The "regional" Republican party.

[Harshaw]

And, you know, the "party of the south":

And by the way, by calling the GOP "the party of the South" as a derisive term, as usually the case, isn't that implying something rather bigoted and untoward about southerners in general?

Of course, they ARE the last demographic it's considered "OK" to bash. So, stereotype away, I guess. :roll:

 

[Cold Highway]

What is this stemming from?

 

[Harshaw]

What is this stemming from?

The oft-repeated claim 'round these parts that the Republicans are no longer a national party, but a marginalized, regional one.

Dunno. I'm looking at some pretty good marblization there.

 

[Cold Highway]

The oft-repeated claim 'round these parts that the Republicans are no longer a national party, but a marginalized, regional one.

Dunno. I'm looking at some pretty good marblization there.

People that think either of the oligarchs are done for, dont know how Washington operates.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

The oft-repeated claim 'round these parts that the Republicans are no longer a national party, but a marginalized, regional one.

Dunno. I'm looking at some pretty good marblization there.

How many electoral votes did McCain get outside the South?

About 50. And ten came from his home state.

And in 2016 the Republicans won't even have the south anymore. Right now, they have southern support because the Dems nominate a skeery black guy for president. But seven years from now the Dems will nominate a couple of good old boys like Mark Warner and Brian Schweitzer. And then the GOP will shrink to...the cast of Hee Haw. They'll be up in the hills hiding from the revenooers, clinging to their guns and their bibles.

The Republican Party. Population: 42. Saaaaaa-lute!

 

[disneydude]

The oft-repeated claim 'round these parts that the Republicans are no longer a national party, but a marginalized, regional one.

Dunno. I'm looking at some pretty good marblization there.

The problem with that "marbelized" map is that the red areas, primarily, are places where very few people live. Of course, there are exceptions, but Republicans love this map because most people don't understand the deception that it holds.
The reality is...compare this map with the similar map from a decade ago, or look at the more indepth studies which overwhelming show Democratic gains in the West and Midwest. These are trends that should cause a great deal of concern for the Republican party because without the West and if they lose big parts of the midwest, they truly are a regional party.

 

[disneydude]

How many electoral votes did McCain get outside the South?

About 50. And ten came from his home state.

And in 2016 the Republicans won't even have the south anymore. Right now, they have southern support because the Dems nominate a skeery black guy for president. But seven years from now the Dems will nominate a couple of good old boys like Mark Warner and Brian Schweitzer. And then the GOP will shrink to...the cast of Hee Haw. They'll be up in the hills hiding from the revenooers, clinging to their guns and their bibles.

The Republican Party. Population: 42. Saaaaaa-lute!

I recognize the tongue in cheek humor here...but you actually make a couple of really good points. If the Dems pick a candidate in 8 years who appeals to Southern Voters, the GOP is in big trouble.

 

[Harshaw]

See, I didn't say anything about numbers, nor did I need to. The point is entirely about geography.

But, the usual suspects who can do nothing but bash, bash, bash have to find a way to . . . well, bash. I guess it's just the psychological reality of it.

 

[disneydude]

See, I didn't say anything about numbers, nor did I need to. The point is entirely about geography.

But, the usual suspects who can do nothing but bash, bash, bash have to find a way to . . . well, bash. I guess it's just the psychological reality of it.

You can call it "bashing" or whatever you want...I'm talking "reality".
Look at the nationwide trend/shift in demographics and you will see why there is a lot of truth to the theory that the GOP is becoming a regional party.

 

[new coup for you]

I'd like to point out that Clinton did reasonably well in the South

 

[Cold Highway]

I'd like to point out that Clinton did reasonably well in the South

Clinton originally ran as a Blue Dog and he himself was a Southern.

 

[new coup for you]

Clinton ran as a moderate progressive, however, he was himself Southern and could talk to them.

 

[disneydude]

I'd like to point out that Clinton did reasonably well in the South

"reasonably"....but still not strong. Arkansas, geographically is close to the South which is probably why Clinton was able to do as well as he did there.
The problem with the South, from a Democratic perspective is, the "bible-belt" voters, although they probably agree with the Democratic party about 90% of the time, side with the Republicans on their two core issues of anti-abortion and anti-gay rights.

 

[Harshaw]

You can call it "bashing" or whatever you want...I'm talking "reality".
Look at the nationwide trend/shift in demographics and you will see why there is a lot of truth to the theory that the GOP is becoming a regional party.

And . . . you did it again. :roll:

 

[disneydude]

And . . . you did it again. :roll:

Sorry if the truth hurts....again...you can call it bashing if you feel that way.

 

[Harshaw]

Sorry if the truth hurts....again...you can call it bashing if you feel that way.

No, what you did is enter a non-sequitur when the actual topic didn't suit you.

And you can "call" it "truth" or "reality" if you want, but it's still a non-sequitur. :2wave:

 

[disneydude]

No, what you did is enter a non-sequitur when the actual topic didn't suit you.

And you can "call" it "truth" or "reality" if you want, but it's still a non-sequitur. :2wave:

How is it a "non-sequitur" when the response goes directly to information that supports the theory that the GOP is becoming a regional party?

I'm not saying that it is an entirely true theory...but when you look at the shift in Demographics and you take into consideration the fact that the map that you posted is distorted because it does not take into account the populations that live in the various colored portions of the map......there is at least arguably an argument that the GOP is in trouble as a national party.

 

[Harshaw]

How is it a "non-sequitur" when the response goes directly to information that supports the theory that the GOP is becoming a regional party?

I'm not saying that it is an entirely true theory...but when you look at the shift in Demographics and you take into consideration the fact that the map that you posted is distorted because it does not take into account the populations that live in the various colored portions of the map......there is at least arguably an argument that the GOP is in trouble as a national party.

Because you're talking population, not geography. :roll:

Honestly, this is 6th-grade stuff. Try to follow along.