“How do you mean? A candidates political platform is designed to appeal to certain groups, or demographics, of people. The GOP as is will not allow a Republican to take a soft position on immigration, spending cuts, or abortion, and in so doing they doom themselves to lose with latinos, voters under 40, and women. Because there just arent as many white men over 40 voting as a percentage of the electorate as there were in say 1980, where winning a 10 point majority of that vote was enough to guarantee a landslide. Now, you cater to only those voters you lose, as Romney did, by 100 electoral votes. In Presidential politics the GOP is irrelevant because they are not demographically viable. Again, its a demographic impossibility.”
“So? Who cares? Its demographically impossible for a Republican, any republican to get elected. The 2012 election proved as much. The country has just changed too much. Articles like this should focus on who will succeed Harry Reid and Boehner.”
Gophers on Feb 1, 2014 at 23:05:58
“I doubt it's demographically impossible for anything.”
“I watch this show regularly but for the life of me I cannot understand the love that people over the age of 40 have for this show. Its not especially insightful, other than to say that there is something wrong with CNNs golden means model (but then why give it points for pointing out the obvious?) Its condescending and preachy, which is especially grating when its patting itself on the back for figuring out year and a half old news stories. Whats worse its narratively cowardly (the news team doesnt make mistakes unless its a vengeful Spy or an outsider with an ax to grind) or lazy (that frankly embarrassing Africa story line.) Sad to see it go. It was a good hate watch.”
“I am not so sure. I mean, how much omerta would have to rely upon to really get away with it if he knew? No, I think his aides did it independent of him. Still though, that he would create an atmosphere like that means he probably shouldnt be Governor, let along the President.”
Blue3actual on Jan 12, 2014 at 00:42:15
“Not so sure that 'Bridgegate' will tank his chances in 2016, but it certainly can't help.”
“You mean for our time, not in our time. Chamberlain said Peace for our time. If your going to accuse somebody of appeasement you should at least get the quote right.
Anyway, history has vindicated Chamberlain. Had the UK and France decided to go to war in September of 38 France still would still have been steam rolled and the UK would have had to fight the Battle of Britain a year earlier with a significantly smaller air force. Whether he believed that those agreements to allow the Germans to move back into Czechoslovakia would prevent another war is irrelievent. The UK needed those few extra months to get its house in order. Churchill, who didnt have Chamberlains grasp of industrial production, realized as much an kept Chamberlain in his cabinet until is death a few months after Churchill took power. It wasnt until Churchill began writing his memoirs in the run up to his second, frankly disastrous, stint of prime minister that Churchill began to propagate the myth of appeasement, and then only to burnish his own reputation prior to an election.”
“Then isnt that so much worse, to blunder into a third costly and prolonged war, and really those are the choices here, because of a lack of faith. They need to either shut up and get with the program of propose a better one. They arent doing either.”
“I dont know man. There are two ways to dehumanize somebody. The first is to denigrate them, the other is to put them up on a pedestal. I am willing to bet that this comes with the expectation of achievement, and achievement in certain feilds. If it were me it would make my skin crawl.”
“Daniel, like in sports, its never as good or as bad as it seems. Obamacare appears more and more viable by the day, and by November the ACA roll out is going to be nothing more than a memory. But go ahead and run on it. I would like to see the Dems hold the senate.”
“I hope the GOP decides to run against the ACA again. They did that in 2010 and were unable to gain control of the senate in a year where they could have if not for rolling disaster that is the Tea Party. They tried again in 2012, and not only under performed but lost seats the legislature and were frozen out of the executive by 100 electoral votes, both of which absolutely blind sided them. So I hope they run against it next year. It sounds like a winning strategy for the country.”
FsclCnsrvtv on Jan 5, 2014 at 13:34:44
“Yes, but 2010 and 2012 were before the Obamacare lies had been exposed. Now that the public sees that the Republicans were right all along, it will be a different story. Public support for Obamacare (and Obama himself) plummeted once the truth came out.”
SpringBranchConservative on Jan 5, 2014 at 13:31:26
“Yes they did not gain control of the Senate. But you forget, intentionally I bet, that they had one of the biggest turnarounds in the House and in the States. So your argument fails.”
kevamy on Jan 5, 2014 at 13:30:57
“Amen to that!”
solopico on Jan 5, 2014 at 13:30:14
“The reason conservatives didn't win The Senate in 2010 had nothing to do with their platform, and everything to do with specific candidates who couldn't win a bingo game much less an election to federal office. That will change this time around.”
“But he did accuse his former employers based on his own personal maybe.
I honestly don't know if my activism was the reason I got fired.
I had a poor game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the Vikings brought in several punters for a workout to potentially replace me. I do not believe this was motivated by my speaking out on same-sex equality,”
jonathan 12 on Jan 3, 2014 at 07:36:54
“He stated his belief, based on the many things he claims happened. And he admits he does not know for sure.
Many of the things that happened as far as the homophobic coaches saying this or that could likely be corroborated by other players if they do not fear termination. Time will tell as the other players retire.”
“It doesnt have to be poor performance. They were going to have to pay him 1.4 million next year and he was past his prime (38% of punts landed inside of the 20 yard line in 2010 vs. 25% of punts inside the 20 in 2012). The guy they draft to replace him put up almost the exact same numbers that Kluwe did the year before but did so for only $450k. Its hard to fault them from a business standpoint.”
John Shuck on Jan 3, 2014 at 01:24:07
“This kind of thinking leads to the kind of environment that loses football games over the long haul. My Cleveland Browns are a prime example of cheapskate thinking and short term profitablity. Still love to root for them though. Jim Brown was a man among the boys in his day.”
“I looked at them before posting. The numbers that stuck out for me were his kicks that landed inside of the twenty, an incredibly important stat for punters. He dropped from placing 32 of 83 (or just under 40%) inside the 20 in 2010 to 18 out of 72 (25%) inside the 20 in 2012. Thats a significant statistical drop off that buttress my point. His replacement performed about the same, but Kluwe was due 1.4 million while Jeff Locke was paid a little over 400K. Again, look at the numbers. You know I am right.”