Hastert, Lott, Townsend, and now, Bush’s top economic advisor, Allan Hubbard, is fleeing. Any bad news out there?
Reader Interactions
59Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?
Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.
A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.
The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.
I am pretty sure Katy Tur wasn’t always such a bootlicking sycophant.
Innocent people don’t delay justice.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.
Let me file that under fuck it.
Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.
Please don’t feed the bears.
This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.
If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.
There’s always a light at the end of the frog.
Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.
You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.
He imagines himself as The Big Bad, Who Is Universally Feared… instead of The Big Jagoff, Who Is Universally Mocked.
I was confident that someone would point it out and thought why not me.
When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.
It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!
Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.
In after Baud. Damn.
Not all heroes wear capes.
Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.
Decided FenceSitter
419 days still to go.
Seanly
The self-destruction of the Republican party? Oh, you wanted bad news…
Tom Gellhaus
Townsend? must have missed that one. Can someone remind me who he/she is ?
yet another jeff
Don’t you mean “remind me what his crony-bio says?”
LITBMueller
A priceless quote from Hubbard in the article:
Translation: “Sure, middle class folks who took out risky mortgages on houses are fucked, and some of the big banks are hurting right now (even though they can count on us to bail them out in a real crisis – regular folk, yer still fucked!), but REAL AMERICA…you know, defense contractors, the oil industry, and other rich folk who make huge donations to the GOP…they’re just fine and dandy!”
superdestroyer
The real question is what happens to politics in the U.S. after the collapse of the Republican party is complete (remember, it was going to happen no matter what due to changing demograhics,President Bush just sped up the process about 20 years) and the U.S. is a defacto one party state.
In 2116, the presidential election will probably decided in March when the dominate democratic candidate in the primaries has forced everyone else to quit before the rubber stamping election in November. Will the Democrats finally start moving primaries later? How will politics function when the general election is moot?
What will congressional elections be like when more than half of the incumbents are running for relection unopposed (its over 150 this year with 125 being Democrats)? How will district lines be affect by the one party state? Which blocs in the current Democratic Party will gain the most and which will lose the most in the one party state? How the former Republican voters affect elections when they start voting in the Democratic Primary?
Cinderella Ferret
National security advisor who just announced her resignation. Another “deadender”, as it were.
Dreggas
Bad news? You mean the clusterfuck that will be the massive reset of yet more mortgages come Jan/Feb.
Punchy
Played guitar for The Who.
Michael D.
By the way, I REALLY want this question answered by John McCain. You can vote for it. Apparently, that’s how they choose, at least partly.
yet another jeff
superdestroyer…that’s a mighty crazy scenario. What will happen is the same thing that’s happened before. 1954. GOP Senator McCarthy, implosion of the GOP, 40 years in the wilderness. Democrats become fat and corrupt and bureaucratic and then there’s a “GOP Revolution in 1994.” “Yay! First time in control of Congress in 40 years!!!” There was no mention of WHY they were out of power for 40 years…and full corruption on display for all to see in less than 10 years.
So…shorter answer for you.
No.
Punchy
Become? Mike Moore just ate another bearclaw and gave you the finger.
superdestroyer
yet another jeff,
the 1950’s scenerio was before the national media and the need for massive fund raising. The Republicans can barely claim to be a national poltical party now given that they have zero prospects of winning state wide elction in any state north of North Carolina. Also, the idea that the Republicans can come back ignores the changing demographics, in 40 years the U.S. will be over 50% black and Hispanic. There are no real long term prospects for the Republicans.
If you look at how Republicans voting in a Democratic primary can affect things look at how they saved Lieberman in Conn. and look at how they voted Cynthia McKinney out of office twice.
4tehlulz
And by Real America, I mean K Street.
Zifnab
Yeah, maybe you haven’t been following the Democratic Party political infrastructure lately, but they can’t agree on anything even when they aren’t being kneecapped by the Republicans.
Back in ’03, when everyone was toe-tapping about a “permanent Republican majority”, the fault lines were already appearing within their caucus. You could see it in the immigration debate, the stem cell debate, and – to a lesser degree – the torture debate.
I suspect we can give the Dems maybe two years in power before internal wrangling starts showing through. There’s no Hammer on the Dem side to twist arms till they break off, so even that’s a bit optimistic.
Faux News
Superdestroyer: you can always vote for the Whig Party in 2116.
Walker
This quote from the article is fascinating:
Who the hell does Hubbard think this Real America is? The rich people are doing okay (unless you were unfortunate enough to have money in a Bear Sterns hedge), but no working person is doing well at all. The cost of living for your average working person has gone up over 10% in the past year. If you measure inflation like we did in Reagan’s time (before Greenspan changed the CPI metrics in the 90s to make inflation look better than it actually is), we are currently at 1982 (Warning: opinionated site, but his figures are legit).
Hubbard’s statement about Real America shows how much contempt this administration has for the working American.
yet another jeff
superdestroyer. Right, 24/7 media, etc, speeds up the cycle.
Also, what Faux News said. You don’t even have a decent hypothetical question. It’s patently ridiculous.
superdestroyer
Zifnab
The idiots who were writing about the permanent Republican majority were Democrats and were hamstrung by political correctness. They knew that the demographics of the U.S. were chaning but somehow convinced themselves that blacks and Hispanics could be coaxed to vote Republican somehow. There arguments were naive and laughable.
If the Democrats get to 60 seats in the Senate (something the Republicans never achieved) they can easily eliminate the Republcan party through a new Fairness Doctrine, a new voting rights act, and a second round of McCain-Feingold.
In addition, most states will be redistricted in 2010 by Democratic control legislatures. The Democrats should be able to eliminate at least 30 Republicans through redistricting for the 2112 legislature.
Zifnab
At which point, Republicans will be desperately diving for cover the way their Dem counterparts were doing some four years back. But the party infrastructure will remain. It’s just a question of who eventually takes the helm, and whether he can steer the ship successfully.
It’s easier for an underdog or outsider to break into office on the other side of a real ticket than through a primary. The Republican Party will simply become the vehicle for conservative Dems, Libertarians – hell, even Greens – to run against the incumbent.
So long as we have an electoral system that runs on one-round-voting majority win elections – where a Texas Governor can walk into office with some 30% of the vote like Rick Perry did last year – you will see a two-party system, no more and no less.
PK
Michael D
I followed your link to the video, but unless I missed it there does not seem to be a way to vote for it. Good question, but don’t hold your breath for an honest answer.
superdestroyer
yet another jeff,
In the pre-electronic media days, a politicians could go into one part of a state, district, city and say one thing but then could say the opposite in another. Short of a few newpaper reporters, no one noticed the difference and the media went along.
Look at how Romney has problems with things we said in 1994. It is virtually impossible for candidates to make major changes.
Zifnab,
The Democrats never really had to run for cover because they knew that demographics were on their side, they kept all of their blocs in line, and never at the maximum achievement of the Republicans there were 75 Democratic Congressmen who were running unopposed and the Democrats were getting 80% of the vote in Manhatten, Boston, SF, DC, Baltimore, etc. It is hard to argue that the U.S. is a natural two party state when so many places from Mass, to Maryland to Utah function as one party state.
For the Republicans, they have very few unopposed candidates, they almost never win an election by 80%, and the demographics groups that vote Republican are shrinking.
On top of the historic trends was the incompetence of the Bush Administration, former Speaker Hastert, and former majority leader Frist. No only did they destroy the Republican brand, they failed to develop the next generation of candidates. No one who served on Capital Hill for Hastert or in the Bush White House has any future in politics (and rightly so). Compare that to the large number of former Clinton Staffers and former Democratic Congressional aides who are now elected Democrats.
yet another jeff
Well, incompetence does tend to soil a brand name.
Davebo
You’ve got to love SuperDestroyer’s code words.
Demographics on their side, will pass a new voting rights act….
It’s not like he’s even trying to disguise the demographic he blames for the demise of the GOP.
It’s slick packaging and it allows for an explanation for the demise of the GOP that puts absolutely none of the blame on the party itself.
It’s not their fault, it’s all those brown people.
yet another jeff
Yeah, and it can’t be policies that screw the people either…
Still, that’s all beside the central flaw of his argument that there will be Democratic One Party Rule, evah. Code words be damned, it’s just a silly thing to say.
Grumpy Code Monkey
That still pisses me off (although I think it was closer to 40%). Significantly more people voted against Perry than for, but he still won. It’s not Kinky’s or Carole’s fault; the problem is that we don’t have a runoff system for state office.
You should not win with less than 50% of the vote. Period.
uh_clem
If I may inject a contrarian view into the mix, one explanation of the exodus among the cabinet and sub-cabinet position is that it gives the up-and-coming young republicans a brief shot at the big time. Like a baseball game in the eighth inning with the result basically decided, they might as well let the bench get some time on the field.
So when John Q. Experienced steps aside to let Albert R. Thirtysomething warm the seat of Secretary of Yadayada for a couple of months, it’s a huge entry on Thirtysomething’s resume even though there won’t be time for much more than coordinating with the transition committee of the next administration.
Eight years from now when Thirtysomething wants to run for degcatcher he can tout his experience as Secretary of Yadayada for the Bush administration.
Lott and Hastert are a different kettle of fish, but these appointed positions often have turnover at the end of an administration – if for no other reason that there’s nothing left to accomplish.
superdestroyer
yet another jeff,
Are you arguing that Maryland, Mass, RI, Chicago, DC and other places are not defacto one party governments. Look at how the mayors race in Baltimore was reported by the media, the winner of the Democratic primary was announced as the next mayor while the general election was almost totally ignored by the media. If the general election in Maryland or Mass. are moot exercises, there is no reason to believe that it cannot happen on the national level.
If a state like Mass. or even California can function as a one party state, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. cannot function as one.
And I think there is nothing to hide about the collapse of the Republicans. No matter what the Bush Administration did , in the future, as the number of blacks and Hispanics grows relative to whites in the U.S., the long term prospects of the Republicans decline. There is no issue, no strategy, no campaign that is going to get blacks or Hispanics to vote Republican. Thus, the Republicans are forced to either get a larger share of the white vote with each election or collapse into irrelevancy. In the long run, the becoming irrelevant is much more likely than either gaining a larger share of the black vote (while not losing white voter support) or of increasing their share of the white vote.
Evinfuilt
Its not my fault, I voted Kinky. What can I say, he was the only intelligent and agreeable candidate.
croatoan
I thought the Bushies had to quit by Labor Day or stay for the duration.
Jake
Heh. Hey Davebo I guess you’ve seen superdestroyer at play on other blogs?
Apparently s/he is learning. S/he used to start right in and not bother with code words.
In other news: Bonking your employees is still a bad idea.
Jake
Oops, in the time it took to type a comment the bullshit has begun.
Remember kids, if you feed the troll it might follow you home.
Xenos
Was it Zoe Baird who had advocated instant run-off elections? Boy, did she get run out of D.C. on a rail, or what?
Xenos
Well, there was once some residual good faith from the whole emancipating the slaves thing once.
The GOP made a conscious, deliberate, collective decision to piss away the Blacks, and has more recently made a conscious, deliberate, collective decision to demonize Hispanic illegal immigrants. The largest political party in Massachusetts is “undecided”. So if the GOP wants to embrace a political program that does not center on being assholes, they would have a decent chance.
But no, let’s blame the Democrats for the fact that the GOP is run by nasty thugs.
TenguPhule
What are they all running from that they’re afraid to be in office when it comes out?
jcricket
First blacks, then hispanics, and now also muslims and gays. Don’t forget the trend (not yet fully embraced) towards demonization of non-Christians (esp. athiests).
What’s amazing (disturbing?) is that the minority hatred is actually increasing, not decreasing, with the current Republicans. Despite demographics, clear electoral trends when they support the “hate” and just the moral wrongness of it all, it might take at least another couple losses (2008, 2010) before Republicans go, “Hmm, running further to the right isn’t helping us”.
However, primary voters are usually more partisan than not, and a significant amount of Republican “grass-roots” support at this point is wingnuts. It might be that “independents and undecided” simply bolt the Republican party and the wing-nuts complete their takeover. Sure, that won’t help the Republican party, but I actually feel actually the most likely outcome at this point.
It’s as if the ELF and PETA took over the Democratic party, which despite Republicans claims, is exactly what’s not happening. Kos and Dean and others are really pragmatic progressives, focused on “election winners” not hyper-lefties. I think the embrace of a more aggressive style of campaigning to win and the wide range of Democratic policies is an asset to long-term Democratic success.
Michael D.
Pk
I didn’t expect an honest answer! I wanted to see the fumbling! ;-)
yet another jeff
Well, superdestroyer…it would seem that whatever form the GOP takes in the future, it might do well to try and reflect the majority of it’s potential constituents. As I say you aren’t looking at a long term historical picture of national parties, you bring up city governments. Again, I think your entire premise is silly and you’re just making it sillier.
jcricket
For an example of this at the official level, see the last elections in Kanas, where something like 9 Republicans switched sides and ran as Democrats (most won).
superdestroyer
xenos
Blacks have been reliably Democratic for at least 50 years. I would guess that most blacks of voting age have never voted for a Republican. There is nothing that the Republicans can do to get their vote. Voting Democratic is just part of the culture of black Americans.
Over 90% of elected Hispanic officials are Democrats. In a normal election, Hispanics vote over 75% for Democrats. It is great once you remove the Cuban-American voters who are much more Republican. There is nothing that the Republicans can do to get a larger share of Hispanic voters. Rove and President tried with their horrible immigration reform. It shows that any attempt to get more Hispanic voters will lose many more white voters than it attracts in Hispanic voters.
If you look at how politics in developing in California, you see the future of politics in the U.S. A one party state dominated by changing demographics.
I do not believe that anyone is blaming the Democrats. However, since the Republican party is collapsing, the question of how politics will be handled in a one party state. Will the Democrats push for more closed primaries (see Mississippi) or will the Democratic party welcome all of the independent and former Republicans voting in their primary? Will initiative become more or less important? How will the level of corruption be affected by the U.S. being a one party state? How will redistricting occur?
superdestroyer
yet another jeff,
Everyone here has posted about how stupid, ignorant, and corrupt the Republicans are. Yet, everyone keeps stating that the Republicans will remain viable in national elections. I do not see how those two view points can be reconciled. With the growing black and Hispanic population, the Republicans have no propects of expanding their voter base. The idea that the Republicans can become Democratic-LIte is unworkable and fated for failure if tried. Look at the Republicans under Ford to see what happens.
Also, the many failures of the Bush Administration will prevent the next generation of Republicans from improving their prospects. No one who has worked in the Bush Administration or on Capital Hill has any good prospects for politics in the future.
superdestroyer
yet another jeff,
Everyone here has posted about how stupid, ignorant, and corrupt the Republicans are. Yet, everyone keeps stating that the Republicans will remain viable in national elections. I do not see how those two view points can be reconciled. With the growing black and Hispanic population, the Republicans have no propects of expanding their voter base. The idea that the Republicans can become Democratic-LIte is unworkable and fated for failure if tried. Look at the Republicans under Ford to see what happens.
Also, the many failures of the Bush Administration will prevent the next generation of Republicans from improving their prospects. No one who has worked in the Bush Administration or on Capital Hill has any good prospects for politics in the future.
Davebo
And as usual, SuperDestroyer falls back on phony statistics that he can’t support.
And as we know, 74.5% of all statistics are made up on the fly.
superdestroyer
Davebo,
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_sndgs02.html
Bob Dole received 21% of the Hispanic vote in 1996.
If the Republicans are not running a favor son from Texas or California, that is what they expect.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00420.x
The vast majority (over 80 percent) of Latino legislators in Florida are Republicans, and the vast majority (over 90 percent) of Latino legislators in the other states are Democrats.
Notorious P.A.T.
However, since the Republican party is collapsing, the question of how politics will be handled in a one party state.
The Democrats will simply split into two parties. It’s happened before in America; that’s how we got the two parties we have today. The Democratic-Republican Party split over the issue of slavery once the Federalist Party was out of the way.
superdestroyer
Notorious P.A.T.
there is no issue like slavery around these days. Besides the government was small before the civil war. I doubt if any group would want to walk away from the one, dominant political party to create their own. An easier example will be that the government will have to grow to keep as many groups satisfied as possible.
Tax Analyst
Actually, at one time the so-called “Hispanic” vote was considered to be quite up for grabs. The thought was that in general Hispanics (and that’s really a bogus term someone made up to lump a whole lot of different peoples together) were more conservative and more family-oriented and thus prime candidates to tilt towards the Republican Party. But the Republican’s have gradually moved towards positions that appear to demonize rather than court them. As far as black people, well, I think that without Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and all the subsequent race-baiting that Republicans have used at every level they could you might have seen a much closer division of their collective vote. Believe it or not, not every black person is thrilled with the Democratic Party and what they have and haven’t accomplished over the years. But virtually every time any Republican thought he could win a close election by pulling out some racially-coded “booga-booga” theme they did. Not a particularly endearing trait if you are trying to court a particular ethnic or racial group.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “Permanent Majority” in this country. Parties will shift in time to become competitve. Whether they do so honestly or with bigoted, coded buzz-words and other assorted campaign-consultant generated bullshit is surely an open question.
But hey, just my opinion, ya’ know.
Free At Last
Have no fear, superdestroyer, Republicans will still control the SCOTUS for at least a couple of decades.
yet another jeff
And this is a bad thing how?
You predict a unified Democratic Party rule because the GOP bench is weak? Yes, and the New England Patriots will win all the football games for the next 100 years. Your premise is not getting any less ridiculous.
Faux News
Am I the only one besides Superdestroyer/Psycheout who is now fretting about the upcoming lopsided election of 2116?
Granted I will be considered somewhat of an aging Senior Citizen (156 years old to be exact)for that election, but this is REALLY consuming me today.
yet another jeff
Well, that’s what they get for being on the wrong side of the ionizer issue, better luck in 2120.
Tax Analyst
Yeah, and what about “In The Year 2525”?
“In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive they may find…”
but even scarier…
“In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today”
(lyrics written by Zager & Evans)
Just think about that, Superdestroyer/Psycheout. (There, that oughta keep ’em busy for the rest of the day)
Seriously, can these guys be serious? (That includes Psycheout, Superdestroyer and BOTH Zager AND Evans, too).
superdestroyer
yet another jeff
Sports in not a good analogy. The worst team in the NFL gets the top draft pick and an easier schedule. In sports there is a feedback loop that tries to keep teams from being always being bad. Of course, bad management sometimes manages to overwhelm the feedback loop. Given the fact that the Democrats will have control of most redistricting in 2010, it should be easy for the Democrats to eliminate a significant number of Republicans.
In politics, the mistakes act as a positive feedback loop. As a party screws up, it negatively affects its future. Since there are few candidates in the pipeline for the Republcans, the Republicans will win fewer elections in the near future. Does anyone believe that any Republican will be winning a state wide election in any state north of North Carolina? So what will the effect be that if in 2012, there are 200 Democrats running unopposed in the general election?
Look at the pathetic crop of candidates running for President in the Republican Primary. That is a sure sign that a party is in decline.
Look at California. Does anyone believe that the Republicans will ever win a Senate race in California again. It took a recall vote to put a Republican in the Governor’s Office and Gov. Schwarzenegger will surely be replaced by a Democrat when he leaves office.
Tax Analyst
“Forever” is a long, long time, my friend. While I would PREFER that if the Republican Party continues on it’s current path and policies that NO Republican EVER be elected from it, you must understand that just because it’s currently composed of knuckle-dragging knuckle-heads does not mean this will always be so. Maybe you just need to be older to understand that. The Democratic Party, for instance, used to totally control the South back in the 1950’s and through the early 60’s…until a Democratic President (Lyndon Johnson) strongly pressed for a Civil Rights Bill and a Democratic Party-controlled Congress passed said bill. This led to a lot of unhappiness amongst the Jim Crow sector of their party, which led a number of long-time office-holders to switch party affiliation and shortly after that led to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to capture the South’s Electoral Votes and ultimately the Presidency. Since that point in time the Republican Party has evolved (devolved?) into the general party of preference for the old adherents of Jim Crow-type rule. Though not every Republican is a racist their party has become the one that panders the most strongly to this crowd.
In California the redistricting process was controlled by self-interested members of the Legislature from BOTH parties, so they took great care in gerry-mandering the district boundaries to protect ALL Incumbents to the maximum extent. A true example of a “Devil’s Deal” as far as the Public well-being and wishes are concerned. But, you know, what’s more important, what the people want or some jack-ass politician keeping his/her precious Office? Anyway, this leads to Primary Elelction situations where the extreme fringes…always the most certain to vote in these affairs, end up deciding who will represent their party in the General Election. CA Voters are thus often faced with extreme choices, especially on the Republican side these days. Note, it took a massive amount of local revulsion in a Bay Area district to defeat the loathsome Richard Pombo in the 2006 election…the only CA congressional district to unseat an incumbent in ’06.
But to say that no Republican will EVER win a CA Senate Race again is ludicrous. Who even KNOWS what the Republican Party will look like in, say, 2016 or 2020? I don’t, do you? If they get back in step with Reality and talk about issues people are concerned about and offer solutions that address those issues in a somewhat less Three-Stoogical manner they might once again be a significant electoral party here and elsewhere.
For the record, I am not holding my breath.
Class dismissed.
superdestroyer
tax analyst,
You should look at the results of the 1976 general election. Jimmy Carter carried all of the old south some 12 years after the civil rights acts of the Johnson Administration. The incompetence of the Carter administration did a lot to increase the number of Republicans. Also, as the media in the U.S. changed it became much harder to political parties to have both liberal and conservative wings. That was definitely shown in 1980.
The things that you do know about California in 2016: There will be fewer white votes then than there are now. The number of hispanic and Asian voters will be higher than it is today. There will not be enough white voters to elect a Republican to a state wide office in 2016 in California. Also when redistricting occurs in 2010 in California several Republican office holders will be eliminated.
yet another jeff
Well, superdestroyer, your candidates suck and they’ve aligned themselves with the evangelicals which runs counter to everything “small c” conservatism is supposed to be. Losing shamefully is what you need to get your act together. There is a vacuum. The small “c” group will go somewhere…but if the GOP is all about immigrants and gays, then fuck them and they need to stay out of power until they get they’re shit together. Don’t whine about Dem rule, fix your own shit and stop asking ridiculous hypotheticals when the whole problem is your own damn fault.
yet another jeff
And if the GOP can’t get votes from non-whites, they don’t deserve to win. Fuck them.
Good luck…the dems will split into conservative/liberals, a new two parties will come out but if the GOP is determined to self destruct, I see no reason to be anything other than amused.
superdestroyer
Yet Another jeff,
I have not defended the Republicans. I only asked the question of what will politicis be like in a one party state. I am sure that the current Democratic Party would like some empty shell of a Republican Party to hang around without any prospects of winning. It would help the current Democratic Party to keep its current blocs in line.
That just leads to the question of what politics will be like if the entire U.S. is like Mass. Mass. has a Republican Party but is does not affect in any meaningful way.
You brought up a good point about small “c” conservatives. Where do they go? They current Republican party had abandon any pretense of being either fiscally conservative or having any libertarian leanings. But can a small “c” conservative really participate in the Democratic Party along side the netroot and the Black Congressional Caucus? I do not think so.
So, in the coming one party state, small “c” conservatives are one of the biggest losers. They will have no political home and no influence on policy.
Tax Analyst
Well, that’s all nice, but some (including me) might consider the ’76 election an anomaly. Do recall that Gerald Ford ascended to the Presidency via Mr. Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate burglary and his efforts to suppress the investigation of it. Ford pardoned Nixon and that didn’t sit well in many places. Carter, meanwhile was likely the first major beneficiary of the backlash against “Washington Insiders” that has grown in time.
Also, I never said the Republicans have ALWAYS won the South since Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, only that it attracted many of the Jim Crow-loving types to their side, which it certainly has.
I don’t see much validity in your assertion about in U.S. media limiting the political spectrum of either party. Yes, they do report these things, but you seem to claim that they somehow set these changes in motion. You can certainly hold to that OPINION, but, no, to say that “This was definitely shown in 1980.”, is a far stretch beyond what you or anyone else can validate or verify.
Again, your assumption that Republicans are unelectable in Statewide CA races in 2016 is predicated on their remaining static in policy and posture. While from our current vantage point this might seem likely it is hardly a certainty. Yes, IF the CA Republican Party hues to their current positions and strategy they are not likely to do well in these races. Yes, at THIS TIME it appears they will. No, that is NOT NECESSARILY where they will be and what they will do in 2016. Projections of what will be Nine Years from now are simply idle conjecture inasmuch as what happens in the 2016 elections will be significantly informed by events that occur between now and then.
If you can really tell the future you’re wasting your time here…you really oughta to be out at the Race Track cashing Big$$$ Exacta tickets.