Tea party looks to 2016 at South Carolina convention

[Pinot]

The 2016 GOP clown car is filling up fast. The only way to get to the Republican nomination is to veer right, far right. That's the reason that a Republican will not get elected the next election or any future election. A national election brings out far more people than midterms and the right just doesn't have the numbers to make it even close. The prejudiced, ignorant right wing base will continue to haunt the GOP forever.

American political threads here on TV bring out the same delusional Fox News lemmings every time. Benghazi!!!

[Ulysses G.]

Speaking of lemmings, you seem to have memorized every silly, liberal talking point in the book.

[Publicus]

Most tea party people in Congress and in their local communities across the country have contempt of the Constitution, advocating unification of church and state, a strict regulation of citizen's private lives, they oppose abortion, advocate violent action against the national government, want prayer in schools, support the Defense of Marriage Act which the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional....etc etc etc. An absurd and shameless contempt of the Constitution.

This is the Tea Party in a nutshell. Not to mention their stance on immigration (both legal and illegal, which they'll never admit), the environment, Civil Rights, and a whole slew of other issues which contradicts the belief of most Americans. Supporters of the Tea Party are pretty fanatical in their beliefs and we don't deny that. As you rightly point out, they'll play a role in local politics, but not on a national level (except maybe to increase gridlock in Congress). But they are simply outnumbered in the USA and based on simple demographics, will become less and less relevant as the country moves on.

For sure.

The demographic changes of the past 30 years have defined the country's multicultural present and future. As we appreciate, multicultural includes white Americans.

In the 2012 election 129,075,629 people voted.

Prez Obama won 65,915,934 votes.

Romney won 60,933,657 votes.

Here's a catagorizing of the Obama votes:

36 million white voters voted for Obama.

9 million Hispanics voted for O

15 million blacks voted O

3 million Asian Americans voted O

I've rounded and shortened the figures, but that comes to the 65.9 million popular votes for Prez Obama that comfortably won the election for him.

As the following chart shows, Republicans would need to make major changes to several categories of voters to ever win the presidency again.

Voters and the percentage of each at the left, and on the right how each group voted.

[NeverSure]

I just love it when people prognosticate about who can and can't win the next election when there's so much that can happen in the interim.

The Democrats nationally got their butts handed to them in Congressional elections just a little over two months ago, yet already they are losers.

I have no idea who will win and neither does anyone else. We don't even know who the candidates will be.

Maybe Algore will run again.

[Publicus]

I just love it when people prognosticate about who can and can't win the next election when there's so much that can happen in the interim.

The Democrats nationally got their butts handed to them in Congressional elections just a little over two months ago, yet already they are losers.

I have no idea who will win and neither does anyone else. We don't even know who the candidates will be.

Maybe Algore will run again.

I notice the post ignores the chart and its accurate data.

The chart of the 2012 election looks almost identical to the 2008 election chart (not shown).

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 identified a new composition of the electorate.

Expect more of the same going forward.

Correct we don't know what's going to happen between now and November 2016.

Not in detail. The big picture however is right in front of us.

Waiting and hoping some non-existent new political unknown comes out of the woodwork is not a strategy.

Deal with it.

[Ulysses G.]

Correct we don't know what's going to happen between now and November 2016.

NOW you've got it. Just drop all the other spin.

[Publicus]

Correct we don't know what's going to happen between now and November 2016.

NOW you've got it. Just drop all the other spin.

The dropping will be by the voters of those currently avoiding and denying the inevitable.....gee, we donno what's gonna happen duhh.....

No one over on that side wants to discuss the tea party people or the fact Prez Obama is back up in the polls and surveys and that the tea party is over already, and yet we're still two years out from the election and one year away from the first voting in the Iowa Republican caucus where.the God extremist Mike Huckabee is far ahead of Jeb Romney, Mitt Bush, Chris Rubio, Marco Christie and all the rest of 'em crashing around out there in the official Republican Clown Car.

So take a look at the chart up above, pinch yourselves, then get back to the rest of us down here in the real world, ok?

[NeverSure]

The dropping will be by the voters of those currently avoiding and denying the inevitable.....gee, we donno what's gonna happen duhh.....

No one over on that side wants to discuss the tea party people or the fact Prez Obama is back up in the polls and surveys and that the tea party is over already, and yet we're still two years out from the election and one year away from the first voting in the Iowa Republican caucus where.the God extremist Mike Huckabee is far ahead of Jeb Romney, Mitt Bush, Chris Rubio, Marco Christie and all the rest of 'em crashing around out there in the official Republican Clown Car.

So take a look at the chart up above, pinch yourselves, then get back to the rest of us down here in the real world, ok?

Who do you have in your clown car besides a proven loser named Hillary Clinton?

[Pinot]

Reality is difficult to swallow when it intrudes on the extremest world view. Make no mistake, you can see it here on this thread, it is an extremest, paranoid view of the world.

Take for example that 2014 was the hottest year in history. It doesn't phase climate change deniers. How about Sam Brownbeck's supply side economic disaster? Supply side economics is a failure every republican embraces. The success of health reform only increases the Republican rage. Killing Obamacare, denying health care to 10 million Americans is the most important thing in the life of a Republican. The fact that it works makes absolutely no difference. It's Obamacare. It must be stopped.

Republicans don't want government to succeed. The magical power of tax cuts is nothing more than an agenda for crippling government by starving it for revenue.

Facts, evidence and morality don't matter to the Republicans. That's very sad. It wasn't always like this. We've become a divided country. I blame the polarization on the ministry of propaganda (Fox) and the paranoid little brains that absorb the extremism like manna from heaven.

Great speech Obama gave last night. He's back.

[brewsterbudgen]

The dropping will be by the voters of those currently avoiding and denying the inevitable.....gee, we donno what's gonna happen duhh.....

No one over on that side wants to discuss the tea party people or the fact Prez Obama is back up in the polls and surveys and that the tea party is over already, and yet we're still two years out from the election and one year away from the first voting in the Iowa Republican caucus where.the God extremist Mike Huckabee is far ahead of Jeb Romney, Mitt Bush, Chris Rubio, Marco Christie and all the rest of 'em crashing around out there in the official Republican Clown Car.

So take a look at the chart up above, pinch yourselves, then get back to the rest of us down here in the real world, ok?

Who do you have in your clown car besides a proven loser named Hillary Clinton?

Hmmm. I have strong feeling she will be the first Madam President.

[Publicus]

Speaking of lemmings, you seem to have memorized every silly, liberal talking point in the book.

I didn't read the book but I saw the movie, which btw is nominated for the best picture academy award. So the book along with a pot of pleasant hot tea must be a really great read. Here's one chapter from it.

SELMA

Whether it wins or not, this movie did get made and it is a winner, same as the courageous historical event has always been a winner.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

...and what does the move "Selma" have to do with this thread?

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing what-so-ever, but I appreciate the surprise movie review.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Racial Resentment Drives Tea Party Membership

"At least to some degree, the Tea Party movement is an outlet for mobilizing and expressing racialized grievances which have been symbolically magnified by the election of the nation’s first black president,” writes a research team led by Florida State University sociologist Daniel Tope.

Tea party activist shows support of government shutdown by waving Confederate flag outside the home of a black family.

The study, just published in the journal Social Science Research,finds this acrimony appears to be aimed specifically at blacks rather than also targeting Latinos. While that’s somewhat surprising, “The findings suggest that, among conservatives, racial resentment may be a more important determinate of membership in the Tea Party movement than hard-right political values.

”

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/racial-resentment-drives-tea-party-membership-93419/

Agree that the Tea Party has come to represent the extreme right and the racist wing of the Republican party. Supporters should recognize that it's not what the Tea Party claims to represent, it's what everyone else thinks they represent. And a vast majority of Americans do not support the Tea Party and their views on a great number of issues. I'm sure every Democrat would be privately ecstatic if a Tea Party member were to win the Republican nomination because that would guarantee a Democratic President in 2016.

The point you make is very germane. What the Tea Party presents to the Republican candidates is a two edged sword. Any Republican hopeful of winning the primaries, and thus the nomination, MUST appeal to the Tea Baggers, as they are all hard core, and turn out to vote in the primaries in large numbers. So the candidates must position themselves to the extreme right in order to woo them. However, once the primaries are over, they then have to backpedal hard to try to appear much more centrist to try and win over the swing voters. The problem then becomes the bounty of extremist statements captured on video during the primaries that the Dems can trot out in endless attack ads. Talk about sitting on the horns of a dilemma!

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Liberals watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and read Mother Jones and Huffington Post.

What's the difference?

Only partially correct. While it is true that liberals who feel the need to get there "news" from one of the major networks will, by and large, tune to MSNBC. And you are correct that the readership of both Mother Jones and the Huffington Post are largely liberal. However, extensive research has been done on the question of liberal/conservative/corporate bias in the media, and the fact is that pretty much NO ONE on either side trusts the broadcast media. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Viacom, and NBC is 80% owned by GE. If you honestly think that any of these multinational corporations are hotbeds of liberalism, then your definition of "liberal" might need some tweaking. MSNBC remains on air to satisfy a market niche, which it has managed to do, ergo it will remain on the air until it fails to do so. Conservatives have a vastly larger array of informational sources that cater to their biases. In my opinion, none of the mainstream media outlets provide what is desperately needed...unbiased, comprehensive, non-partisan information that educates, but does not attempt to influence. Those sources are very rare. The honest individual will glean what he/she can from both liberal and conservative sources, sift through and analyze the information presented, and determine for himself/herself what they feel the truth to be.

[otherstuff1957]

If the Tea Party can rally behind a single viable candidate, they could win the Republican Primaries.... I rather imagine Hillary is hoping that they do!

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The dropping will be by the voters of those currently avoiding and denying the inevitable.....gee, we donno what's gonna happen duhh.....

No one over on that side wants to discuss the tea party people or the fact Prez Obama is back up in the polls and surveys and that the tea party is over already, and yet we're still two years out from the election and one year away from the first voting in the Iowa Republican caucus where.the God extremist Mike Huckabee is far ahead of Jeb Romney, Mitt Bush, Chris Rubio, Marco Christie and all the rest of 'em crashing around out there in the official Republican Clown Car.

So take a look at the chart up above, pinch yourselves, then get back to the rest of us down here in the real world, ok?

Who do you have in your clown car besides a proven loser named Hillary Clinton?

I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be. However, I do find it amusing when, after having posted extensive statistical data to support his thesis, the best response you can come up with is a one line attempt at a "zinger". However, to answer your assertion about Hillary being a "proven loser", well, let's see. She WON the NY election for Senator, she WON confirmation as Secretary of State, and she is poised to WIN the Democratic nomination for President. Should she do that, current polls indicate that, for her, it will likely be a cake walk to WIN the Presidency. It would appear to me, at least by her past results, that the "proof" leans a tad in the opposite direction. Just a suggestion, but you might want to recheck that definition of "loser". You can probably find a good dictionary on line. Having said all that, I will concede the proposition that nothing is assured.

[Ulysses G.]

I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be.

You and - despite all the spin - everyone else on this thread. Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner in 2008 too, but she did not even get the nomination.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be.

You and - despite all the spin - everyone else on this thread. Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner in 2008 too, but she did not even get the nomination.

That is quite true. The problem that Hillary faces is that she is viewed with serious suspicion by the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and is seen as being way too friendly with, and accommodating to, Wall Street. What I see potentially happening is that Obama will continue what he has begun, a major program of populist proposals that will wind up appealing strongly to swing voters. While none of those proposals will stand a chance of getting through the Republican controlled Congress, the Dems will use that as campaign fodder, and then a much more populist candidate, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, could conceivably unseat Hillary. The Republicans would like that, because Warren and Sanders are much more unknown quantities, and would be easier to campaign against. However, Obama was pretty much unknown, until he came out of nowhere and got himself elected. It will be a very interesting election season.

[Pinot]

I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be.

You and - despite all the spin - everyone else on this thread. Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner in 2008 too, but she did not even get the nomination.

That's correct Ulysses. A dark horse (Obama joke) could come out of the pack and get the democratic nomination. That's up in the air. What isn't is the eventual winner. The Republican nominee won't have a prayer (Jindall/Hucabee/Santorum/Romney/Rubio/Bush/Christie/Palin/etc/etc/etc joke) .

Oh yea, I almost forgot, Ben Carson, one of my favorite jokes.

What will be interesting is what the fear factor they're all going to use. Roger Ailes will think of something. Ebola? Bengahzi? Blacks? Yes, let's go with Blacks. A proven winner.

[Ulysses G.]

That's correct Ulysses. A dark horse (Obama joke) could come out of the pack and get the democratic nomination. That's up in the air. What isn't is the eventual winner.

Of course it is up in the air. You have no way to be certain who the nominees will be or who will win the election, no matter what you want to believe.

By the way, throwing a silly reference to Fox News into almost every single post on this forum does not speak well of your creativity or intelligence.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[ramrod45]

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Traveler19491

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

It would seem her quality of service is somewhat hard to define. Maybe she needs that "reset" button.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Can't Name Top Accomplishment As Secretary of State

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/10/hillary-cant-name-top-accomplishment-as-secretary-of-state/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DNC MEMBERS CAN'T NAME EVEN ONE HILLARY CLINTON ACHIEVEMENT

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/03/05/dnc-members-can-t-come-up-with-even-one-hillary-achievement/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Department can’t name one accomplishment from a Clinton-run initiative

http://capitolcityproject.com/state-department-cant-name-one-accomplishment-clinton-run-initiative/

Edited January 27, 2015 by chuckd

[Traveler19491]

***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering &lt;deleted&gt; is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

[chuckd]

***SIGH*** Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars. Too much like what my ex used to call, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, and counter nyah, nyah, nyah". I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but on her worst day she is light years ahead of W. At least she can talk in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and doesn't have the rest of the first world nations wondering <deleted> is wrong with American voters. Oh, and she apparently can't see Russia from her front porch, and doesn't think it's cute that her kids use the dog as a step stool to reach the sink. And can state which newspapers she reads.

Posts don't get much sillier than yours.

Your off the wall comparison of Hillary to Sarah is ridiculous in the extreme.

In the first place, Palin never said she could see Russia from her front porch. She said Russia could be seen from parts of Alaska...which is true.

As somebody that owns five golden retrievers and has a six year old nephew that rides them around the yard, what her son did is childish behavior and any criticism of it is just as childlike.

Thirdly, I don't really care what newspapers Palin reads but the main stream media and progressive liberals can't seem to get enough of her, even though she will very likely not be the Republican nominee for any national office.

My point in referencing those three links is NOBODY can tell us what Hillary's accomplishments were during her tenure as Secretary of State. Not Hillary, the Democratic National Committee or the State Department can come up with an answer to that little poser.

You want an intelligent conversation?

Then you try answering the question...What were Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as Secretary of State?

Even more broadly based, try and tell us what she has accomplished on her own during her long career, other than marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

But then..."At this point, what difference does it make"?

[ramrod45]

"Naturally I meant "debate" between intelligent individuals with differing viewpoints who can cite non-partisan, independent sources. Not slugs who are skilled at nothing more than cutting and pasting pundit comments that agree with their particular viewpoints. Sorry, but I'm not into the cutting and pasting wars."

So citing statistic sites that only provide surface information regarding the demographics of those surveyed is any better? You surely jest.....

[ramrod45]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

It seems to me that WIN indicates a conflict, a contest. Someone who is appointed has no conflict, and further, asking a group to confirm if this selection is acceptable does not, to me, constitute a "win". As for myself, since you have no idea of my level of education, background, or really anything, I must construe your non-flattering comments (which has a monotonous continuation throughout many of your posts) to indicate that to protect what must be low self-esteem, you must denigrate others in an attempt to allude to an apparent delusional pulpit, when in fact a true, respected intellectual does not need to succumb to such nugatory actions. Perhaps you should look at your own Neanderthal knuckle dragging cretin remarks.....

[Chicog]

There was some cracking nonsense from Cruz, Palin and Huckabee over the weekend if you can find the video still up anywhere.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State, only that there is a vote on the confirmation. You can't WIN if you need to first be nominated. And she was a lousy Sec of State anyways.

My, what an interesting comment. And yet we refer to the NOMINEE of one of the two parties as "WINNING" the election. One has to persuade a majority of Senators to VOTE in favor of their NOMINATION, and the WINNING vote determines if the individual will be confirmed. Even the media refers to a Presidential nominee as winning or losing the confirmation. As to the quality of her service, that is open to legitimate debate, of which, I am afraid, you are not qualified. Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

It seems to me that WIN indicates a conflict, a contest. Someone who is appointed has no conflict, and further, asking a group to confirm if this selection is acceptable does not, to me, constitute a "win". As for myself, since you have no idea of my level of education, background, or really anything, I must construe your non-flattering comments (which has a monotonous continuation throughout many of your posts) to indicate that to protect what must be low self-esteem, you must denigrate others in an attempt to allude to an apparent delusional pulpit, when in fact a true, respected intellectual does not need to succumb to such nugatory actions. Perhaps you should look at your own Neanderthal knuckle dragging cretin remarks.....

Merriam Webster: win (intransitive verb), to succeed at arriving at a place or a state. You were the one who insisted on starting an argument based solely on semantics. The dictionary backs up my use of the word, one that individuals possessing a degree in journalism also subscribe to. Your statement, "It seems to me..." illustrates that your position is nothing more than your personal opinion. Also, in a Senatorial confirmation hearing, there is in fact, "a conflict, a contest". The party in opposition to the White House is often seeking to block the nomination, while the party aligned with the White House is seeking to confirm.

Merriam Webster: conflict (noun), 2a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)......Merriam Webster: contest (noun), to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; especially: dispute, challenge.

A Senatorial confirmation hearing satisfies all of those definitions, ergo she won her confirmation ( http://www.inquisitr.com/16034/hillary-clinton-wins-confirmation-as-secretary-of-state/ ). You wanted to get into a conflict over a matter of semantics, so there you are. Your determination to hang onto your personal restrictive definition of the word is based on nothing more than your personal opinion.

My comments about an individual being a knuckle dragging cretin were directed at one person who made a disparaging, racist remark aimed at a man whose heroic actions saved lives. I stand by my estimation of the author's character and mental capacity. However, your original snarky comment ("I had no idea you could WIN Secretary of State...") was intended to belittle my usage of a word in a journalistcally accepted context, and was a "non-flattering comment" in its own right, revealing your own capacity for nugatory actions (thanks for that one, by the way. I learned a new word. Love it!) My self esteem is just dandy, thank you very much. And what the hell is, "an apparent attempt to allude to a delusional pulpit"? I have to admit, I've never heard of a "delusional pulpit". I never made claim to be a "respected intellectual", but for you to exclude me from that class must mean that you feel yourself included, otherwise how would you know whether or not I am one? Now that seems a touch egotistical. No, Sparky, my sole aim on this forum is to debate facts. I admit to a liberal bias, but I do try to use facts, and when I am using my own opinion I state it as such. I won't debate Hillary's success or lack thereof as Secretary of State. I'm no fan. The aim of my post about her "wins" was to illustrate that the individual who labeled her a "loser" wasn't using facts.