to break up the giant trusts/monopolies, and to extract them from the political system. As Adam Smith pointed out in Wealth of Nations, this is a fundamental requirement to maintain free markets. The core underlying principle of free markets is competition. Wealthy trusts/monopolies HATE competition, and will use whatever means available to them to reduce and eliminate any exposure to competition.
This is also why Adam Smith was very much against the long term accumulation of large amounts of wealth in the hands of any individual. The reason was very basic. With large wealth comes large political influence. With large political influence comes an effort to stifle competition so-as to protect your large wealth.
While in Adam Smith’s age the concept of the modern commercial immortal corporation was unknown, his views on the ills of aristocratic wealth accumulation can be readily projected onto the modern commercial immortal corporation. It is easily seen that Adam Smith would have had a very serious problem not specifically with “commercial corporations”, but with the concept that commercial corporations are immortal.
The “immortal” part is directly linked to large and dangerous wealth accumulation which he knew would always be applied toward political manipulation to stifle free markets. Most likely Smith would have been fine with commercial corporations if they were forced to “die” every 50 years or so, and their wealth distributed as widely as possible in order to dilute its political influence.
With the Democratic Party machinery becoming increasingly “Republican-lite” and influenced by the crony capitalists, it falls upon the Democratic Party Main Street rank and file to engage in a grassroots infiltration of the party to steer it away from the rocks upon which the Republican Party has run aground. An example of this is Elizabeth Warren being beholden to MoveOn and other progressive groups, and not the Wall Street crony capitalists. The result is she has felt free to attack the Wall Street crony capitalists because she was not bought and paid for by them.
How precisely is this accomplished on a grander scale? Quite frankly, by taking a page out of the Tea Party playbook. The fight is played at the PRIMARY level, and NOT the general election level. Grass roots Democrats and supporters need to fight for and elect progressive Democrats during the primary, and reject Republican-lite crony capitalist Democrats. And I’m referring to responsible progressives. Not left wing extremists. Nominating left wing extremists is the same as the Republicans nominating right wing extremists.
“For all the talk about economic problems, for the past year the US economy has been running at ’90′s levels” is a rather incorrect assertion.
Simply look at the BLS reports on the types of employment occurring and the employment by category. Manufacturing jobs are still down 6 million and the alleged rate of resurgence will require multiple decades to restore the lost jobs. Other high paying employment in IT, mining, etc remains down. Jobs being added are in hospitality and retail. They are almost all low paying temporary jobs. It is all document in the BLS reports.
The U-6 indicates a more realistic 11+% unemployment rate, and even that is a low estimate.
The Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low, and the BLS reports show that IT IS NOT due to retirements by Baby Boomers, but instead is due to the very low labor participation rates of younger workers.
The economy is certainly not operating at 1990 levels.
Please stop quoting labor participation rate using only half truths. The labor participation rate was at an all-time low under Nixon. The labor participation rate was then at an all-time low under Ford. The labor participation rate was at an all-time low under Reagan. The labor participation rate was at an all-time low under Bush Sr. The labor participation rate was at an all-time low under Bush Jr. IN OTHER WORDS, the labor participation rate has been on decline since Eisenhower. Stop lying using half-truths.
The only time the labor participation rate went up slightly was under Clinton, and that’s only because large numbers of women were entering the workforce.
Does that mean I should start ranting “The labor participation rate has DECLINED under every single Republican president since Eisenhower!!!”?? Or how about the nice spin of “The labor participation rate DECLINED under Saint Reagan, but President Clinton HEROICALLY reversed those DISASTEROUS Reagan-era FAILURES.”
Dear Mr Ladd,
I just discovered your writing via a link from another site. I am NOT a Republican. But I appreciate, and have been seeking a voice of reason from the right. Our country (and the world) cannot flourish if the democratic debate is bogged down in non-issues and stupidity. In the meantime, I will continue to engage Douthat, Friedman and yourself as worthy adversaries. Cheers!
Let me comment on the very insightful essay by Chris Ladd. His blog was littered with comments from Republicans that gave great heart to myself who has been transformed to a strong Democrat from a moderate Republican. They accused Chris Ladd who speaks the truth as a RINO and a trader because he did not speak the party line. These are the Demographic deniers who are like the climate deniers. These are the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world where if you don’t see things their way hit the highway. Chris let me welcome you into the Democratic Party I would like you to bring your ideas to a place where they might be valued. You may be like Zel Miller who told Rush that he had lived in this old house (the Democratic Party) too long to leave it when asked about joining the Republican Party, but we need your ideas on the economy. They will be moderated as you will moderate other’s ideas but you will be heard. You can stay where your voice will be drowned out by those who espouse climate denying, theology, racism o the past or join a movement that will be creating a better world in the future for our children and grandchildren.
Walker and the other Republican governors in the states you have marked blue do have options to get Republican candidates some more electoral votes. Note the recent bill in the Wisconsin legislature to apportion electoral votes according to the winner in each Congressional district of the state. That’s four to six votes moved between columns, and if Walker can get it through other governors will follow. I think this will ultimately be counterproductive to the party and will make it less responsive to voters but it seems to be very attractive in the short term.
Short-term gains at the expense of long-term results? That sounds just like the ethos of American business, and of the Republican Party.
The automatic response to such attempts at vote-rigging, of course, is to suggest that such states instead sign up for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would subordinate a state’s electors to the choice of the majority of the nation’s voters in their entirety.
Ohio had been trying to pass a similar bill (which might not affect this map much, but would guarantee some democratic electoral votes for the cities in each state). Electoral vote apportioning would be such a blatant affront to the notion of “majority rule” (given that it would allow electoral votes to follow the gerrymandering of seats in a number of states), that it will likely be a short-term benefit at best, but it has worried me.
Great article by the way. The demographics are clear, but the other question is whether or not Democrats will lead. The Democratic party keeps trying to move to the ‘center’, but the center keeps moving to the right. At some point, someone needs to tap into the policy ideas that were approved in 2014 (minimum wage, personhood, marijuana legalization, perhaps other progressive ideas) and be a “party of the people”; right now, I don’t either side is doing that.
I’ve never seen so many people in a comment thread try so hard to avoid math-based fact in my life. The GOP has to face it: in the last six years – their extremism has painted them into a demographic and geographic corner that it will take decades to get out of – unless they come back to the center. But they can’t – as they’re no longer even a political party. It’s amazing to me the amount of people here avoiding the mathematical reality by calling the messenger a “RINO”; when your base begins to react to facts that wreck their illusion by scratching and kicking like a cornered beast – you’re in serious trouble. Thank you for the article – it was very well done.
Well, I do know of at least 2 Republicans who decided, before it was too late, to “participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation.” :
Jim Webb and Elizabeth Warren (who was a Republican because she thought , at the time, the Republicans to be the party that favored markets.
Noah Millman and Daniel Larison have some interesting comments on Webb over at The American Conservative..
Webb and Warren are my kind of Republican (the same kind, by the way, that Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike would most assredly be if they were alive today.)
A RINO lifer telling us all his version of the USA. I would rather fight the liberal bias within the RINO party and go down with the ship then give into the liberal bias within the Repub party
Thanks Bob! Us Libruls appreciate your continued support for ignorance and racism in the GOP! We couldn’t do a better job of painting the GOP as a bunch of Archie Bunker dead-enders
YES! As a Democrat I want to support your fight of “liberal bias” and RINO’s in any way that I can. Are you still trying to find a birth certificate in Kenya? I’d like to donate to that cause. Keep it up brother!
Could not agree more. Get $s out of the mix and moderate/progressive majority would rule.
You guys all know that this article is mostly based on math, right?
I don’t understand why this author pretends to be a republican when it seems all his views are democrat-ish…
1. Climate Science is real…Ha ha ha…So why is it getting colder?
2. Raising the minimum wage… Try an economics text book…
3. Democrats will win all presidential contests…
4. The GOP must offer Universal Health Care option…No…Republicans support freedom.
5. No secure the borders…just let em in…Lets deal with the border first.
6. Legalize all drugs…(The Author must be wanting those Roofies…)
7. Tax the rich!…
8. Supporting Reparations…
9. Tea Partiers are white supremacist woman haters…
Need I go on? This author is a joke!
I bet he voted for Obama like seven times in the last two elections…
Matt says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:02 am
“1. Climate Science is real…Ha ha ha…So why is it getting colder?”
Not understanding the difference between climate and weather (again), are we? I guess you consider lack of scientific knowledge and a weak grasp of facts to be a Republican trait? It sure seems like it.
“Need I go on? This [poster] is a joke!”
Ah yes. The retarded “It doesn’t matter if it’s getting colder because weather doesn’t equal climate” response. According to the fools you follow the ice caps were supposed to have melted by now. They are expanding. Goodness, when are you liars going to admit you got it wrong? In the 1970s your side claimed car pollution was going to cause global cooling. Then you changed to global warming. If you were halfway honest and smart you’d go back to the “global cooling” scenario.
How much more can I dumb it down for you?
First of all, just because it is cold for YOU doesn’t mean it is cold everywhere. I’m guessing you still believe the sun revolves around the earth?
Secondly, just because it is cold today, this week, or this month doesn’t mean an Ice Age is coming. Do you understand the meaning of “long term”?
So I presume you believed in 2011 that global warming was real when every day in August was over 100 degrees in Houston? But you whiplashed your “scientific assessment” daily with the change in WEATHER?
Even if global warming was real(Its not), it would only help the United States. In 1997 (the real hottest year on record) we had a huge surplus of crops valuing in the billions of dollars.
The main point of my comment is that the writer of this article is a fraud. He is not a republican, and is just a tool of the DNC and Obama.
Wow, stubbornly provincial and obstinately willfully ignorant really is your forte isn’t it?
What part of global do you still not understand?
So your assessment of the blogger based on willful general denial of reality and facts and head scratching non sequitur leaps of “logic” provides what type of basis for legitimacy?
Let me spell that out for you also.
N-O-N-E.
GOP motto: Ignorance is Strength
The whole global warming house of cards is falling. According to a study at Purdue University:
“more than 50 percent [of scientists and climatologists] attributing climate change primarily to human activities.” That is a far cry from 97% demoncrats like to regurgitate.
50% and the science is settled…um yeah…
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html
The 97% was achieved by not counting the papers that weren’t about AGW. In email follow up for those scientists that did write about AGW, only about 60% confirmed they supported it. Its easy to get a consensus when you don’t count the folks who disagree with you…
It’s good to see this older blog post is still alive, albeit on a tangent of a Houston Chronicle wingnuts’ favorite whipping boy, global warming/climate change topic.
And I see the usual suspects are Rorschaching the hard data to see what they want to see. Still beating that dead horse Matty Weak Gore? Didn’t think we would read your source data? Did YOU read your own source data? With comprehension?
First off, you are intentionally and disingenuously moving the goalposts/splitting hairs to (incorrectly and inaccurately) dilute the overwhelming consensus even in your ONE SINGLE SOLE SOURCE.
The 97% consensus was arrived at via several sources by that “charlatanly incompetent” government SCIENTIFIC entity known as NASA. You know they guys and gals who sent a man to the moon, developed the space shuttle and all sorts of scientific goodies that made our lives better?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And also note that “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely DUE (emphasis mine) to human activities.” No one (legitimate) claimed that global warming was “primarily [due] to human activities” as you (willfully) erroneously claimed. And even your own study if you read it CORRECTLY indicates a 95% consensus amongst climatologists of some human impact (i.e., DUE) on climate change. And looky here, 100.0% (in YOUR study!) of a “cross-disciplinary group of scientists“ agree that global warming is real and results in SOME part (again, i.e., DUE) to human impact.
Your OWN source Matty that you claim to debunk the 97% consensus… COMPLETELY verifies the consensus (and then some) anywhere from 97% to 100%.
Thanks for playing Matty. Please proceed through the exit door where those who read data and understand facts correctly will return/deliver your ass back to you in hand.
Michael says:
November 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm
“The 97% was achieved by not counting the papers that weren’t about AGW.”
So let me get this wingnut “logic” straight. 97% consensus isn’t accurate because they DIDN’T INCLUDE nonsensical irrelevant papers UNRELATED to global warming/climate change?
Is this the type of contortional delusional mental gymnastics you convolute your brain to to justify your unscientific and clueless wingnut conspiracy rants as “accurate” and “factual”?
Really? REALLY?
No, its not accurate because it is based on abstracts of papers, not of the scientists. In an email follow up that actually asked their opinion, just over 60% of respondees said yes, that is their stance. The remainder said no.
Nice spin Michael. The remainder did not say no as in, “global warming is NOT caused by humans” as you claimed. The remainder had no OPINION. So in other words, 97% of those who have the knowledge and background AND took the time and effort to give a damn believe global warming has a human component impact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/
And your original comment you doubled down on and still stand by,
“The 97% was achieved by not counting the papers that weren’t about AGW.”
…is still comically backwards and not painting you in a respectable and informative light. But it’s your keyboard and fingers. Have at it. I’ll just heat up some more popcorn.
There is little doubt among climatoligist that there is global warming. The contention is whether it anthropomorphic. As you say, 97% of those that cared to firm an opinion… Which discards those that didn’t. Just because they remain neutral ( mostly because the don’t have enough evidence, and therefore are being truly scientists) doesn’t mean they should be counted with those that have. The consensus claims 97% of ALL, not all that formed an opinion. The way I “spin it”, would still give a majority, around 55-60%. Which is rather close to the 53% of climatologists and 50% of scientists surveyed in a Purdue (that bastion of right wing conservative ignorance). http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html
Of course, there is such a thing as confirmation bias, where in facts don’t matter- you’ll continue to believe a falsity regardless of evidence or lack thereof, so I doubt you’ll accept this surveys results. Reminds me of an old adage… “All credible scientists believe “this”.” The reasoning being, if they don’t believe the “this” they can’t be considered credible. Its bad science.
Ahh. Just re-read through the thread and realized an error. I stated the email follow up was of scientists that did write about AGW. The follow up e-mail was to those that did NOT write about it… Only 60% that did not write about said they were supportive of it.
Good analysis but judging from the comments the ‘base” just doesnt get it and never will…denying climate change and science in general, while insisting its some kind of plot to steal their freedom and thinking freedom to die without medical care is some noble thing, is just a symptom of the problem with them.
They insist against all facts that Obama stole the election, that Democrats want to legalize all drugs, there was a Benghazi coverup and Democrats want to take their precious guns.
They think minorities and women wont notice their over the top hatred and obstructionism toward the nation’s first black president. They no longer believe in majority rule and have no solution for the nations problems except more money for the rich and more power for corporations.
Most of these people come from the old Confederacy..same values…same white resentment.. Their support is mostly in the South..the region noted for its racism religion, guns and generally back ass stupidity…
Here is the thing to all of you who deny climate change. I get it. I totally do – it’s okay. No one is going to change your opinion.
I hope you’re right. Because if you’re wrong — then we are all dead. See, the thing is: we don’t have another planet to go to. This is the only one we have.
I hope you’re right — and some of the most brilliant minds of our time are wrong.
YES!!! You are right on brother. From a San Francisco liberal Democrat, I just want to say thank you, and if I can contribute to whatever tea party organization you belong to that doesn’t know the difference between climate change and weather, or freedom and health care. PLEASE let me know.
One detail I’d add: the “heavily populated areas” which the GOP have “let slip” are largely the same metropolitan areas which have a reproduction rate near 0%; they’re largely aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, since children “get in the way of lifestyle choices” for many of them. That skews a few of the figures, when comparing such places (e.g. New York, Los Angeles, etc.) to rural areas with much higher fertility rates. Just a point to ponder…
Incidentally… I’ve no idea why my login name was so mangled! Sorry about that.
Maine is not a well know urban center (you should look at the data before you post things like this) last time I checked. Hate to make the obvious observation that it’s the immigrants in Texas who are reproducing, but I will…
Well… not to deprive you of a pretext for posting snarky replies, or anything, but: perhaps you might re-read my comment, and detect that I *did* use a few qualifiers which address your point? E.g. “the ‘heavily populated areas’ which the GOP have “let slip” are LARGELY the same metropolitan areas which have a reproduction rate near 0% […]” (emphasis added).
One of the OP’s main POINTS was that the GOP is “in danger of losing its tenuous grip on the electoral votes” (re-read the original article, if you doubt); and while I’ll grant you that Maine’s 4 electoral votes do indeed spring from a largely non-urbanized state, perhaps you’d notice something of a counterbalance from California (55 electoral votes, and the largest by far), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and the like?
Speaking as a Wisconsinite, I can also guarantee you that the vast majority of Democrat votes come from the urban areas of Madison and Milwaukee (two of the most populous places in Wisc.)–there are plenty of colorful voting-pattern graphics on numerous websites which are just waiting for your Google search; and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that, even in states with lots of local “flyover country”, the same trend can be found in almost all the states of the union. Do you disagree? If so, I’d love to see your data (multi-colored, or otherwise) to that effect.
The OP is also downplaying the phenomenal gains in state legislatures and governorships by the GOP; the fact that he’s dismissive of them doesn’t mean that they’re not there, or that they’re not important. The more solidly a state is in conservative hands, the more lasting influence the conservatives will have on unimaginably many layers of government (e.g. redistricting, state judiciary, etc.).
Finally: I do think the OP is misreading a few things; he’s put Wisconsin in the “GOP can’t possibly win” category… which is dubious (since Wisconsin is widely, and justifiably, recognized as a “purple” state). After all… such “conventional wisdom” would never have predicted that Scott Walker would win three gubernatorial elections in four years… right? And if Scott Walker runs for President, you think the same percentage of people who voted for him for governor wouldn’t vote for him for president? (And if you think “low turnout” was the explanation for this, you’re dreaming: check out the turnout for his recall election, for example–est. 60-65%)
If you’ll check one of Chris’ comments below, he makes a plain distinction between voting for Republicans on the local level and casting a ballot for Republicans in national offices.
So Wisconsinites are perfectly consistent with Chris’ model in voting Republicans into office locally, but not trusting them with the machinery of national government.
“If you’ll check one of Chris’ comments below, he makes a plain distinction between voting for Republicans on the local level and casting a ballot for Republicans in national offices.”
Of course, he did; I never denied that. I simply asserted two things (among others):
1) the “GOP hold on electoral votes” need not be nearly as tenuous as he suggests, since Dems (especially those in urban areas) have a tendency not to reproduce, since children have a habit of getting into an “upwardly-mobile”, self-absorbed lifestyle. I’ll humbly submit to you the idea that Dems, almost by definition, champion abortion and contraception without restrictions. As such, pro-life people (who are almost universally unwelcome in the Democrat party) have a tendency to reproduce more effectively, which tends to skew future populations to the political right. Do you disagree?
2) The OP’s conclusion is dubious, at best, and it’s even unverifiable in general. He predicts that past voting trends in a Dem state will never realistically switch to GOP; but that’s provable nonsense (in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold was replaced by the conservative GOP Senator Ron Johnson in 2010, and retiring liberal Dem Representative Dave Obey was replaced by conservative GOP Rep. Sean Duffy in the same year). In other words, Chris’s principle is true… except when it isn’t! It’s an exercise in vacuity to say that “this will never happen”, and then–when it *does* happen–to say that “it doesn’t matter, since it’s an aberration, and other factors counterbalance it, and gains weren’t made in some other areas!” Come on, now. Either the principle stands on its own two feet, or it doesn’t; either the 2014 elections were bad for Dems, or they weren’t. Anything else is just wishful thinking and spin.
Yeesh… bad edit! The phrase “children have a habit of getting into an “upwardly-mobile”, self-absorbed lifestyle” should be:
“Children have a habit of getting IN THE WAY OF an upwardly-mobile, self-absorbed lifestyle”…
You do realize that urban areas attract almost all of the immigrants from outside the country and ever larger numbers of kids from rural areas within the country, and that when both types go to cities, they become Democrats, right?
Exactly. While the birth rate is declining among the urban hipster generation, one must consider the fact that urban areas are still growing from migration. All the 20-somethings are moving to cities to get away from their crazy racist relatives out on the farm.
I didn’t realize you were a member of the GOP until the end of the article. I agree with your assessments, and sympathize with you for the name calling that goes with being the bearer of bad tidings.
I have been seeing the same thing for the last two decades. Warning the Orange County Republican Executive Committee Chairman two decades ago that Orange County Florida was a leader in the national demographic trend. That we need to push to address these new voters needs getting them into the fold and into our world view. And if we did not the county would go blue but with work we could keep it purple. He blew me off. Well now we are now a very bright blue and ground zero for tipping Florida from purple to blue. If our leaders do not contain our bigots, radical Libertarians and crony capitalist , return to our roots of fiscally conservative and socially moderate the party will become a regional minority party that is dying away. Thanks for this brilliant analysis.
Congrats on the national attention tonight. That was an incredibly insightful article and one of your best. Soon you may doing guest articles for the NY Times. The nearly-extinct moderate Republican (and from Texas) and who can write very well with good analysis.
As a confirmed leftist (unusual; I’ve moved left as I’ve aged) I agree with the analysis but for the fact that none can screw up a winning hand better than Democrats. Although I must give a tip o’ th’ hat to the TeaTard Senate candidates of 2010. That was a bumper crop of crazy there. And who says they are incapable of learning? 2014’ers are just as nuts; they just don’t prove it before news cameras.
What about gerrymandering? Do you really think voters are turning blue enough to kill that advantage for the GOP?
Democrats have in the past engaged in (and, in some cases, are still) gerrymandering for themselves. It’s not a sin unique to Republicans.
What we need is a federal prohibition, with clear guidelines for the procedure of drawing compact, contiguous, competitive districts. But we won’t get that without a massive popular groundswell, and redistricting is too arcane and infrequent a procedure for most people to care.
Gerrymandering is also kind of hard not to do, sometimes. You want to create districts that have some kind of commonality of interest. That is at times going to be at odds with creating geographically compact districts.
And that’s why we should re-visit the idea of multi-member districts — not using the simplistic “winner-take-all” balloting system which gives an easy benefit to majorities, but using more nuanced systems like cumulative voting, to better reflect the popular will.
Gerrymandering has no effect on presidential or senate races, which are statewide and winner take all, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska for presidential elections. The current wisdom in that neither of those states are critical to victory. The article didn’t go in to the long term prospects for the House. Really a different subject if we are discussing political strategy.
[…] More links and comments are at the GOPLifer Blog. […]
[…] Reality-check on the 2014 results (Chris Ladd, GOPLifer) […]
Maine is behind the blue wall and in 2014 collins the republican beat the democrat, by a wide margin. Therefore, your claim that no Democratic Senate candidate from a blue state lost, is wrong.
You are right. Corrected.
Well son, you’ve certainly stirred up the pot tonight. Unfortunate for conservatives that the tea party drug the republican party down so far it is lost for a generation. The faithful can’t see it because they don’t want to see it. Your analysis is correct. Something has to change. Fox is not doing conservatives any favors. Benghazi. Seriously? The average American isn’t going to vote republican because Fox news has some roundabout way to blame Hillary Clinton for that terrorist attack. All we have to do is say Beirut and the subject changes. The republican party will have success at the gerrymandered level, and that is it.
Ha, ha, ha…So this scribbler is a “Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago”? It must be pretty damn lonely up there. Is the writer the only Republican in his neighborhood? This is the far left conventional wisdom. The NYT and almost all the big city left/liberal papers have been sneering about the irrelevance and coming extinction of the Republican Party for at least 35 years, if not longer. So Billary is an “absolute lock” in 2016? That is the underlying message here and it suggests that the scribbler is neglecting his medication(s).
A far more compelling observation is that it is the liberal left that is in deep doo-doo. Barry Obama is easily, far and away, is the worst president in American history. But he is where he is because he is black and is quite good at reading the hard left’s garbage off a teleprompter. When this obvious fact is pointed out, that Barry is a dimwitted fool, the truth teller is angrily shouted down as a racist. Barry and the far left have cynically gotten away with this demagoguery, chicanery and criminality for 6 miserable years. The writer here is clearly not sharpest tool in the box, but if he thinks Billlary or Senator Pocahontas can pull that off and win easily (and going away) he needs to be institutionalized. The new Republican Congress hasn’t even taken control, but the RINOs and lying liberals are already on the attack. This is just boing.
Racist.
Thank you very much for confirming and demonstrating the accuracy of my point. Man, you tools just aren’t very sharp, are you?
goplifer – you a liar. You are not a conservative or a Republican. Your article is full of scathing slams against the Republicans and you are wrong on every point. Who do you think you are fooling???
See, Chris, this is the kind of trash that creeps in by following your links from the *Houston Chronicle*.
That is an excellent way to troll the troglodytes like Erick Blair. Congratulations!
Erick…calling someone “senator Pocahontas” is exactly what the author was talking about. At least own up to your racism.
You’re not living in reality. Instead of acting like a 10 year old with stupid names for people with real names, why don’t you let the adults fix what the teabillies screwed up for a generation.
Worst President in history? Stock market? Up. Unemployment? Down. Deficit as a percent of GDP? Down. Private sector jobs? Up. Compare all those to W. Bush. Oh, and–number of Americans killed on their own soil by foreign terrorists? Down. Down by about 3,000. You may not remember the economic collapse and warmongering of our previous Republican president, but the rest of us do. And we’re thrilled that we’ll never have to live in that nightmare again. Sure, Republicans, thwart all you can–that’s what Confederate nihilists do, in service to plantation owners.
Erick, you are exactly the reason your party is dying on the branch. Reagan and GWB are the two worst presidents of our lifetime by a country mile. Obama is not even in the conversation, except with right-wing loons, such as yourself.
Thanks for sanity from the right. I would feel better about the two party system if reality was the basis for both.
Alittle late to comment, sorry Chris, but when you say “Almost half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. Total coincidence, just pointing that out.”, you might want to add that most of the rest are former First Nations territories.
” Almost half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. Total coincidence, just pointing that out.”
——————————
Well…that and multi-milions of northerners moving south over the past 45 years. But let’s not assume it’s all coincidence. Just pointing that out.
In short. You’re incredibly short sighted.
Once the GOP decides to ignore the mass stupidity that is “the middle of the country”, and ignores social issues, they win 80% of every election…. ever.
Just a matter of time.
Just like no one cares about raising the tax on smokers, because smokers as a demographic are too small to care about, the GOP will quickly ignore entire radical states, as they’re irrelevant.
At that point, they’ll win every election ever for decades.
I must be one of those “stupid American voters” because from my vantage point the Democrat Party had a bad night last week. Democrats lost BIG TIME in state legislatures and governorships as well as in local elections. Their bench was almost literally cleared, yet, the fake GOP Lifer who never writes a post not bashing the GOP is somehow attempting last week as a win for Democrats.
Not sure how this guy continues to have a job pretending to be a GOP Lifer. Lifer is a Republican only a liberal could love.
Chris….as a media consultant who works both sides of the political aisle what you are saying here is exactly what I have been saying for the last two years. Thanks for saving me the time. By the way, I’m also in Chicago. Feel free to email me at Robb.Wexler23@gmail.com.
You two should get a room.
Why? Do you like to watch?
Question: When you say “Republican Senate candidates lost every single race behind the Blue Wall. Every one.” Do you mean republican challengers? Because Susan Collins won in Maine.
You are right. Corrected.
Note that WV is not undecided. It is definitely Republican territory. The only remaining Democrats (the governor and one senator) are red-dog democrats. Like Utah and Oklahoma, every county in West Virginia went for Romney in 2012. Even though WV was born of the Civil War and sided with the Union, it aligns itself with the coalition of old Confederacy states now. Every Democrat paying attention to climate science and green energy is considered to be waging a “War on Coal.”
Watch what happens when you put a white Democrat at the top of the ticket.
I’m game. Stay in touch. We’ll put a wager on it if it happens. I’ll even spot you some points of that white Democrat happens to be female. Enjoy the chilly Chicago morning. Brrrr…..
*if that white Democrat….
WV may actually be the most interesting race in the country in ’16, just for the various dynamics. Still doubt that Clinton would actually win, it would depend on how wacky the GOP nominee ends up being (Cruz/Carson ’16!), but seeing it b/c close again would scramble some politics there locally. Fun to watch.
I’ve also seen a number of articles about some states actually having record mid-term turn outs. Some interesting trends…. Maine (blue state), at 59%- elected Republican governor, sent a Republican to the senate and one of each party to the House; 57% for Wisconsin (blue state)–elected Republican governor, did not have a Senate election (though each party has an incumbent), sent 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats to the House; 55% Alaska (red state) elected an Independent(!) governor, sent a republican to both Senate and House; 53% for Oregon– elected a Democrat governor, sent a Democrat to the Senate, sent 4 Democrats and 1 Republican to the House;52% Colorado(swing state) re-elected Democratic governor, but race was much closer than expected, sent a Republican to the Senate, sent 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats to the House; 51% Minnesota(blue state) elected a Democratic governor, democrat to the Senate, 5 Democrats to the House- but 3 Republicans also were sent to the House; 50% in Iowa(swing state)– elected Republican governor (with almost a 22 point lead!), sent a Republican to the Senate, 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat to the House. So, of the states with 50+% turn out- only 1 was a red state, 4 were blue, and 2 were swing states- yet only 2 of these were really favorable for the Democrats. It seems that “low-voter turn-out” is a scape-goat for why the Democrats lost so many offices. Maybe they should actually be thankful the National average was so low, rather than wishing it were higher….Of the 13 states that were below a 35% turn out (thus dragging the average down to the record low) only 4 were blue states. ..
Again, look closely.
Maine re-elected a GOP guv in a 3-way race with less than 50%.
Wisconsin didn’t gain any GOP House seats. Lege stayed the same.
GOP candidate lost guv race in Alaska. That’s Sarah Palin’s Alaska.
Oregon…why are you mentioning Oregon? Dems continued their dominance there.
You’ve got a long laundry list of nothing here. Republicans dominated in red states and squeaked out some victories in the remaining purple states. With very few exceptions (almost all candidates who distanced themselves from the national GOP), we got our clocks cleaned behind the blue wall. It’s a long narrative that re-iterates what’s in the article.
I mention Oregon for the same reason I mentioned all of them… They had +50% turn out. Out of 7 high turn out states, only one of which was red, Dems only faired well in 2… Oregon and Minnesota. Of the bottom 13 in turn out, only 4 were blue… Meaning higher turn out in those 13 states would likely have favored republicans rather than Democrats.
That is utterly bizarre logic. Care to share some sort of research to support the conclusion that non-voters in the red states (places like Georgia & TX) would have broken toward the GOP? I’d love to see it, because it would overturn everything everyone else thinks they know about voter turnout in the south.
The “blue wall” is melting away as those voters eventually have to move south for jobs and affordable housing and milder temps, as they have been doing for 40 years. And it won’t change the red here for at least another 40…not like the 70’s, when everyone moved here all at one time from the red north and turned Texas into a red state for the first time since Reconstruction. You can’t predict all this with your numbers and stats. You do it by migration. It won’t be enough blue from up north this time…it’ll only be Obama granting it to 5 million illegal immigrants with voter registration cards being handed to them at the border with maps to the states with the best jobs. You know where that is.
Excellent analysis. You should go all the way and become a Democrat, however. My favorite political analysis comes from former Republicans.
Chris wrote: “What are we getting from the Republicans? …thinly veiled racism…”
Chris, you gotta stop banging the racism drum. It’s just not reality anymore:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/198998-2-jon-stewart-shows-us-change-taking-place-gop-shattering-dems-worlds/
Yes, Jon Stewart is asserting that Republicans are becoming the party of women and minorities, and Democrats are becoming the crusty old white party.
Forget what Jon Stewart said, here’s the facts. http://time.com/3532018/women-vote-republicans-poll/
How many of those black candidates needed 1 black vote to win? Should I give you the answer?
The racial politics are, like a lot of things, going to be made a lot worse by this election. The racist rhetoric and policies will be let off the leash because now we can wash it away by pointing at our “black friends.” Enough people on the right are going to believe this crap to leave themselves completely stunned when the rest of the country shows up for elections in a Presidential year.
The racial politics will be made worse by the democrats, they need it. Maybe in some areas it works to a point, but they are losing votes because of it in other areas.
Remember, if the person believes all are capable and intelligent enough to succeed, they are racists. Those that look down on “minorities” and women as inferior are not racists. That’s the world through the eyes of racists and the left in general.
I don’t even think about race at all, all day long, until I read one of your articles. Maybe you’re obsessed with it.
OMG capt, you hang out here too?????
Scott, Chris and other liberals writers can’t stop it. It is about the only arrow in their quiver. But it does help mobilize people to vote against their party. So, keep it up Chris.
On another note a judge ruled Mayor Parkers executive action on HERO is unconstitutional. (Texas constitution) Oh Boy! Here comes more whining.
“Which candidate best represents YOUR values?”
“If you want a Representative who supports our LOCAL ECONOMY and JOBS that come from energy production … there’s a clear choice!”
“Endorsed by NM Right to Life”
“I promise to fight for our jobs, our values, and our freedoms!”
Rod Montoya “The Conservative Choice” State House District 1 – (From a flyer that arrived in the mail.)
————————————–
Rod Montoya won handily with 73% of the vote. Of all the races I was watching, this local race was the most intriguing mainly because a neighbor was running against him in the primary last summer. She lost despite having deep roots in the area, being active in the Republican woman’s club, having experience working with state house Republicans in Santa Fe and spending days walking door to door talking to people. Losing was not from lack of trying or not having the right connections.
My neighbor’s message was “let’s all get along to get things done together.” Rod Montoya’s was message was of sticking to values and principles.
It’s no surprise that Montoya also won in the general election. This area is the most reliably Republican county in NM, but for the first time in over 60 years, the state house elected a Republican majority. Parts of this very blue state are turning red.
Our governor, Susana Martinez, ran on reducing NM’s dependance on the federal government. A major ad on television was about ending the practice of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. Although, Martinez does support Common Core and health care exchanges, her messaging is overwhelmingly conservative.
New Mexico is the state with the largest Hispanic concentration in the country. 47% of the population is Hispanic, 39.8% is white, and 8.7% is Native American. If Republican candidates can win here, they can also win in other states.
Republicans need to send the message that there are opportunities for Hispanics as Republican candidates. We need more like Susana Martinez and Rod Montoya running for office.
Objv-what does this mean -you are in NM and I’m curious. If a ‘name’ doesn’t vote in two consecutive two year terms (four years) what would be the harm in removing the name? Heck make it 8 years and how could this be objected too?
I have no issue with ‘id’s’ to vote–if ID is easy to obtain for everyone. We don’t charge for voting for obvious reasons–why charge for an id which is only for voting?
“From the 1960s through mid-1990s, turnout ranged from about 60 percent to a high of 74 percent. However, a historical comparison to modern turnout rates is skewed by changes in law that have swelled registration rolls by making it more convenient to become an eligible voter and more difficult to purge inactive voters.”
http://krqe.com/2014/11/05/low-turnout-in-new-mexico-general-election/
“My neighbor’s message was “let’s all get along to get things done together.” Rod Montoya’s was message was of sticking to values and principles.”
Seems it’s about knowing your audience. As a pragmatist at heart, I’d be much more receptive to your neighbor’s message, especially if she’s also including here are my ideas and my plans for getting things done. Also assuming I’d approve of the things she wanted to do, of course.
“Republicans need to send the message that there are opportunities for Hispanics as Republican candidates.”
Absolutely agree! I find it interesting that New Mexico has a state run insurance exchange and that they stopped fighting gay marriage. Side note: 2 good (gay) friends of ours just went there to get married, and we are very happy for them! They’ve been together for 10 years, and make a better couple that a lot of heteros we know 🙂
Now if the Texas Republicans could do something similar, maybe I wouldn’t be so distrustful and vote straight Dem ticket next time. But noooooo, Jesus doesn’t want gay Texans to have health insurance. 🙂
WE have a winner with the nightly stupid award. Congratulations.
Nobody is stopping anybody from buying health insurance or getting a job that provides it as part of the compensation. What is wrong is taking away a person’s rights and forcing them to buy services and goods they don’t want or need, up to and including violating their right to freedom of religion.
Jesus is against sin and preached perosnal choice and responsibility.
You are the hateful bastard you’re are always talking about kabuzz.
Cappy -Jesus also preached about taking care of your neighbor and helping the downtrodden. Personal choices also depend on having a choice in the first place. Too many people (millions) before Obamacare did not have a choice to make in health care insurance. Now they do.
Also, lying is a sin and one which you and Buzzy constantly do.
Buzzy – you are the last person here that talk about stupid you bloody sheep.
And there is Turtles preaching for a theocracy just like I mentioned far below.
dow—that is the wierdest opinion I have ever read. I can’t even figure out what that means or anyone who actually thinks that way, on either side. Congrats for your fantasy writing.
Obj,
We have an opportunity to understand each other. This doesn’t happen every day.
It’s funny. I was mulling a piece specifically about New Mexico because it’s such a perfect example of what I’m talking about (not to mention one of my favorite places in the world).
New Mexico is solidly behind the Blue Wall. No Republican Presidential candidate is going to be competitive there, even if that candidate by some stretch is Susana Martinez (a real possibility).
First, let’s take a closer look at the results. You correctly noted that GOP Gov Martinez won re-election. What’s really interesting there and elsewhere is the difference between the state level races and the Federal races.
The US Senate race in NM wasn’t close, despite the GOP fielding a fairly decent challenger. Also, all three of NM’s Congressional seats remained in Democratic hands.
Again, behind the Blue Wall Republicans did not pick up a single Senate seat and only a handful of Congressional seats. Your note is a the perfect starting point for understanding why.
Susana Martinez won with 288K votes in the Governor’s race. Republican US Senate candidate Weh lost by a big margin with only 225K votes. Why did tens of thousands of people, at least 10% of the voters, split their votes?
The issues at those different levels and the implications are very different, particularly since NM voters have a counter-balance in the Democratic Senate (and, until Tues, Dem House). Thanks to that split, Martinez’s relatively ambiguous pro-life positions (pro-life as a statement, with no policies behind it). The issue is not actually in play.
She doesn’t get trapped in any culture war issues. She isn’t forced to make an idiot of herself demagoguing about Benghazi or global warming conspiracies. At the state level, especially in a blue state, a Republican Governor has an unusual privilege. They can just govern.
They aren’t burdened by the insanity that drives the party in places where the far right can demand their way. It also means that voters can feel comfortable supporting them on the basis of general competence without having to worry that they’ll open a Pandora’s Box.
New Mexico voters rejected a ballot initiative in 2013 that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks. What the Blue Wall means is that they will trust Martinez to be in the Governor’s Office, but they are much less likely to be comfortable sending her to Washington.
At home, inside a Blue State, a Republican Governor and maybe even Republicans in the Lege are relatively accountable. The scope of issues are narrower. Send them to Washington and you’ve just given Ted Cruz one more vote. If she were running for Federal office, the field of issues on which she would be meaningfully judged would widen significantly. Open up that aperture, and she would either be too moderate for the GOP primary electorate, or too extreme for New Mexico voters.
Ask Mitt Romney what happens when you try to take your state-level success to the Federal level.
We could talk about Illinois too. I just spend day after day after day helping a deeply pro-life Republican St. Sen get elected, both in the primary and the general. His pro-life, anti-gay positions just don’t matter for the job. He’s an absolutely solid guy with a lot to recommend him. Also, I kind of suspect that if push came to shove, those opinions are more personal to him and might not affect his voting.
And I might think twice about sending him to the US Senate.
And that’s what the Blue Wall means.
While you make some good points about NM, you’re mistaken about the makeup of their Congressional delegation; Republican Steve Pearce won reelection for CD 2.
goplifer wrote; “New Mexico is solidly behind the Blue Wall. No Republican Presidential candidate is going to be competitive there..”
———————-
That’s what they said about Texas until the 80’s came. Keep dreaming.
I would love to get the cite on who that “they” you’re referencing here, Joe, because I’m pretty sure that “they” don’t really know all that much about the history of Texas in presidential elections. It was clear well before the 1980s that Texas was drifting away from the Democrats: Texas went for Eisenhower TWICE in 1950s as well as for Nixon in 1972, while Carter won in 1976 by only four percentage points.
kabuzz61 says:
November 7, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Texan, why do you live in a state that is 97% white? curious, no?
….and this from a guy who is always complaining about people bringing race into the discussion.
All too often, hypocrisy is a Republican value.
At least they help the poor and hungry. Dems don’t.
Another productive day of multitasking, waiting on hold, reading trade related literature, and blogging.
Hope you are all enjoying the day as well.
A reality check for the 2014? I’d have to say that the GOP has continued to move away from realistic policy positions and move toward some Ayn Rand jizzy fantasy agenda.
I talked shop with a guy who stated very emphatically that the “Government can’t do anything right. Just tell me one thing.”
The Erie Canal. Still a viable waterway after nearly 200 years. There was considerable debate at the time about whether of not the US government had the Constitutional authority to fund the project. Ultimately the Federal Government partially funded it.
How am I supposed to support the GOP when they are relentlessly dogmatic and usually wrong?
What’s the message from the Dems? We’re sorry? We’re afraid? We’re gay?
It would help if they actually had one.
In many places this was the only message
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q3ywwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D61dRWuL8lNo&ei=cBRdVIPuMq2GigKvmoGIDA&usg=AFQjCNEdzTJn3s-VhXWJspw-h3LBo5-UQQ&sig2=TGuYwtiy5xtCBUOQtE0EdA&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw
We are the party of Yes. We’re not easy, but we can discuss it.
But of course. Republican pundits keep telling us that it’s *Democratic* women who are “easy”….
Actually, I was replying to Crogged’s question: “What’s the message from the Dems? We’re sorry? We’re afraid? We’re gay?”
*************************************
My reply about the Dems being the party of Yes was supposed to be a joking reference to the Repubs being the party of No, and a play on those words I’ve seen on t-shirts.
I wasn’t implying that anyone is promiscuous.
Although we could say that Libertarians are Libertines.
Owl wrote: Republican pundits keep telling us that it’s *Democratic* women who are “easy”….
————————-
In my own experiences, they were pretty easy. Not as pretty, but definitely easier.
Yee Haw, you da man Louie! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/7/louie-gohmert-hints-at-challenge-to-john-boehner-f/
Please tell me that is an Onion article, please.
Oh no Tex, big Louie is making his move. He has high aspirations for his asparagus.
Com’on Texan, you have to admit that it would be very entertaining.
(In the same way a combo of “Texas Chainsaw Massecre” and Drunk Uncle would be entertaining)
DO IT LOUIE!!!!!!!!!!
[…] […]
Gee, did I miss something? I had heard the GOP did pretty well in the mid-terms. Hmm. Thanks for setting us straight, Chris. 😉
You’re welcome. I live to serve.
….like Republicans….they serve. Democrats, not so much. Are you turning on us, lifer?
Chris, are you saying that for every silver lining there has to be a cloud?
TT…if I asked you a week after the 2012 elections what you thought the 2014 mid-terms would look like (assuming you were willing to entertain such thoughts so shortly after a too long election cycle), I would venture to say your estimation would have been accurate.
Mid-term election, a popular president in parts of the country, a wildly unpopular president in other parts of the country, Democrats with more seats up for election…even after a GOP drubbing in the 2012 election, you would absolutely have called these 2014 results.
So sure, Tuesday was a good night for the GOP, but it doesn’t really do much to address some fundamental issues.
Gaining house seats also. Plus you do not explain how come dem senators did not get reelected. I propose the reason is the issues you all championed did not have majority support and you had to pay the piper.
I do think the GOP will have to perform. I hope they pass many bills and send them to Obama. Let him hold the bag for the 2016 even though he isn’t running, a huge supporter and cabinet member is.
“Do we want a repeat of Obama?” “Time for a new a brighter future”.
this This THIS
Crogged – Lets see the Democrats could have argued lower gas costs, lower jobless rate, no more wars, pointed out the GOTP government shutdown, and lower deficit spending. But nooooooo…..lets ignore that shaite and pretend we do not support the leader of party and the man that is responsible for some pretty dang good ideas.
The Dems forgot no one is going to believe you when you claim you do not support the POTUS who is the leader of your party.
This GOP clown car that just got elected will not govern, they will obdurate the whole time, just has they have for the past six years.
Texan, why do you live in a state that is 97% white? curious, no?
Really had no idea how white bread Minnesota was until after I moved here in 1989. The diversity of the Texas population is probably what I miss most about Texas. I live here, if you must know, because my wife is from Minnesota and after moving here, I have fallen in love with the beauty of the state. When I first moved here it was a shock, diversity wise, but then again I live in small town Minnesota. The twin cites has a more diverse population.
Which state would that be, kitling?
According to the 2010 United States Census, Texas is 70.4% White (non-Hispanic Whites 45.3%), 11.8% African-American, 3.8% Asian.
Perhaps you’re referring to your own state of delusion.
Ah, I’d forgotten texan5142 was in Minnesota.
Even there, however, the 2010 Census says it’s only 86.9% White.
But facts, as we know, don’t really matter to kabuzz.
Turtles, are you sugesting that current deficit spending is less than $161 billion per year and the unemployment rate is lower than 4.6%. Those were the numbers democrats inherited.
The war in Afghanistan continues, and now we are having to go back to Iraq. Gitmo is still open. Gas prices are down in spite of Obama and democrats. And it was the senate democrats that shut the government down as the GOP house sent bill after bill to keep it up and running.
Democrats had nothing positive to run on and it is so many years removed from the republicans running the federal government that blaming them is no longer working except for the far most left extremists.
Nice going, Owl. Anyway…Texas is 70% white because Hispanics are legally recorded as white. It’s fine…whatever…but I’m just trying to help you’re obvious cluelessness. btw…I lived in a small Michigan town that was 97% white as well, and their Democrats um…don’t vote that way because they’re kind and open. It just means more free money.
The principle of “Rovian” politics is NOT that you lie about your opponent, but
attacking the opponents supposed strength. Being ‘against’ Obama needed to be addressed head on and not only by him!
Fear of teenagers from Guatemala, address it-people wanting to become US citizens is a ‘bad’ thing-really?
Rather than rear guard action in protecting abortion clinics and medical providers from Baptist protestors, be for increased access to otc medication, including ‘morning after’ pill access. Relentlessly be for something-positive works.
Don’t fret closing down clinics regarding ‘abortion’-be for providing women access to health care and even agree to have the clinics NOT have abortion services! It keeps them open.
Take the long road, science is going to provide women the right to control procreation after insemination with pills. Just like nature does, with ‘miscarriages’……..
But 2016 will be Clinton/Bush and we will get what we deserve………..
One last thing–there needs to be an introduction of a bill in the Texas House next time they meet. This will not pass, this session, but eventually it will. Texas will agree to the Medicaid expansion which gets Obamacare available to more Americans in the Republic of Texas.
It’s called the Perry Cruz Act, just like the Hoover Dam, which hasn’t been torn down yet in celebration of economic freedom………
Well Chris, you didn’t disappoint with your new Guv.
“The next governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, was chairman of the private equity firm GTCR, after having graduated from Dartmouth and Harvard. In 2008, Rauner was named the Philanthropist of Year by the Chicago Association of Fundraising Professionals. Rauner has given more than $20 million toward improving Chicago public schools. He’s also given time and money to a range of causes, including the Y.M.C.A., the A.C.L.U., Morehouse College, the Red Cross and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.”
Hope he legislates the same way.
One can only hope.
Oh and let me save buzzy and Cappy the trouble:
Damned Leftist, Socialist, Librul RINO! Ptoooie!
Wow! His credentials are like Senator Cruz. Awesome.
Link please, showing a comparison to the credentials…..or did you just throw that out.
Nah! Go on hating Cruz even though his education creds are greater then your fav.
Cruz is an asshole you do not see it cause you are a asshole also.
Willfully ignorant and unwilling to read for comprehension again. Doesn’t it get old for you buzzy?
Please provide Ted Cruz’s “comparable credentials for:
“Rauner was named the Philanthropist of Year by the Chicago Association of Fundraising Professionals. Rauner has given more than $20 million toward improving Chicago public schools. He’s also given time and money to a range of causes, including the Y.M.C.A., the A.C.L.U., Morehouse College, the Red Cross and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.”
You can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Willful ignorance is so blithely comforting, isn’t it buzzy?
They all jump back in amazement when I whip out my big fat degree (with detachable warrants).
“snicker”
Now overlay that map with statistics.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/06/19/red-states-rank-low-on-u-s-human-development-index/
Wow, lots of article action since my last visit! I’m sorry I missed some of those.
I thought I’d take a look at some statistics, too: the degree of urbanization in a state, related to whether it gets colored “red” or “blue”.
The overall level of urbanization in the United States, as of the 2010 Census, was 80.7%, part of the relentless march forward which has characterized every Census since the first. (For my quick-and-dirty Census statistics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States ).
Of the “Red Fortress” states, almost all fall short of that national average: Alabama (59.0%), Alaska (66.0%), Arkansas (59.0%), Idaho (70.6%), Indiana (72.4%), Kansas (74.2%), Kentucky (58.4%), Louisiana (73.2%), Mississippi (49.3%), Montana (55.9%), Nebraska (73.1%), North Dakota (59.9%), Oklahoma (66.2%), South Carolina (66.3%), South Dakota (56.7%), Tennessee (66.4%), and Wyoming (64.8%). The two exceptions are Texas (84.7%) and Utah (90.6%).
Interestingly, the “Blue Wall” states aren’t as consistent. Sure, most are more urbanized than the national average: California (95.0%), Connecticut (88.0%), Delaware (83.3%), District of Columbia (100%), Hawaii (91.9%), Illinois (88.5%), Maryland (87.2%), Massachusetts (92.0%), Nevada (94.2%), New Jersey (94.7%), New York (87.9%), Oregon (81.0%), Rhode Island (90.7%), and Washington (84.0%). But a significant component come in below that mark: Maine (38.7%), Michigan (74.6%), Minnesota (73.3%), New Hampshire (60.3%), New Mexico (77.4%), Pennsylvania (78.7%), Vermont (38.9%), and Wisconsin (70.2%).
So I thought I’d see a clear demarcation between urban and rural states, part of the same structural conflict that has shown up in U.S. politics since the apportionment fights and Senate reforms of the 1920s and onwards. But, to my surprise, I didn’t see as sharp a divide as I thought I would.
I wonder what sort of result you’d see if you compared dollar values of foreign exports on a state-by-state basis?
Oh, and a correction to my over-broad statement: the urbanization rate *did* drop once, by a tenth of a percent, between the 1810 and 1820 Census. Those darned Western expansionists. 🙂
And just to complete the data set:
If we were to assume that electoral votes were determined purely by whether a state’s degree of urbanization was above or below the national value (which, obviously, it’s not), then the map’s swing states would fall out as:
BLUE: Arizona (89.8%), Colorado (86.2%), Florida (91.2%)
RED: Georgia (75.1%), Iowa (64.0%), Missouri (70.4%), North Carolina (66.1%), Ohio (77.9%), West Virginia (48.7%), Virginia (75.5%)
Again, it’s obviously a very, very rough measure. In 2012, Arizona went red, but Iowa and Ohio and Virginia went blue. In 2008, Arizona went red, but Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia went blue. And in the unusual 2004 election, the entire bunch from both sets went red.
ok…forbes AND the progressive…so balanced and fair. Not like any kind of data adjustments like a hockey stick or anything. Nah.
“Three days after voters expressed their discontent with the state of the economy, the government on Friday reported strong signs of improvement, estimating that employers added 214,000 jobs in October, while the official jobless rate dropped for the second month in a row to 5.8 percent.
The increase puts the average monthly employment gain for the past six months at 235,000 — an indication, analysts said, that the economy’s progress after years of meager growth was on the upswing.”
Yup, the conservative old White vote deals with “reality” yet again.
It AIN’T the economy stupid. It’s whatever bogeyman they snatch out of thin air.
Oh yeah, “BENGAZI!” [sic]
I seem to remember someone saying how “shutting down” the government seriously hurt the Republicans, and they would pay in 2014. Also polls that, even up until election day, were predicting lots of close races that ended up being blowouts. Oh, and Texas is going purple.
Anyone who thinks they can forecast elections two years from now is delusional.
Presidential elections were a lot harder to predict when there were two national parties. Unless there’s a third candidate, this one doesn’t look very interesting.
There is also one part you missed goplifer. The Republicans did well in rural parts, but lost the cities. Here in New York recently, Rob Astorino won most of New York, but mostly rural areas and Cuomo won re-election by getting the cities to vote for him and it was only a few districts. To me, it shows the lack (or not trying) to appeal to city people.
Now the GOP hasn’t won a gubernatorial election since George Pataki won last time (can’t recall). The same goes for Maryland too.
Republicans are only halfway through the wilderness years IMO. I knew since Obama got elected, it would be hard to win the White House unless they change. I’ve heard the range from 12-40 years and it kind of scares me it could be that long.
goplifer, if the Republicans should split, could a future conservative party appeal to a diverse population? Just wanted your opinion.
If the Republicans split, whichever party keeps the name will be at an enormous advantage in the next set of voter contests. Our current set of electoral laws are almost specifically written to maintain the two-party duopoly.
The let prays that the tea party movement will spin off and split the conservative vote. But we are not that foolish and we are having some success by infiltrating the GOP.
Obviously, prediction doesn’t work.
Come on Chris, you’re dreaming. Pa, can be in play and just a couple of years ago all you experts were saying Ohio is not a blue wall. After the next census Texas will gather more seats and Calif will lose.
Kabuzz, I realize your ability to read and understand is constantly in question, so I thought I’d point out that Chris’ map does NOT depict Ohio as part of the “Blue Wall”.
My point my friendly buzzard from Bellaire is Chris and the dem’s said the blue wall was up in Ohio also. But say and believe whatever you want because it must really hurt to realize you and your beliefs got whomped and you opinions are in the minority within a minority.
Kabuzz, really, can’t you read? Or maybe you should try the “Find” command in your browser. Try it right now, for “Ohio.”
“Ohio” appears nowhere in Chris’ post. You’re the one who’s hopelessly and gratuitously wrong.
Buzz…did it “really hurt” you to realize your views and your beliefs got whomped and that your opinions were in the minority within a minority?
Buddy, if you are getting butthurt every time the electorate doesn’t agree with you, I kind of understand your overall perspective on things ever since those dirty hippies were mean to you in the 70s.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
Hey capt. Signed tea party loser
Where to begin? Texas was once part of the “blue wall”. That has changed over the past few years. A recent article showed that Hispanics are moving to the GOP and away from the DNC, so the democrats cannot assume support from that block any longer. That would be because democrats are getting all up in their personal lives instead of just leaving them alone.
Texas remained a democratic state until 2002, even after republicans were winning statewide elections. Same could happen in other states.
You keep saying that republicans were the most popular girl at the party where nobody showed up. Well, democrats are so put off that they didn’t show up. They voted for none of the above, much like conservatives did in 2008 and 2012, by staying home or not casting a vote for either candidate.
You argue that the 1% is with the democrats, so democrats must be with the 1% instead of against them. That goes against the message democrats are trying to send. What does that mean?
Minimum wage increases are at state levels. Different levels of government, different powers and responsibilities. I have voted for tax increases at local levels, but stand against them at federal levels.
You are again claiming to be part of the Dixiecrat movement. The tea party movement has no such connection.
Oil prices are something worth watching and important. Some parts of OPEC want to drive them down to stop fracking, other parts want to keep prices above $75. Iraq just came out with that today or yesterday. And Texas is not nationalizing oil companieds. The comparison to Venenzuela, which has nationalized oil companies, is rather … well, I don;t like calling people names or saying that they are … But maybe their views and comparisons are stupid and idiotioc.
The economy is stagnant. And as the left loves to point out, Obama is all in for the “1%” and against the middle class. Middle class wages have been stagnant for decades, or is that all a lie from the left?
McConnell surrendered to the losing party. That shows he is with the democrats and the left, not with conservatives and the right. I discussed problems concerning that under your last entry. Will we get stupidity or will he and other establishment republicans follow the tea party movement?
Your claim that a democrat won when only republicans showed up to vote? Republicans voted for the democrat? That would make some sense when you call yourself a republican, and when a republican loses in the primary and endorses the democrat. I would say that is what some republicans in name only would do, but not conservatives. Again, it comes down to those type of people actually being with the DNC and the Dixiecrats of old, not conservatives and not with the tea party movement.
“Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or…” we will end up with more of the same from the GOP establishment and democrats they are aligned with
“Winning” this election could help that force emerge. But it could also be a dark week for that force, for the tea party movement, and for everyone who wants to see America remain the world’s most vibrant, most powerful nation.
We may have shot ourselves in the foot and empowered the left, the socialists, those that want to bring the U.S. down a few levels, that want to destroy more of our individual liberty and rights, the democrats, the far left, the GOP establishment.
More delusion from Sternn about the political differences in yesterday’s Texas democrats and today’s Texas republicans. It’s hard to believe someone can be so irrationally blind as to not see that they are one in the same. Texas has not changed its politics in the last 40 years. It has changed what it calls it.
But that is the point, John. Lifer claims the title of Republican. And he says that the Republicans are the Dixiecrats, the Democrats of years gone by, those that supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. Those that support the right to own people as property, to kill innocent human beings for convenience
The tea party movement makes no such claims. We are not married to the GOP. We are not the Dixiecrats nor Democrats of old. We are not even Republicans as far as the GOP establishment goes. We are libertarian leaning outsiders working to infiltrate the GOP.
Now the Democrats have moved to total socialism, even communism and theocracy. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are not far enough to the left for y’all. You call them “moderates” or “centrists”. You look down at people that are not white males as inferior.
We are the abolitionists, but without the terrorist activities. You, well, you make it clear where you stand.
Delusional.
Theocracy?? That’s a new one. I thought all the lefties were supposed to be Godless atheist types.
“theocracy”
Really? Somehow I don’t believe that there are that many Dominionists on the left side of the aisle.
This is a semi-ridiculous paean to the Texas GOP, but even they admit that GOP gains in Texas were at least partly due to “the majority of the members of the old school of conservative Democrats had either fled their Party’s ranks or retired from office, leaving the liberal core that is the heart of today’s Democrat Party.”
It is also interesting that today’s GOP brags about their African-American roots, at one point making up 90% of the membership.
http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party/overview-and-history/
…and reading their platform on that same site should remove all doubt about which party is closer to a theocracy.
Yes, theocracy. The left often claims that religious people might not give enough to religious charities to help people in need as the Bible commands, so they must have the government force the people to do as the Bible commands to help poor people and people in need. That is forcing religious beliefs on the people, theocracy.
Sternn, do you have a committee that helps you think up insane claims, or do you do it all yourself?
Only the committee of the left, John.
Oh capt. Buddy, you’re not taking your meds again. I’ve missed you at the chron. Which names you going by these days?
If Strom Thurmond were running for office today, is there 1 chance in 100 that he doesn’t associate with the Tea Party?
And what of all the Dixiecrats that stayed with the Democratic Party, John? But no, he wouldn’t associate with us, he would be with Lifer in the GOP establishemnt just as Lufer has claimed association with the Dixiecrats.
Sternn’s powers of self-deslusion are truly awesome.
For an interesting pseudo-animation, go to the Wikipedia page for the 1940 U.S. presidential election, some 75 years ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1940 ). See the electoral map covered with swathes of Democratic blue, including the Deep South? Now go to the top of that gray box, by the American flag and dates, and click the link “-> 1944”.
Still pretty darned blue in the South. Click again to 1948. Yep: a blue South (except for those weird orange Dixiecrats). How about 1952? Wow: it’s a pretty stark contrast between those blue Southern states going for Adlai Stevenson and the general red sweep for Republican Eisenhower. 1956? Not much change for the South. 1960? Again, the South is blue (except for some more odd orange electors).
1964? Uh… wait a minute. It’s like someone slipped a photographic negative into the mix. Now the core of the Deep South (and Goldwater’s Arizona) are the only red in a sea of Johnson-voting blue. Why, what could have happened in the four years previous, to so deeply and completely change the political attitudes of those states? Why, something tells me the vital date is July 2, 1964. What did the president at the time say? “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” And what was the law? Why, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Skip once more, to 1968, and we see those states go for “American Independent” George Wallace, despite the sea of red for Nixon and the usual blue outposts for Humphrey. Hm, what was George Wallace famous for, again? Oh, right: “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”, a line still so redolent in history you could see it pastiched in a recent ad for the latest *Hunger Games* movie.
(For what it’s worth, the American Independent Party’s second presidential candidate, John G. Schmitz in 1972, was later expelled from the *John Birch Society* for *extremist rhetoric*!)
(Their third candidate, 1976’s Lester Maddox, had first gained political fame by refusing to serve black customers at his Atlanta restaurant, in defiance of that earlier Civil Rights Act, ultimately closing the restaurant after multiple contempt-or-court citations. *Time* magazine called Maddox a “strident racist”; *Newsweek* a “backwoods demagogue out in the boondocks.” Elected Democratic governor of Georgia in 1966 (in the absence of any strong local Republican Party), he maintained a segregationist stance and refused to let the body of slain Martin Luther King, Jr., lie in state in the Georgia capitol. Note his 1976 AIP nomination, which resulted in his running *against* President-to-be Jimmy Carter, of his own state. In 1992 and 1996, Maddox endorsed Republican Patrick J. Buchanan for the presidency, his partisan transformation complete.)
(And because this is so much fun, let’s look at AIP’s fourth candidate, 1980’s John Rarick. As a judge, Rarick condemned racial integraiton as “a tool of the Communist conspiracy” and referred to racial busing as a torture tactic. As a congressman, he introduced a bill asking Congress to renounce the validity of the 14th Amendment’s ratification, offered his open support to the white minority rule of Rhodesia, and claimed that “in his state it is not considered in good taste for a white person to shake hands with a black stranger.”
We can roll forward into 1972 (a truly uninteresting map, but it shows a strong red South), and we get one more swing, in the 1976 electoral map, where the South swings blue for Carter/Mondale. We should point out that Northern and Western Democrats started an “ABC (Anybody But Carter)” movement, claiming he was too conservative for the Democratic Party, that Ford was tainted by Nixon’s faults, and that Carter had run racism-tinged campaigns for governor of Georgia, all of which inoculated him against some opposition. 1976 was also the last time to date that Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina would vote Democratic, and the last time North Carolina would vote Democratic until 2008.
From then on, it’s pretty consistent. The South goes red (like most others) in 1980 (except for Georgia, faithful to Carter), then unanimously red for Mondale’s ignominious 1984 defeat. 1988 is similar. 1992 looks a bit odd and patchy, until we remember Perot’s spoiler effect. By 2000 we’re back in familiar territory, as for 2004, 2008, and 2012.
The shift of the South from Democratic to Republican, coupled with the attachment of civil rights to the Democratic Party and the resulting flight of many Southern Democratic voters to, first, third parties, and then active Republicanism, seems clear.
To everyone except Sternn.
Tell us again, bird, when did the democrats lose control of the Texas legislature? Answer, 2002, and that’s when Texas finally went for the republicans.
By the way, it was the republicans in congress that got the Civil Rights Act pushed through. Sure, there were and are problems with the act, like violating the civil rights of the people, but don’t pretend democrats are the ones that got the several acts passed and signed into law. All but three Diciecrats went back to the DNC and stayed there. Democrats own them, always have and always will.
Maybe Sternn is a John Bircher. That would explain a lot.
Read my comment again. Even the Texas GOP acknowledges that the party’s ascendance was due to “the majority of the members of the old school of conservative Democrats had either fled their Party’s ranks or retired from office”.
Even the GOP admits that there existed a majority of CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS in Texas. A fact that is pretty obvious to every single person not named Sternn.
Texas hasn’t voted for a Democratic candidate for president since 1976. That is almost 40 years.
Get a clue Stern.
Texas congress was ruled by democrats from the end of Reconstruction until 2002.
Get a clue, 75.
Cappy – The state has not elected a Democrat for statewide office since the early 1990’s but feel free to cherry pick your criteria all you want.
I’m quite familiar with stern from the Houston Chronicle commenting system. Stern doesn’t have a clue and the best part about stern is that stern doesn’t care if it has a clue, or not. Stern is looney tunes. There isn’t one comment that doesn’t hit one of three buzzwords. Benghazi. Socialist. Communist. Sometimes all three. I have my own drinking game related to Stern’s comments. Oh, he also refers to any black man as a thug.
Wow, I think popcorn futures literally rose while you were writing that rant.
I hate to break it to you but the tea baggers are the establishment. You guys control the GOTP, you guys are the ones with your hands up Boehner’s rear like a ventriloquist dummy and my brother turtle Mitch McConnell is about to get Ted Cruz’s hand inserted up his shell as well. So make no mistake you guys are in charge and responsible for the results of the next couple of years.
I always get a little laugh when you associate Lifer with the tea party movement.
And FYI, my cfriteria is consistent, it is the legislature that has the real control over the government, state or federal. Harry Reid has lost the ability to protect Obama, so things will be very visible for the next two years. Enjoy.
“I always get a little laugh when you associate Lifer with the tea party movement”
Funny, I always get a laugh when you have to argue comments no one made because you are incapable of dealing with anyone honestly and directly.
Lifer is a Republican, you say all republicans are the tea party moevemnt. Maybe you should revaluate your opinion on that.
Well written Capt. Sternn.
Owl truly is a bird. You can give him bloody slices of facts, and he can regurgitate it back up and give it to you to refeed him, which he will once again gobble down and regurgitate back until it looks like what he wants. You must be a politician. Or a woman.