Has the GOP lost all of their sanity?

[Jochistan]

Yeah. They've become very, very extreme in their policies. Highjacked by radicals, if you will.

[Alvecia]

It does indeed.

What are those logical conclusions? You'd rather live in a one party state or dictatorship like China or Kazakhstan?

I was more tending towards.
People don't have equal voting rights > people do not have equal rights > people are not all equal
I'm not saying I agree with that particular string of logic but I'm interested in the implications.

[USS Monitor]

Yes, the GOP has lost their sanity. I feel dirty agreeing with a Confederate apologist, but I would feel even dirtier pretendeding that Donald Trump or Ben Carson was sane.

[Conserative Morality]

From my scary little perch in Appalachia, the GOP has never had any sanity.

At least not in my lifetime.

[USS Monitor]

From my scary little perch in Appalachia, the GOP has never had any sanity.

At least not in my lifetime.

They were sane when I was young.

[The Archregimancy]

In the abstract, it's interesting to see the extent to which the Democratic and Republican parties have swapped roles since I first started paying attention to US politics in the 1970s.

Back in the day, the Democratic Party dominated Congress, but the Republican Party had a near-lock on the Electoral College in presidential elections, something which reached its peak (or nadir, depending on your perspective) in 1972 when the Democrats nominated a presidential candidate with strong support from the party's ideologically driven grassroots base that the party establishment thoroughly detested, and who the moderate centre of the national electorate was inherently suspicious of.

I appreciate I do McGovern (who was, after all, a US senator) a disservice by implicitly comparing him with Trump and Carson, I appreciate that the nature of party affiliation and partisanship has changed in the last 40 years, I appreciate that the Eagleton debacle hardly helped, and I also appreciate McGovern faced a significant challenge in going up against a then still-popular incumbent president.

But to paraphrase something that America's greatest humourist didn't actually say, if history doesn't entirely repeat itself, it does at least rhyme; and if I were Reince Priebus, I'd be taking a long, cold, hard look at what happened to the Democrats in 1972.

[Ashmoria]

In the abstract, it's interesting to see the extent to which the Democratic and Republican parties have swapped roles since I first started paying attention to US politics in the 1970s.

Back in the day, the Democratic Party dominated Congress, but the Republican Party had a near-lock on the Electoral College in presidential elections, something which reached its peak (or nadir, depending on your perspective) in 1972 when the Democrats nominated a presidential candidate with strong support from the party's ideologically driven grassroots base that the party establishment thoroughly detested, and who the moderate centre of the national electorate was inherently suspicious of.

I appreciate I do McGovern (who was, after all, a US senator) a disservice by implicitly comparing him with Trump and Carson, I appreciate that the nature of party affiliation and partisanship has changed in the last 40 years, I appreciate that the Eagleton debacle hardly helped, and I also appreciate McGovern faced a significant challenge in going up against a then still-popular incumbent president.

But to paraphrase something that America's greatest humourist didn't actually say, if history doesn't entirely repeat itself, it does at least rhyme; and if I were Reince Priebus, I'd be taking a long, cold, hard look at what happened to the Democrats in 1972.

i don't have much respect for mr priebus but im pretty sure he is good enough at his job to recognize the spot they are in. but what can he do about it?

[Khadgar]

In the abstract, it's interesting to see the extent to which the Democratic and Republican parties have swapped roles since I first started paying attention to US politics in the 1970s.

Back in the day, the Democratic Party dominated Congress, but the Republican Party had a near-lock on the Electoral College in presidential elections, something which reached its peak (or nadir, depending on your perspective) in 1972 when the Democrats nominated a presidential candidate with strong support from the party's ideologically driven grassroots base that the party establishment thoroughly detested, and who the moderate centre of the national electorate was inherently suspicious of.

I appreciate I do McGovern (who was, after all, a US senator) a disservice by implicitly comparing him with Trump and Carson, I appreciate that the nature of party affiliation and partisanship has changed in the last 40 years, I appreciate that the Eagleton debacle hardly helped, and I also appreciate McGovern faced a significant challenge in going up against a then still-popular incumbent president.

But to paraphrase something that America's greatest humourist didn't actually say, if history doesn't entirely repeat itself, it does at least rhyme; and if I were Reince Priebus, I'd be taking a long, cold, hard look at what happened to the Democrats in 1972.

i don't have much respect for mr priebus but im pretty sure he is good enough at his job to recognize the spot they are in. but what can he do about it?

At this point the GOP doesn't resemble a circus so much as a lion taming act in the midst of going horribly wrong. All Priebus has is a chair and the kitties are circling.

[The Archregimancy]

In the abstract, it's interesting to see the extent to which the Democratic and Republican parties have swapped roles since I first started paying attention to US politics in the 1970s.

Back in the day, the Democratic Party dominated Congress, but the Republican Party had a near-lock on the Electoral College in presidential elections, something which reached its peak (or nadir, depending on your perspective) in 1972 when the Democrats nominated a presidential candidate with strong support from the party's ideologically driven grassroots base that the party establishment thoroughly detested, and who the moderate centre of the national electorate was inherently suspicious of.

I appreciate I do McGovern (who was, after all, a US senator) a disservice by implicitly comparing him with Trump and Carson, I appreciate that the nature of party affiliation and partisanship has changed in the last 40 years, I appreciate that the Eagleton debacle hardly helped, and I also appreciate McGovern faced a significant challenge in going up against a then still-popular incumbent president.

But to paraphrase something that America's greatest humourist didn't actually say, if history doesn't entirely repeat itself, it does at least rhyme; and if I were Reince Priebus, I'd be taking a long, cold, hard look at what happened to the Democrats in 1972.

i don't have much respect for mr priebus but im pretty sure he is good enough at his job to recognize the spot they are in. but what can he do about it?

Very little, probably - at least not for this election. He may, however, be able to look at reforming the process for 2020.

[Ashmoria]

i don't have much respect for mr priebus but im pretty sure he is good enough at his job to recognize the spot they are in. but what can he do about it?

Very little, probably - at least not for this election. He may, however, be able to look at reforming the process for 2020.

sure but that's what he TRIED to do after the 2012 defeat--which they were more distressed over than i think they should have been considering how hard it is to defeat an incumbent. the parties have no control over who decides to run (and who of those candidates the base is going to like) and THAT is the unsolvable problem priebus faces.

[Ethel mermania]

i don't have much respect for mr priebus but im pretty sure he is good enough at his job to recognize the spot they are in. but what can he do about it?

Very little, probably - at least not for this election. He may, however, be able to look at reforming the process for 2020.

Preibus will be long gone by 2020. The thing is though, after the mid 70's, both parties started to radically change. Partially because of nixon's southern strategy, the southern blue dogs, slowly gravatated to the Republican party, concurrently the northern liberal wing of the Republican party slowly went democratic and extinct. (Amusingly Donald Trump is the closed thing we have to an old style liberal republican today).

Remember in 1968, the party most closely identified with racism was the Democratic party. It was Chicago democrats who told the cops to beat the crap out of the eugene macarthy protesters at the democratic convention.

I don't think the party knows what it wants to be yet. The only thing we can tell, is the party is not happy with itself, hence the rise of trump, Carson and fiorina. I don't think that the party will get its disipline back at the presidential level, until the battle for its soul is won. And I think the ideological split right now is to great for that to happen.

[The Archregimancy]

Very little, probably - at least not for this election. He may, however, be able to look at reforming the process for 2020.

sure but that's what he TRIED to do after the 2012 defeat--which they were more distressed over than i think they should have been considering how hard it is to defeat an incumbent. the parties have no control over who decides to run (and who of those candidates the base is going to like) and THAT is the unsolvable problem priebus faces.

As I almost wrote in my last post, perhaps one of the reforms should indeed place some form of control on who runs in the hands of the RNC. Putting in a rule that - and I use this as a hypothetical example only - Republican candidates would have to have previously held Federal or Statewide office (however conceived) would have immediately ruled out Trump, Carson, and Fiorina. Though granted that hypothetical rule would have eliminated Eisenhower as well (unless 'Federal office' were to include top-level military ranks).

In any case, it's a hypothetical. But the RNC is a private institution, not a branch of the government of the United States; the party (as opposed to Mr Preibus, whose direct power is minimal) could presumably put it place any rules they wanted to determine eligibility as the party's candidate for president so long as they otherwise meet the constitutional criteria for the presidency. The problem is that Rule 1 of the Party rules states that it's the Convention that sets the Party rules, not the RNC itself. The Convention will have to face up to reality if the Republican Party wants to sort itself out, and of course the Convention is (superdelegates aside) largely elected by the same grassroots activists who are the the key support for Trump and Carson, and are one of the reasons the party's lunatic fringe is currently doing so well.

If anyone wants to actually take a moment to read the party rules, and presumably has more time on their hands than I do, then be my guest: https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ng ... 090314.pdf

Skimming those rules, it's absolute madness that they devote so much time to defining how delegates to select the presidential candidate are chosen, and apparently absolutely no time at all to decide eligibility for that candidate except for being able to demonstrate support from a minimum number of state delegations at the Convention.

[Brickistan]

It's strange to consider that the great republican "hero", Ronald Reagan, wouldn't have much of a change in the republican Primary these days. And Eisenhower? Forget it, he probably couldn't even run as a democrat now...

The GOP has unfortunately been taken over by religious nutcases, particularly on a state-level. Nationally though, Wall Street is fighting back, leading to the infighting we're seeing now.

I must admit that, as a Dane, I simply do not understand how this came to be.

Yes... Sure... On a practical level I understand the process. Gerrymandering made the districts safe. And with safe districts there was no real competition except with your own party, so you end up having to out-republican all the other republicans. It's an echo-chamber where you have to shout louder than anyone else. And since everyone starts out pretty far to the right, all there's left is to move even further to the right...

But here's the thing... That still requires people to vote. After all, someone must be electing these nutcases for office.

What makes people actually vote for this kind of people? Why did people turn so rapidly against Occupy Wall Street? Why has there been no mass strikes, no uprisings? After all, isn't this what all the gun-nuts are dreaming of? The change to march on Washington and show the government just who's the boss.

[Jamzmania]

I think the GOP is on the right track towards true conservatism. That is what will save the party.

[Galloism]

I think the GOP is on the right track towards true conservatism. That is what will save the party.

I kind of sincerely hope they do go towards "true conservatism". It will make the party implode.

[Cresenthia]

I think the GOP is on the right track towards true conservatism. That is what will save the party.

And will a "true conservative" candidate win the nomination next year, and who are they?

[Galloism]

I think the GOP is on the right track towards true conservatism. That is what will save the party.

And will a "true conservative" candidate win the nomination next year, and who are they?

Strange not at all likely wish: I want Huckabee to win the nomination.

Sanders or Hillary - either one - would wipe the floor with that man.

[Jamzmania]

And will a "true conservative" candidate win the nomination next year, and who are they?

Strange not at all likely wish: I want Huckabee to win the nomination.

Sanders or Hillary - either one - would wipe the floor with that man.

Everyone goes on about how extreme the GOP has supposedly become, yet no one wonders about the quasi-socialist ideology of the Dems.

[Brickistan]

Strange not at all likely wish: I want Huckabee to win the nomination.

Sanders or Hillary - either one - would wipe the floor with that man.

Everyone goes on about how extreme the GOP has supposedly become, yet no one wonders about the quasi-socialist ideology of the Dems.

Maybe because the rest of the world isn't nearly as scared of the word "socialist" as Americans seems to be?

[Galloism]

Strange not at all likely wish: I want Huckabee to win the nomination.

Sanders or Hillary - either one - would wipe the floor with that man.

Everyone goes on about how extreme the GOP has supposedly become, yet no one wonders about the quasi-socialist ideology of the Dems.

I take it you've never met a real socialist. Even sanders - despite his protestations - is not a real socialist. He's a social democrat, and that's the closest there's been to a socialist on the democratic side since... well, ever I think. It's sorta weird because democrats and republicans flipped sides a number of years ago. Democrats used to be conservative and republicans were the liberals. In any case, what's done is done on that. Edit: and, more to the point, he's losing.

Hillary's certainly not even close to being socialist.

[Alvecia]

Everyone goes on about how extreme the GOP has supposedly become, yet no one wonders about the quasi-socialist ideology of the Dems.

Maybe because the rest of the world isn't nearly as scared of the word "socialist" as Americans seems to be?

As a liberal British fella sometimes I think the American Democrats can be entirely too right wing.

[Galloism]

Maybe because the rest of the world isn't nearly as scared of the word "socialist" as Americans seems to be?

As a liberal British fella sometimes I think the American Democrats can be entirely too right wing.

Many people in Europe tell me that. From their view, Republicans are far right, and democrats are center right.

[Jamzmania]

Everyone goes on about how extreme the GOP has supposedly become, yet no one wonders about the quasi-socialist ideology of the Dems.

Maybe because the rest of the world isn't nearly as scared of the word "socialist" as Americans seems to be?

And we're not the rest of the world. We tend to recognize the dangers of socialism.

[Brickistan]

As a liberal British fella sometimes I think the American Democrats can be entirely too right wing.

Many people in Europe tell me that. From their view, Republicans are far right, and democrats are center right.

Indeed. Seen from Europe, US politic is generally somewhere between fairly hard right and utterly batshit insane right.

The whole political spectrum has shifted dramatically to the right since the days of Reagan, to the point where politicians from that period aren't electable today.

Mind you, we're seeing the same slowly happening in Europe. And personally, I find that downright scary. But sadly, people seems to forget history all to easily...

[Galloism]

Many people in Europe tell me that. From their view, Republicans are far right, and democrats are center right.

Indeed. Seen from Europe, US politic is generally somewhere between fairly hard right and utterly batshit insane right.

The whole political spectrum has shifted dramatically to the right since the days of Reagan, to the point where politicians from that period aren't electable today.

Mind you, we're seeing the same slowly happening in Europe. And personally, I find that downright scary. But sadly, people seems to forget history all to easily...

I used to drink with Reagan. Cool guy - except where he got drunk and defunded the country's mental health system. I take partial responsibility for that. It was a contest - doesn't matter.

Would have trouble even winning the primary on the democratic ticket now. Very sad.