//
you're reading...

Elections

New GOP or No GOP

This was the last election the GOP had a chance to win by simply going after a white male dominated majority.  With major demographic changes to the electorate projected over the next 4 to 8 years the Republican Party will either have to dramatically change both its xenophobic and ethnocentric rhetoric and policy positions, or we will watch sadly (snicker) as the GOP withers away into oblivion.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, they have demonstrated an amazing level of stubbornness against change.  As the country has moved to the left, they’ve moved further to the right and pushed the moderates out.  Their base tends to be rabid, so it is really hard to see them moving away from the rhetoric that excites their base, wins primaries, and raises the money needed to compete in serious races.

Thus, my predictions for the presidential electoral college map in 2016 and 2020 may astonish you, but I believe it is a serious reality to expect.

Arizona will be in play in 2016, and Texas by 2020.  Why?  Exploding Latino populations in these states with overwhelming Democratic voting habits.

With such dramatic effect on the electoral scene, there is bound to be some political realignment, perhaps the creation of a third party.  In any scenario, it’s hard to see a fractured right wing doing well.  Welcome to change.

About Justin McAffee:
Justin is the publisher The Nevada View, which has earned the recognition in the Washington Post’s “Best State-Based Political Blogs,” as well as being awarded the “Most Valuable Blogger Award” by the local CBS affiliate in 2011. Follow him on Twitter @McAffee

Discussion

14 Responses to “New GOP or No GOP”

  1. What if there is a deep recession between 2016 and 2020? The last recession ended in July 2009. If we go until 2020 without a recession, it will be the longest expansion in US History. It also wont happen.

    Also what happens if whites become MORE GOP. In fact this is already happening. Romney got 60% of the white vote. Higher than any nonincumbent. The left loves to tell whites they will soon be a minority. Well what if white start acting like a minority and vote GOP 70-75%??? Then PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, ME, MN all become GOP.

    Posted by boblobalw | February 16, 2014, 8:00 pm
  2. I have to say, I disagree. In 2016, the Reps keep Arizona and Florida. The real coin flips are Colorado and Virginia and whether or not we can can keep them. In 2020, I’d put AZ and MO in play and secure VA and CO as definite wins for the Dems. NC will be a Lean GOP. We may be able to try for TX in 2028 or 2032, but it’ll take a while. 2008 was the start of a major political shift in America much like 1992 or 2000. The Democrats’ regaining of the South as Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” phases out. We are on the brink of a new era in American and International politics. And the GOP thinks it’s messaging issues that troubles them.

    Posted by Angelo Cocchiaro | February 9, 2013, 1:58 pm
  3. There are only TEN nations on Earth in which gay marriage is legal. The ONLY one which speaks Spanish is Spain! NONE are in South America!! Your flailing spin falls down HARD!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/specialreports/countries-where-same-sex-marriage-is-legal/2012/05/10/gIQAwOziFU_gallery.html#photo=10

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-netherlands-argentina-more.html
    xxx

    13 million LESS voters voted in 2012 than 2008. A low-turnout election won by Obama with razor-thin margins. You’re correct on ’2000 vs. 2012′.

    http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/12600/20121108/popular-vote-2012-results-obama-romney-wins-johnson.htm
    xxx

    “First the growth of government spending has been slowed by Obama more than any president since Eisenhower.”

    If you gain 40 pounds in one year, then eat enough to more slowly gain weight thereafter, are you still overweight?? The liberal-induced economic crash of 2007 forced Bush’s last year as more spending by a great amount. Raised the spending bar suddenly to ‘Obamunist levels’ right off the bat, eh?? 2009 NOT typical of the Bush terms.

    Liberals conTROLLed Congress in 2007 when everything crashed – approved the budget hike for the first year of Obama and the actions by liberals in the 2000s forced Bush, at the end, to sign a budget with a huge ‘bonus’ of spending. I saw this spin before and saw also how it was debunked, as you are now.
    xxx

    “As the Bush induced Great Recession culminated right as Obama took office, the fed govt’s revenues crashed. Combine that with the Bush tax cuts, the two wars, and Bush’s Medicare expansion… that is why the debt is spinning out of control.”

    The numbers are in. You lose! The Bush era is accounted for. More debt in three years for Obama than more than eight under Bush. More income under Bush until 2007 (and the liberal induced economic crash) while less throughout under Obama. Also, liberal legislators and functionaries caused the problems from 1995-2007 Bush became the ‘strawman’ for. More on that later.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
    xxx

    “Step aside and let a Democrat fix this like we always do (Bill Clinton = surplus = eat that).”

    Sure, let’s bring back the dot-com bubbles, ENRON / Aldelphia and the robber-baron CEOs of the 90s; phony 90s accounting reporting from corporations (‘cooking the books’); Clinton signing Glass-Stegal AND the liberal-led rotting of lending standards of Fannie / Freddie begin in 1995 to blow up in 2007; falsified corporate ‘books’ during the 90s – a culture of corruption who stole from everybody when Clinton ‘left’ and Bush43 was dumped with 90s financial rot. AND, a Republican congress which rammed balanced budgets down Clinton’s gullet. ALL to be hidden until Clinton made his getaway and dumped on the ‘strawman’, Bush43.

    History clears all fog and IF you think Clinton is to be emulated; the rot of his economic era needs to return to falsely pump up phony economic progress. Clinton lives a lie of a legacy which was the result of financial crimes imaging phony ‘wealth’ and a Republican congress forcing good governance on him.
    xxx

    Anyway, all liberal ‘bubbles’ of propaganda blow up in ‘your’ faces as history clears the short-term falsehoods liberals live for.

    IF you want to talk about fiction, talk about any of Obama’s ‘budgets’ – which NO ONE supports! Talk about Clinton’s economic legacy; a combination of 90s economic falsehood and crimes – and the Republican House which rammed fiscal responsibility up his nose!

    Rand rings immensely true historically and the liberal take on her is indicative of the soft fascism today’s Obamunism represents. Look at a fossilized Europe for the future of your views and Venezuela / Cuba for the culmination of your visions.

    Lastly, I am not anonymous. I do not hide! This puff blog is the troll.

    Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 8, 2012, 2:34 pm
    • Heeman… Same-sex marriage is only legal in 10 nations if you go by the strictest definition of use of the word “marriage” performed and recognized nation wide.

      But Spain is not the only Spanish speaking country on the very list you cite to… or did you forget that Argentina is Spanish speaking?

      But these nations I mentioned before recognize either marriage or “unions” that recognize all the rights of heterosexual couples for same-sex couples. Splitting hairs about “marriage” versus “union” may not even be relevant in South America, but is also really unimportant to our conversation.

      Same-sex marriages are performed in Mexico City (where some 20 million people live) and those marriages are recognized nationwide.)
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10932748

      In Brazil, the high appellate court ruled that a same-sex couple (domestic partnerships with adoption rights already allowed) could change their domestic partnership to a full marriage.

      http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/8419812-418/brazil-appellate-court-says-gay-marriage-is-legal.html

      Uruguay has domestic partnerships will ALL the same rights as hetrosexual marriage — including adoption.
      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gu1QYorSnG_WrGpbQ-ic2fMpxObg

      Same thing with Columbia:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6341593.stm

      Same thing with Ecuador:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802644.html

      Posted by Justin McAffee | November 8, 2012, 3:07 pm
      • Keep workin’ it, Justin!

        Gay ‘marriage’ and ‘unions’ are NOT the same thing, as any gay person who seeks ‘marriage’ rejects ‘unions’ and has for decades.

        I will agree (and I have and would certainly accept) that IF same-sex couples (SSCs) had accepted the concept of ‘unions’ – the issue and national tensions would have been long over. THEN, America would be in the same status as the nations you mentioned. IF ‘SSCs’ HAD accepted ‘unions’, they – in my opinion – should have taken the ‘half-a-loaf’ and achieved 99% of their objectives. It would have been a very good deal, in my opinion.

        America would accept “John and Joe are in union”, but reject in general “John and Joe are married”. The first recognizes a new legal and societal concept. The second tramples on an ages-old one.

        It IS the pressure of courts’ forcing the issue AND the angry, riotous responses of the gay activists in their many defeats in this issue to force the concept of ‘marriage’ on an unwilling America which has precluded ‘SSCs’ from achieving the rights and legal abilities these other nations have now. In reading some examples of yours, it is the courts which force the issue down the people’s throats, much like in America, certainly not that the concept has universal appeal!

        The majority still generally votes the issue down when it comes up on a ballot, though a few localities and maybe a few states have approved it.

        ANY same-sex couple can go to an knowledgable and experienced attorney or legal-aid vendor of their choice and draw up paperwork which gives them almost all of the rights and legal abilities a ‘marriage license’ could – right now!! Wills, trusts, final instructions, medical power of attorneys, financial agreements / bank account signing cards and so forth. ANY person can move blood-family aside to their desires in their legal wishes and instructions. It’s ALL right there, but the cultural shift over an unwilling nation IS the goal and exactly what has slowed what gays could have had say, 20 years ago.

        You said “marriage”; I debunked “marriage”. Now, the goalposts shift to foreign nations as a more ‘union’ status with a court-forced ‘chaser’ and you have the weaker argument there as well in my opinion. And, as you said, the specifics don’t make a lot of difference to ‘us’ anyway.

        Thanks also, Justin, for forfeiting every other argument and counter I made before @ 2:34pm. All your liberal economic bloviating and spinning etc..? My counter-arguments all generally, functionally and historically true.

        Gotta go for a while. Unavoidable. Had a LOT of fun!! Have a nice day!

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 8, 2012, 4:30 pm
    • Reagan grew government more than Obama. What now?

      Posted by Justin McAffee | November 8, 2012, 3:08 pm
      • Reagan mopped up the national rot of ‘malaise’ under Carter and set America off on a 2-decade upstroke of economic success – and ended the Cold War. The Clinton-era’s economic rot – dumped on Bush43 not long after his inauguration,

        Reagan won his 2nd term in crushing fashion over Mondale with a vastly improving economy. Obama squeaked out a razor-thin ‘win’ with the nastiest campaign in modern times with low turnout and an economy in the ditch – and his intended ‘fiscal cliff’ ready to roll us off the edge.

        The ‘recession’ ended, officially, in mid-2009. An Obamaesque ‘new normal’ is this current economy or worse. How did all the trillions of useless debt return America to having economic health and “cut(ting) the national deficit in half in (my) first term…”??

        Lastly, a historically correct story. When Reagan and Tip O’Neill made their tax deal as Reagan RAISED taxes in 1982, they agreed to spending cuts approved by O’Neill, as Speaker, at 3:1 cuts to raises. O’Neill reneged on sponsoring the cuts to the House. Neither KNEW that the bargain would work, but Reagan’s end was upheld while O’Neill’s was blown off. THUS, deficits roses as spending increased huge as a liberal reneged!

        A Republican delivered; a Democratic reneged.

        Anyway, Reagan was a giant and a legend. Obama a destructive gnat in comparison.

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 8, 2012, 3:52 pm
        • Correction:

          “The Clinton-era’s economic rot – dumped on Bush43 not long after his inauguration,” – crashed, liberals who caused it blamed on the ‘strawman’ Bush43 and ended the economic era of growth.

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 8, 2012, 5:04 pm
    • McAffee:

      I wanted to reiterate this VERY important debunking of the ‘Obama held the growth of government ….since Eisenhower’ “malarkey”. A piece of a very good WSJ op-ed about national finances today had a piece which cements my point. Also, I am about 80% done with that other thing. Will be along soon!!
      XXX

      ““First the growth of government spending has been slowed by Obama more than any president since Eisenhower.”

      If you gain 40 pounds in one year, then eat enough to more slowly gain weight thereafter, are you still overweight?? The liberal-induced economic crash of 2007 forced Bush’s last year as more spending by a great amount. Raised the spending bar suddenly to ‘Obamunist levels’ right off the bat, eh?? 2009 NOT typical of the Bush terms.

      Liberals conTROLLed Congress in 2007 when everything crashed – approved the budget hike for the first year of Obama and the actions by liberals in the 2000s forced Bush, at the end, to sign a budget with a huge ‘bonus’ of spending. I saw this spin before and saw also how it was debunked, as you are now.”

      xxx

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113033115035920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

      “Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The “emergency” spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would.”

      The last budget – passed by a Congress controlled by liberals and presented to Bush43, who had an economic crisis sprung on the nation in 2008 by Democrat liberal actions from 1995-2007, was forced by events designed by liberals – to sign the budget which lasted through 2009, Obama’s first year. This one-time blowout / fattening government spending – which fattened up the national budget by about 800B IN ONE YEAR – then became the baseline for future budgets.

      Well, since liberals have not advanced a budget for over 3 years, Bush43′s last budget may have been the last time government spending was tracked or agreed-upon. More on the other thing soon!

      Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 12, 2012, 9:54 am
    • Obama did not win by “razor thin margins” in 2012.

      He took 332 electoral votes, and 51.1% of the popular vote, which is typical for presidential elections.

      Posted by Corey | June 11, 2014, 4:30 am
  4. So Heeman, I can’t knock you for having a perspective. We all look at the world through different lenses. However, some of your facts were incorrect, and that may misguide some of your perspectives. Allow me to assist:

    #1 More votes were cast in 2012 than in 2000. I’ll cite to two sources:

    2000: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm

    2012: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=hp_c3_1

    #2 FYI, gay marriage is legal in:
    Mexico
    Argentina
    Brazil
    Columbia
    Uruguay
    Ecuador

    Other factually bankrupt statements you made include blaming unemployment rates “since 2008″ on Obama, as well as blaming our growing debt. First the growth of government spending has been slowed by Obama more than any president since Eisenhower. As the Bush induced Great Recession culminated right as Obama took office, the fed govt’s revenues crashed. Combine that with the Bush tax cuts, the two wars, and Bush’s Medicare expansion… that is why the debt is spinning out of control. Step aside and let a Democrat fix this like we always do (Bill Clinton = surplus = eat that).

    As for your assertion that blacks are the victims of liberal policies, let me remind you that all the red states in the 2012 electoral map match closely the same states that constituted the confederacy. I don’t think you are convincing anyone that government intervention isn’t the answer, especially black people. If we simply leave things up to individuals and corrupt societies, no one is going to like the results. That a dispute that has been largely resolved for a century or more. Some are still sleeping in caves.

    Finally, about Ayn Rand… fiction can be fun, but I prefer the reference section. The morals of selfishism are bitter and inhuman. You can keep it. But America has THRIVED as the world leader in economic growth for the better part of 80 years under a mixed social-capitalist system. One decade of laissez fair government (1920s) led us into the depths of a Great Depression.

    Your perspectives are REJECTED!

    As for my credentials, I am at least not an anonymous troll.

    Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 8, 2012, 12:52 pm
  5. With eight of the nine ‘battleground states’ which fell for (I do mean FELL for) Obama Tuesday night wins by margins less than TWO points – and the popular vote within TWO points – this was no landslide and results in NO MANDATE for Obama and Reid. Nevada, where the GOP ‘machine’ is notoriously weak these days, fell by 7 or so. But, ‘we’ are only 5 electoral votes. Both candidates got LESS votes than 2000, Bush v. Gore AND 2004, Bush v. Kerry. Obama got in 2010 about 2 million votes LESS than 2008 and won by 2 million out of almost 12

    Thank God the ‘people’s house’ – of Representatives stayed strongly Republican to stand against the temporary wave of delusional Obamunists who actually believe this man represents ‘change’ of a positive nature. Spending bills flow from the House – and promptly go to die in Reid’s Senate. Obama hasn’t got support by ANYONE for his three budgets.

    With the ‘fiscal cliff’ (which Obama WANTS to happen), ObamaCare (which is killing jobs as we speak), more trillion-dollar deficits (YOU liberals try spending 12 dollars for every 7 you take in – PLEASE?) and generally an accurate “Atlas Shrugged” push by liberals today — well you get the point (or not) that as these minority groups suffer and strain, we’ll see if they stay beholden to such a rancid and corrosive Alinskyist brain-fart of American politics.

    With Obama doing nothing for latinos at all when he promised to in 2008 and pandering to them specifically late – basically throwing them a bone, when he simply ignored federal law to grant a backdoor amnesty – they still fell for him for now. Being generally Catholic, hating gay marriage and seeing economic threats growing; will latinos agree to being ‘stuck in the back pocket’ of a growingly rancid Democrat party? Justin seems to think so.

    With black unemployment higher since 2008, blacks more on government assistance and greater economic harm to blacks since 2008 – I wonder how much poverty blacks who support Obama will endure before more shake free from the ‘plantation’. Blacks who support liberals have been as abused since 1964, actually since before 1865, as much as being taken for granted today, by ‘one of their own’ with economic programs which have decimated them by Alinskyist design. When those questions of actual harm and actual threat to the well-being of blacks who support Obama are willing to endure; many more votes will leave ‘the plantation’ and look for alternatives.

    By placing a pillow over the face of the economy in SO many ways and then blowing out the national ‘credit cards’ by 5-6X of the Bush43 years, anyone who has a family budget knows that in this case, liberal priorities of spending through the roof and also ‘taking a voluntary cut in pay’ and then borrowing the rest, well, any ‘family’ goes bankrupt eventually. THIS IS the Alinskyist / Cloward & Piven design of societal change. Bankrupt the nation while corroding it from within to produce a nation, as Alinsky said “..not as it is, but as we will it to be”.

    ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a classic political treatise for a reason. Liberals hate it because Rand tells the unvarnished truth of in our case – American liberal corrosion and division over decades and throughout our national fabric – all to well.

    When Obama exclaims that “our work has a long way to go” – calls of “Who IS John Galt” will not be far behind!

    Lastly, liberals in an almost knee-jerk fashion, claim with each electoral advance that this is the end for the Republicans. Carville crowed about “40 more years of Democrat rule” in 1999 and then wrote a book later = which turned out to be baloney. Cadell also wrote a book in the late 70s as well and is now sickened by what his Democrat party has become. McAffee, who has NO such credentials, now crows. Morris, who won Clinton’s two terms, is sick of the liberals as well.

    Crow on, Justin!!

    Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 8, 2012, 11:11 am

Post a Comment

Connect with Facebook


+ 8 = fifteen

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEVADA VIEW