The party of Lincoln is dying...By Michael Gerson

[truth_seeker]

The party is not in decline. The party is struggling for an appeal. Fewer people desire to be members. But they remain leaners, so the same voting result occur.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Compared to 2004 the Total GOP +leaners is almost identical

But the GOP party identification is down around 5 pts.

The statistics for governors, federal legislature and state legislatures is up over that period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

Increasingly on this site, I notice a trend of rambling on ad infinitum, without the facts and statistics.

All of this discussion about the death of the party is nonsense.

[Sanguine]

How do you know when a party is about to die?  When it becomes "they" instead of "we" to its supposed members.

Good point.

[musiclady]

Dying? Hardly. THe GOP controls a record number of state legislatures and lesser state offices, as well as both houses of Congress.

Temporarily self-immolating? Sure. If Trump was a mistake then hopefully the dummies who voted him in learn their lesson.

IMO, locally and statewide, the Republican party is actually doing fine.  The Republican reps in my state are very conservative and principled, as are our local politicians.

It's the national party that's dead, and that includes both Congress and Senate..

And when Trump sealed the nomination in May, the knife in the heart of the Republican party got twisted until there was no life in it at all.


The day he won was the day I left the party.  I don't know how I'll ever return.

[musiclady]

The party is not in decline. The party is struggling for an appeal. Fewer people desire to be members. But they remain leaners, so the same voting result occur.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Compared to 2004 the Total GOP +leaners is almost identical

But the GOP party identification is down around 5 pts.

The statistics for governors, federal legislature and state legislatures is up over that period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

Increasingly on this site, I notice a trend of rambling on ad infinitum, without the facts and statistics.

All of this discussion about the death of the party is nonsense.

Then why did primary voters pick the least appealing, most disfavored politician in history to be its nominee?

Why did they choose a candidate that 90% of blacks, 80% of Hispanics and 75% of women disapprove of?

As I see it, the Republican party is trying to be as UNappealing as they can possibly be with the nomination of Trump.

[r9etb]

Then why did primary voters pick the least appealing, most disfavored politician in history to be its nominee?

That's an excellent question.  Put a different way, how did a party base that claim vociferously to hold to one set of principles, allow themselves to be buffaloed by a narcissist whose beliefs and actions are antithetical to those principles?

It looks to me like "the base" that brought Trump to where he is today, have lost their moorings.  A political party without principles is... well, it's not a political party anymore.  It's more like a crime family, looking to gain whenever and however it can.

[jmyrlefuller]

The party is not in decline. The party is struggling for an appeal. Fewer people desire to be members. But they remain leaners, so the same voting result occur.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Compared to 2004 the Total GOP +leaners is almost identical

But the GOP party identification is down around 5 pts.

And yet in 2004, Bush won re-election, but in 2012, Obama won re-election with a majority, something that no incumbent Democrat had ever done since FDR. (Not counting those VP's who succeeded to President after their predecessor died in office and were re-elected.)

Do not kid yourself. The long-term trend for the Republican party has been going down for decades now.

The statistics for governors, federal legislature and state legislatures is up over that period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

That was only because of a one-time bump in 2010 that allowed the Republicans to gerrymander a firewall. It's the same way the Democrats held onto Congressional power for decades after Truman.

Look at the state-by-state Presidential elections. How many formerly solid Democrat states have come into play for the Republicans the past decade? None. How many swing states have become solid Republican strongholds? None. How many have gone the other way? Lots. Virginia and Pennsylvania are two shining examples.

Increasingly on this site, I notice a trend of rambling on ad infinitum, without the facts and statistics.

All of this discussion about the death of the party is nonsense.

The evidence runs contrary to your claims.

[truth_seeker]

Then why did primary voters pick the least appealing, most disfavored politician in history to be its nominee?

Why did they choose a candidate that 90% of blacks, 80% of Hispanics and 75% of women disapprove of?

As I see it, the Republican party is trying to be as UNappealing as they can possibly be with the nomination of Trump.

My 91 year old mother says there was a similar feeling for Goldwater in 1964. Her family were northern Christian motivated abolitionist Republicans, and Goldwater was a push too far for them, at the time, under the extant circumstances. Their party affiliation is documented since the 1840s.

It is not new for factions to occur in American political parties. In 1980 John Anderson peeled a few off the GOP. In 1992 Ross Perot peeled some off the GOP. In 2000 Pat Buchanan peeled a few off the GOP.

It is not new either, to believe strongly that yours, and only yours, is the truly "righteous" principled faction. Such factions however, have habits of losing.





 

[r9etb]

It is not new either, to believe strongly that yours, and only yours, is the truly "righteous" principled faction. Such factions however, have habits of losing.

What's different is that you could pin down where Goldwater, Anderson, Buchanan, and even Perot stood on the issues.  You can't say the same for Trump (unless the issue in question is Trump).

[truth_seeker]

The evidence runs contrary to your claims.

No, I cited  evidence for my claims, and you put forth none. Did you look at the links?

[musiclady]

That's an excellent question.  Put a different way, how did a party base that claim vociferously to hold to one set of principles, allow themselves to be buffaloed by a narcissist whose beliefs and actions are antithetical to those principles?

It looks to me like "the base" that brought Trump to where he is today, have lost their moorings.  A political party without principles is... well, it's not a political party anymore.  It's more like a crime family, looking to gain whenever and however it can.

Couldn't agree more.  It's the more salient question.  How did the Republican party swallow the Trump lies enough to betray everything it every claimed to believe in?

The national Republican party has no remaining principles.  That's why I, who have hung onto hope for its recovery for a long time, have now given up.  There is no party of principles left.  Therefore, I have no party.

[musiclady]

My 91 year old mother says there was a similar feeling for Goldwater in 1964. Her family were northern Christian motivated abolitionist Republicans, and Goldwater was a push too far for them, at the time, under the extant circumstances. Their party affiliation is documented since the 1840s.

It is not new for factions to occur in American political parties. In 1980 John Anderson peeled a few off the GOP. In 1992 Ross Perot peeled some off the GOP. In 2000 Pat Buchanan peeled a few off the GOP.

It is not new either, to believe strongly that yours, and only yours, is the truly "righteous" principled faction. Such factions however, have habits of losing.

The problem with Trump is not about "feelings"....... it's about reality.

As for the "righteous" part....... there is nothing in the Republican platform that Donald Trump believes in.  The Republican platform is not now, nor has ever been "righteous."  This is not about some faction.  It's about the principles that the Republican party has always stood for.

Donald Trump has Democrat "principles," which is why the people to whom you ascribe this so-called "righteousness" are leaving the party in droves.  If Donald Trump is our standard bearer, we no longer have standards.

[truth_seeker]

Couldn't agree more.  It's the more salient question.  How did the Republican party swallow the Trump lies enough to betray everything it every claimed to believe in?

The national Republican party has no remaining principles.  That's why I, who have hung onto hope for its recovery for a long time, have now given up.  There is no party of principles left.  Therefore, I have no party.

So the day before Trump entered the stage, everything was just fine? Then he enters, and it all falls apart?

More likely in my view is this: He boldly raised issues which were IMPORTANT to Republicans and conservatives, but which were NOT being addressed to their satisfaction.

--Illegal immigration with impact on crime

--Unsafe muslim entries

--Unfair trade arrangements

Voters that had grown weary of rhetoric heard him, and said hell yes, I like that guy

Any #Nevertrump with honesty HAS to admit the GOP had been a big disappointment for years. Trump filled a void.

[musiclady]

So the day before Trump entered the stage, everything was just fine? Then he enters, and it all falls apart?

More likely in my view is this: He boldly raised issues which were IMPORTANT to Republicans and conservatives, but which were NOT being addressed to their satisfaction.

--Illegal immigration with impact on crime

--Unsafe muslim entries

--Unfair trade arrangements

Voters that had grown weary of rhetoric heard him, and said hell yes, I like that guy

Any #Nevertrump with honesty HAS to admit the GOP had been a big disappointment for years. Trump filled a void.

I never even remotely implied that the Republican party was OK before Trump.  Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your case, t_s.

As for filling a void........... yes, he said things that he knew people would like to hear, but it should bother you that he has no intent nor capability to fulfill any of his promises, and he actually doesn't believe in most of what he says.

That's where character comes in.  Trump lies ALL the time.  He is DEVOID of character.  AND he is a DEMOCRAT.

So it doesn't matter what issues he's "raised" ("I was the first person to talk about a wall".....LIE), it's that he's only done them to get attention, and the only way he could get the things done that he's promised is to ignore the Constitution and be a tin pot dictator.

Character matters.   Not just bombastic 3rd grade rhetoric.

[truth_seeker]

I never even remotely implied that the Republican party was OK before Trump.  Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your case, t_s.

As for filling a void........... yes, he said things that he knew people would like to hear, but it should bother you that he has no intent nor capability to fulfill any of his promises, and he actually doesn't believe in most of what he says.

That's where character comes in.  Trump lies ALL the time.  He is DEVOID of character.  AND he is a DEMOCRAT.

So it doesn't matter what issues he's "raised" ("I was the first person to talk about a wall".....LIE), it's that he's only done them to get attention, and the only way he could get the things done that he's promised is to ignore the Constitution and be a tin pot dictator.

Character matters.   Not just bombastic 3rd grade rhetoric.

A difference between you and me, is you act/write like you know the future for certain, but I admit that I do not--nor do I act like I do.

[sinkspur]

A difference between you and me, is you act/write like you know the future for certain, but I admit that I do not--nor do I act like I do.

Predicting Trump is almost a certainty.  The only unsure thing is what he's going to do provoke controversy.

[musiclady]

A difference between you and me, is you act/write like you know the future for certain, but I admit that I do not--nor do I act like I do.

Nice diversion, t_s.  I wasn't acting like I know the future "for certain."  (You make things up a lot, don't you?)

The main difference between us seems to be that I pay closer attention to the present, and the past than you do.  You're living in a world where Trump's reality.... the words he says, the things he does...... doesn't matter to you.

So, in effect, you are pretending to predict a positive future with Trump at the helm, when nothing in the present supports it.

I choose not to live in an imaginary world.

[Sanguine]

That's an excellent question.  Put a different way, how did a party base that claim vociferously to hold to one set of principles, allow themselves to be buffaloed by a narcissist whose beliefs and actions are antithetical to those principles?

It looks to me like "the base" that brought Trump to where he is today, have lost their moorings.  A political party without principles is... well, it's not a political party anymore.  It's more like a crime family, looking to gain whenever and however it can.

Well said.

[EasyAce]

Dying? Hardly. THe GOP controls a record number of state legislatures and lesser state offices, as well as both houses of Congress.

Temporarily self-immolating? Sure. If Trump was a mistake then hopefully the dummies who voted him in learn their lesson.

[EasyAce]

A political party without principles is... well, it's not a political party anymore.  It's more like a crime family, looking to gain whenever and however it can.

Wouldn't that make a government without principles the nation's largest or at least most powerful organised crime family?

[jmyrlefuller]

No, I cited  evidence for my claims, and you put forth none. Did you look at the links?

I cited election results, which are public record. You cited some guy's opinion on the Internet. Pardon me for remembering facts off the top of my head.

[sitetest]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-party-of-lincoln-is-dying/2016/06/09/e669380a-2e6b-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


By Michael Gerson Opinion writer June 9 at 8:20 PM

Why such vehemence among Republican leaders in their condemnations of Donald Trump for questioning the objectivity of a federal judge based on his “Mexican heritage”?

This is, in House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s words, “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” But it is not materially more bigoted than the central premise of Trump’s campaign: that foreigners and outsiders are exploiting, infiltrating and adulterating the real America. How is attacking the impartiality of a judge worse than characterizing undocumented Mexicans as invading predators intent on raping American women? Or pledging to keep all Muslim migrants out of the country? Or citing the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II as positive precedent?

continued..

Good article.

trump is a racist, and anyone who endorsed trump is permanently tainted.

[HonestJohn]

In the most literal sense, the GOP is dying.

For the bulk of it's voters are retirees (who are dying... off).

GOP leadership was trying to win over Hispanics as replacements, being that they were the only expanding voter group up for grabs.  But Trump has killed that for a generation.

So this death spiral will now speed up.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In the most literal sense, the GOP is dying.

For the bulk of it's voters are retirees (who are dying... off).

GOP leadership was trying to win over Hispanics as replacements, being that they were the only expanding voter group up for grabs.  But Trump has killed that for a generation.

So this death spiral will now speed up.

This is the media meme, but I have also heard that many hispanics are identifying as white, since "hispanic" isn't really a race at all.And if this is true then the US may never become a minority majority country.

[TomSea]

As they say, per State Governorships, control of Legislatures, Music Lady is correct, a lot of Republican Control.

Then add in the biggest turnaround in the US House and Senate elections in recent election years, the Tea Party effect.  That shows a lot of Republican strength too.

Also, at times, the US House really has not been far off the aspirations of many I think but overall, DC is still a disappointment.

The Presidential election nonetheless, is a quandary for the GOP.

[Fishrrman]

sitetest wrote:
"trump is a racist, and anyone who endorsed trump is permanently tainted."

I find it dismaying that so-called "conservatives" come here and toss around the word "racist" at someone they don't like (Trump) with as wide-bladed a knife as any run-o'-the-mill leftist.

The very LAST term I would use to describe another conservative here is "racist" -- no matter what their views might be on racial issues.

It's a "phony word", first used by Lenin himself, a "verbal sledgehammer" by which to shut down opposition by making them "dirty", by poisoning the conversation.

One -expects- statements like “the textbook definition of a racist comment" from a toady like Paul Ryan. He plays to the crowd -- except "the crowd" to which he's playing is the leftie media and the high-minded GOPe that don't wish to dirty their hands with the gritty issues confronting America, particularly on the immigration front.

Frankly, I don't care whether you think Mr. Trump is "racis'" or not.
I don't care whether you think I'm "racis'" or not.
Indeed, I'd like to go on record here as a self-proclaimed "racial realist".

You have learned your lessons well, sitetest -- learned them directly from the leftist playbook, that is.