Rick Perry continues shoring up 2016 support

[Relic]

For somebody claiming to not care, you sure are quick to grab the meal off the hook.

But he on only got 0.5%, and me being the one saying it, doesn't make it less of a fact.

I know, I know; you'll say: "...but there's more of us, this time. You wait and see. Without us, you can't win."

I think you overestimate your importance. Pragmatic, practical realistic folks see courting your vote as losing 2 or 3 votes, just to please you.

Here's part of the problem, you are media driven, just like other lefties. Oh, did I say "other", sorry, I know you're what? A conservative? 

Anyway, your media driven "intelligence" causes you to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a far left radical, or a right wing, knuckle dragging, SoCon, Tea Partier. It's my opinion, that given a choice, you'd prefer the leftist radical to the Tea Party type.

You ignore what most of us here call for, because it doesn't fit your view of us. I'm still not quite sure why you choose to dirty yourself in with our company, but that's another story. What we are calling for is Republicans to make a stand, and stick to that stand. Sure, I'd like to see small government, fiscal conservatives, but whatever the heck it is Republican means, stand for it, do it. They won't, and they don't. That is why I don't care if they ever win again, because what exactly is being won? A comfortable life for someone who claims to be something other than Democrat? Bah!

And that leads to me. You attack me as if I were the Ohio Tea Party chairman. I'm a libertarian, if I had to choose a tag. I'm also a realist. While I'm not a SoCon, and generally don't care what others do to themselves, I do appreciate family values and the American culture, what's left of it. If Republicans would stand for small government, and fiscal responsibility, I could work with that. But I'll be darned if we can find anyone that will stick to that. So, to hell with the bunch of them.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base. ]]

Nonsense, pure horse manure.

The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.

If only 5% more Euro-Americans had voted Republican in a few key states in 2012, Romney would be in the White House today.

For every vote that the leftist Republicans think they can win from your so-called "non-shrinking base", they will lose two or more from their -real- base, without which they have no hope of remaining a national political party.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 5-7% of "the black vote" again, if that much. Obama has sealed that deal for decades to come.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 15-25% of "the Hispanic vote" (when averaged nationally). The more illegal Hispanics you transform into voters via amnesty (oops, you call it "immigration reform"), the more lopsided the Hispanic vote will become for the democrats in real numbers.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 25% of "The Asian vote". As improbable and amazing as it seems, the percentage of Asians who voted for the democrats was higher than the percentages of Hispanics who did in the last election.

The "future" for the GOP lies in locking up "the white vote", as it has done down south.

Whites in the south vote overwhelmingly Republican as a matter of "survival politics", which might also be called -- the dreaded word -- "identity politics".

If they didn't, they'd be ruled by the democrats, and that "rule" would be largely black, because the southern states have 35-40% black populations and there are more black democrats there than white democrats.

Call this "racist" if you wish -- the whites who live in those states call it "reality".

The "white identity politics" of the south (beginning with what was once referred to as Nixon's "Southern Strategy") has resulted in an astounding transformation: what was once "the solid South" (the solid democratic South) has now turned 180 degrees to become the most "reliably Republican" region in the country.

And again, this is the result of whites who have "switched sides" to the Republicans for reasons of "racial reality".

If it has worked in the South, it can work elsewhere, particularly in the wake of the current alien invasion and border breakdown.

Yes, like you said, it's time for Republicans to "get off the fence" and get busy.
The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.

Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.

Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...

[Fishrrman]

align care wrote above:
[[ Off topic but related. Romney would have made a good president and I'm not convinced he won't run again; Reagan ran twice before grabbing the brass ring. With a minor image make-over Romney could be viable in '16. ]]

Romney lost in 2008 -- to John McCain.

Romney lost in 2012 -- to Barack Obama.

Guess he wants to try for a three-time loser, eh....????

[MACVSOG68]

The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.

And the latest polling shows that 82% of adults nationwide consider immigration reform as somewhat to extremely important.  Wonder if some of them are "Euro-Americans"?

[jmyrlefuller]

The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.

Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.

Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...

But if you do, you still have the breeding component. The white vote is getting rapidly older and is not having enough children.

Take a look at this graph, especially the right side:



Notice something about the trend from the 1972 election onward?

If you guessed a slow but steady growth in the Democratic Party's base, you would be correct, and that directly corresponds to the ethnic shifts in the country. If you think you can stop that by closing the border, you're fooling yourself: it has been estimated that white non-Hispanics are no longer a majority of live births in this country, or that we are at least very close to that tipping point. That means, without a fundamental shift in the way we approach childbearing and sex, within two generations there will no longer be enough white people to maintain such a party.

You're simply prolonging the inevitable.

[Fishrrman]

[[ You're simply prolonging the inevitable...]]

Perhaps.

But given the choice, would you rather prolong "the inevitable", or accelerate it?

[Oceander]

Interesting stat.  And I do agree with you about Romney.  He would certainly have made a hell of a better president than we have now, and he may well run again.

Definitely agree with you and aligncare on that one.

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ It's time for the GOP to get off the fence and look to the future - the "nontraditional" future - and unhitch itself from a shrinking base. ]]

Nonsense, pure horse manure.

The "base" that the GOP should be trying to attract still represents about 72% of American citizens, if not more.

If only 5% more Euro-Americans had voted Republican in a few key states in 2012, Romney would be in the White House today.

For every vote that the leftist Republicans think they can win from your so-called "non-shrinking base", they will lose two or more from their -real- base, without which they have no hope of remaining a national political party.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 5-7% of "the black vote" again, if that much. Obama has sealed that deal for decades to come.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 15-25% of "the Hispanic vote" (when averaged nationally). The more illegal Hispanics you transform into voters via amnesty (oops, you call it "immigration reform"), the more lopsided the Hispanic vote will become for the democrats in real numbers.

Prediction: the Republicans will never win more than 25% of "The Asian vote". As improbable and amazing as it seems, the percentage of Asians who voted for the democrats was higher than the percentages of Hispanics who did in the last election.

The "future" for the GOP lies in locking up "the white vote", as it has done down south.

Whites in the south vote overwhelmingly Republican as a matter of "survival politics", which might also be called -- the dreaded word -- "identity politics".

If they didn't, they'd be ruled by the democrats, and that "rule" would be largely black, because the southern states have 35-40% black populations and there are more black democrats there than white democrats.

Call this "racist" if you wish -- the whites who live in those states call it "reality".

The "white identity politics" of the south (beginning with what was once referred to as Nixon's "Southern Strategy") has resulted in an astounding transformation: what was once "the solid South" (the solid democratic South) has now turned 180 degrees to become the most "reliably Republican" region in the country.

And again, this is the result of whites who have "switched sides" to the Republicans for reasons of "racial reality".

If it has worked in the South, it can work elsewhere, particularly in the wake of the current alien invasion and border breakdown.

Yes, like you said, it's time for Republicans to "get off the fence" and get busy.
The opportunity is out there for the Pubbies: seal the border, send the illegals back, defend states and local communities against housing the illegal flood.

Do this, and whites will rush to the Republican party side.

Go the way you want to go, and the Republican party will be dead in less than twenty years, possibly in ten...

racism ill becomes you sir.  the GOP is already withering on the vine precisely because of its emphasis on white SoCons to the exclusion of everyone else. 

furthermore, a necessary albeit implicit conclusion from your position, if it's true, is that the principles and philosophy of the GOP and its base simply cannot be explained to anyone who isn't already a believer.  That is not only sad but also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is nothing more than a dinosaur, an irrational, incomprehensible relic of a dead era.  Finally, it also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is racist because it also implicitly concludes that non-whites simply do not have what it takes to understand, let alone adopt, the principles and philosophy of the GOP.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Here's part of the problem, you are media driven, just like other lefties. Oh, did I say "other", sorry, I know you're what? A conservative? 

Anyway, your media driven "intelligence" causes you to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a far left radical, or a right wing, knuckle dragging, SoCon, Tea Partier. It's my opinion, that given a choice, you'd prefer the leftist radical to the Tea Party type.

You ignore what most of us here call for, because it doesn't fit your view of us. I'm still not quite sure why you choose to dirty yourself in with our company, but that's another story. What we are calling for is Republicans to make a stand, and stick to that stand. Sure, I'd like to see small government, fiscal conservatives, but whatever the heck it is Republican means, stand for it, do it. They won't, and they don't. That is why I don't care if they ever win again, because what exactly is being won? A comfortable life for someone who claims to be something other than Democrat? Bah!

Yeah!  truth_seeker  is one of THEM not one of US.
Childish pseudomindreading and easily refutable http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=17 .  Why have you not deleted this post in embarrassment?

And that leads to me. You attack me as if I were the Ohio Tea Party chairman. I'm a libertarian, if I had to choose a tag. I'm also a realist. While I'm not a SoCon, and generally don't care what others do to themselves, I do appreciate family values and the American culture, what's left of it. If Republicans would stand for small government, and fiscal responsibility, I could work with that. But I'll be darned if we can find anyone that will stick to that. So, to hell with the bunch of them.

I'm a Republican.  It's my party that I have endorsed, voted for, worked for, and volunteered for.  I believe my team is immeasurably better than than the other team.  I believe my team can win without the "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican" Tea Party people.  The Tea Party sees no difference between the rats and the GOP.  That is why they don't care that they cost us a majority in the Senate in 2012 based on my ESP powers.

After years of droning on and on about "NOT ONE MORE DIME RNC!" and empty threats of starting a third party, conservatives decided to take on the GOPe in the primaries and spectacularly prove their irrelevance.  Thank you Freedomworks.  Thank you Senate Conservative Fund.  Thank you Club for Growth.  Thank you Tea Party Patriots.

This year was really important because it's going to set the tone for 2016.  It should be obvious that national politics is cyclical.  The US Presidency has traded parties every eight years, 7 out of the last 8 times.

FDR/Truman
IKE
JFK/Johnson
Nixon/Ford
Carter/Reagan (exception)
Reagan/Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama

We discovered in 2012 and were reminded last October that we can't win with "conservatives."  2016 is going to be a big GOP year.  The big question is "will the GOPe be able to prevent a "conservative" takeover?" And the answer is yes. 

I'm equally pleased to report that according to the polls I've read the Tea Party has not put any state at risk this year.  Good job little buddy. I don't know of any congressional district in danger because of conservatives either.  Is it an improvement over past years because the Tea Party has gotten smarter?  Maybe.  Or maybe the voters just ain't that in to you.

The witches, legitimate rape philosophers, cock fighting enthusiasts, and nursery home photography aficionados all got rejected by the Republican base.  Real Republicans will no longer contribute to the election of rats.

[aligncare]

Real Republicans sit by and dutifully vote for a political team that is nearly indistinguishable from the opposition. Okay, so for 100 years Republicans and Democrats took turns forcing this soul–stealing behemoth in Washington DC on we the people. Okay, so some of us want to change that. That's politics, baby.

[MACVSOG68]

racism ill becomes you sir.  the GOP is already withering on the vine precisely because of its emphasis on white SoCons to the exclusion of everyone else. 

furthermore, a necessary albeit implicit conclusion from your position, if it's true, is that the principles and philosophy of the GOP and its base simply cannot be explained to anyone who isn't already a believer.  That is not only sad but also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is nothing more than a dinosaur, an irrational, incomprehensible relic of a dead era.  Finally, it also proves out the democrats'/libs' argument that the GOP is racist because it also implicitly concludes that non-whites simply do not have what it takes to understand, let alone adopt, the principles and philosophy of the GOP.

Absolute perfection!   

[aligncare]

I agree, racism is wrong at its core. But, it's also part of human nature – expressed commonly in every racial group. How to deal with that? The U.S. Constitution.

[olde north church]

I agree, racism is wrong at its core. But, it's also part of human nature – expressed commonly in every racial group. How to deal with that? The U.S. Constitution.

You were born with your own uniform.

[Relic]

Yeah!  truth_seeker  is one of THEM not one of US.
Childish pseudomindreading and easily refutable http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=17 .  Why have you not deleted this post in embarrassment?

Why do you post garbage in defense of a fellow traveler?

I'm a Republican.  It's my party that I have endorsed, voted for, worked for, and volunteered for.  I believe my team is immeasurably better than than the other team.  I believe my team can win without the "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican" Tea Party people.

I'll be civil and simply say we strongly disagree. I hope you enjoy President Warren's administration.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Why do you post garbage in defense of a fellow traveler?

I accept your apology on behalf of the GOPe

I'll be civil and simply say we strongly disagree. I hope you enjoy President Warren's administration.

We both would hate that I think, but God, I hope the rats nominate the squaw.  2016 is the year the GOP needs to shout as loudly as possible that "This election is a referendum on liberalism."

[Relic]

I accept your apology on behalf of the GOPe

We both would hate that I think, but God, I hope the rats nominate the squaw.  2016 is the year the GOP needs to shout as loudly as possible that "This election is a referendum on liberalism."

Do you live in Colorado? Because I think you've been smoking something that hampers your cognitive abilities.

Which GOP is it that would stand up to liberalism? I haven't seen that GOP. Especially if they're facing another "minority", (how do women count as a minority?). Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.

It's ok, you don't need the likes of me. Let me know how it works out for you.

[MACVSOG68]

Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.

I don't disagree, but if Pocahontas does challenge Hillary, it will be interesting as a lot of the media still loves Hillary.  Still, after Obama's "leadership", I'm not sure they'll all jump in as quickly as they did for him. 

[Relic]

I don't disagree, but if Pocahontas does challenge Hillary, it will be interesting as a lot of the media still loves Hillary.  Still, after Obama's "leadership", I'm not sure they'll all jump in as quickly as they did for him.

Hillary is polarizing, even for Democrats. There was relief on the Dem side when Obama emerged. When Warren jumps in, there will be a lot of support for her. If Warren bests Clinton, the media will fall all over themselves to help coronate the first woman president.

There are women who call themselves conservative who will vote for a Democrat woman, simply because it's a woman, and it's time.

[MACVSOG68]

Hillary is polarizing, even for Democrats. There was relief on the Dem side when Obama emerged. When Warren jumps in, there will be a lot of support for her. If Warren bests Clinton, the media will fall all over themselves to help coronate the first woman president.

There are women who call themselves conservative who will vote for a Democrat woman, simply because it's a woman, and it's time.

I do agree much of the media will go for either of them against a Republican candidate, but it would still be interesting to see if they jump the Clinton ship in any meaningful way during the primary season.  And of course the women's vote will go for either of them.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Which GOP is it that would stand up to liberalism? I haven't seen that GOP. Especially if they're facing another "minority", (how do women count as a minority?). Barack Obama had as much if not more baggage than Warren, and the media went all in for him. They will do the same for Warren.

It's ok, you don't need the likes of me. Let me know how it works out for you.

We agree that the GOP will succeed without your support.  You see no difference between Dubya and Obama, fortunately the vast majority of voters do see a difference.  Warren has no shot of attracting a majority of voters. The media went all out for Gore and Kerry too.