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.
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 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!
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.
I'd like to point out that Clinton did reasonably well in the South
I'd like to point out that Clinton did reasonably well in the South
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:
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:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?