General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
I think we may be witnessing the demise of the GOP
Or at least, the GOP as we currently know it.
If Mitt cannot defeat Obama next week - legitimately or illegitimately - I think we will begin to see the GOP unravel at the seams.
Hatred can only take you so far, and America will have once again rejected the GOP's insane rantings and vitriol. The GOP offers no solutions at all - only more of the same failed policies. All they can offer up is their fear and loathing. Their racism, sexism, and homophobia has been laid out bare for all to see.
The problem with the GOP is that it is fragmented among 3 elements. First are the Wall Street barons, the ultra wealthy who want to remove any and all government regulation, who would return us back to the early 20th century. Then there are the extremist religious fundamentalists, who would turn this country into a theocracy, put women back into the kitchen, and force homosexuals back into the closet upon pain of imprisonment. Finally, there is the very small minority among the rethugs - those who truly consider themselves moderate, who believe in a woman's right to privacy, who understand that climate change is real, etc. This group represents such a small minority that there is no real threat of them taking over the GOP anytime soon.
The Wall Street tycoons and the evangelicals view each other with distrust, IMHO. Up until now, they've made use of each other, knowing that neither can win on their own. But how long can that symbiotic relationship last? I think if they lose next week, we'll see some serious cracks in that alliance. Each will blame the other for the loss, and that animosity will only grow over the next few years.
Will the GOP actually fragment into two or more separate parties? Too early to tell, because as much as they absolutely despise each other, they still face the reality that they cannot win on their own. Without big money, the evangelicals cannot hope to continue to pick up seats in Congress. But Big Money also needs the rabid fervor that the evangelical group provides (witness the "Tea Party" explosion).
Regardless if they split up or not, however, I think we may very well be witnessing the decline of the GOP as a strong political party. Sure, they'll continue to win elections here and there, and they'll maintain enough of a presence in Congress to be a pain in the ass. And they'll still win a presidential election here and there. But the American people has seen what the GOP really is, and I don't think they like it one bit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LovePeacock
(225 posts)These conservatives are not the same as republicans of old. The demise of the old, and rise of the new has already come and gone.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)When Gingrich took the lead in a "who's more looney-tunes batshit conservative?" competition.
The party has closed itself off, and is just steadily expelling talent without picking anything new up. The Republicans demand, demand utter ideological purity and uniformity. The ideological core is now an even more extreme example of what it was in '94: "destroy the liberals."
Any sense of intellectualism, any degree of ethics, innovation, cooperation... these elements have vanished from the Republican party utterly.
Even if by some strange fucking intervention by an Elder God, Romney wins, it won't save the party. If he wins, they'll take it as a mandate for their extremism. If he loses, they'll take it as desperate voters saying "you're not extreme enough!" No matter the result, the party's response will be the same.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)
WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)It occurs to me that demanding purity within the GOP will in and of itself spell the end. If not, they will never escape constant fracturing from within. The very idea of creating a stagnant bar to meet or exceed a particular standard insures failure.
Paige
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's a bit of an odd example, but I participate in some chat-based Role-playing games's. over the years, I've been part of several, and they have a definite life-and-death cycle.
1) The chat site begins, usually with a core of people who share a similar vision. They reach out to other communities trying to recruit and expand their base. In so doing they pull in a wide variety of players, and the "startup" period is marked by a lot of different characters created from a lot of angles and with a lot of different ideas.
2) The recruitment drive tapers off, and the players get a feel for one another. Some leave, others bring in their own friends, it's still fairly dynamic, but by now most people know everyone else and how the game plays. it's "comfortable." THis period can be very brief, or it can last years.
3) Cliques form. These are groups of players who have a certain idea on how the game should be played, and tend to be resentful of others who feel differently. They struggle to take charge to get their ideas implemented. This is a pretty volatile point; maybe the clique gets bored and leaves. Maybe they succeed in a bid for power, and it actually does well, taking us back to #1. More often when this happens though, the other players get disgusted and leave, or are actively driven away by the clique.
3.5) Sometimes other things happen to drive away players; new technology makes the game's medium obsolete, perhaps. Maybe a new game starts up that captures more people's interest. Maybe they just get bored or drift off due to attrition. Most often, these are events that lead to a clique making a power bid.
4) If the power-bid succeeds and results in a player exodus, that clique will usually remain, playing with themselves (in the figurative and often literal sense) and make an active effort to alienate and drive off any "noobs" who might drift into the game. Eventually even they get bored, and the game dies, leaving another empty husk of HTML chat-coding floating through the wastelands of the internet.
Like I said, it's an odd example, but I think it applies to lots of limited social organizations (that is, an organization that is defined by and limited to a certain goal, activity, or idea, as opposed to dynamic organizations, like a town or school) including political parties.
The Democratic Party has gone through Steps 1-3 several times. its ideology is loose and flexible and welcomes new input and dissent, even to the detriment of the party (Segregationist inclusion, for a big example). The Republican party... has been going through step 4 since the 1890's. It's a glacial pace, but it's inevitable.
Risen Demon
(199 posts)Then again, I'm an on/off WoW player, and yes, the group mentality is very similar in the real world.
randome
(34,845 posts)And it can't be glossed over any longer. It's real. The GOP is ceasing to be an effective force in this country. They will wail and whine for some time to come but they have already lost the war.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... they have both unlimited funding and unlimited greed. They'll only stop when we lock them up.
randome
(34,845 posts)The demographics have changed, too. You can put billions of dollars into ads but it loses its effectiveness after a point.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)No way could they have won without the Koch millions.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)and a weak nominee for that party. Walker simply outflanked all of democrats opposing him. As things are, Walker is neutered with democrats holding the majority in the Wisconsin senate today.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)crunch60
(1,412 posts)drift. 
barnabas63
(1,214 posts)Hope you're right, but don't get your hopes up.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)I THOUGHT the country, because of demographics, was going to turn away from the republican party.
That, only two years into this presidency, the country would hand the party that created such an absolute disaster from 00 to 06, nearly 70 house seats and darn near control fo the senate, was absolutely stunning to me.
And, for no good reason other than the Rs throwing a bit hissy fit.
HCR, something this country needed for decades, got pushed through, and the country punished the party that got it done.
I am resigned to knowing it is ALWAYS going to be like this, every major election, a life and death battle to keep the Rs from having the opportunity to destroy the country.
barnabas63
(1,214 posts)the civil war never went away.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Obama did not cure cancer on day one. Obama did not turn the middle east into a peaceful meadow of lollipop trees and unicorn rides on day two. Obama did not handwave a universal national healthcare system into being on day three. And Obama did not turn into White Jesus on day four.
So in 2010, all these Democrats who expected the Dawning of Utopia or some shit, decided to "teach the democrats a lesson" by not voting. Here on DU, these guys led a serious, concerted vote-suppression effort, trying to discourage everyone else from voting as well. Apparently, helping the Tea Party take office was supposed to "send a message" to Democratic politicians... I can only assume the message sent was "we're fucking idiots, for the good of the nation never listen to us."
But hey, silver linings; their few short years of being in charge have led the tea party to basically gnaw away all bases of support for the Republican party, while exposing the truth of that party to every American voter.
So hey, maybe those diptshits who threw the election in 2010 accidentally did something good. I expect them to claim full credit by 2018.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)Somehow people found justification for the President not jawboning bought and paid for senate whores into bringing a single payer HCR bill to his desk by allowing the election of nearly 100 fire breathing right wing lunatics.
THAT'LL SHOW HIM.
That being said, the Ds being Ds highlights why the Rs are not going away.
It took 6 years of the republicans TRULY fucking this country up to get a slight suppression of vote from the Rs. They then rebounded with fury and vengeance in 2010, and are once again hyped up.
They run on fear, anger, division ... FAR better and more consistent political motivators than the high minded unicorns that democrats tend to want to believe in.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)as per the usual.
Using 2008 as a baseline is naive, at best. You don't ever get a Presidential level turnout and to expect to hit or be near all time record levels.
I was and am sour Obama but that didn't keep me from working my congressman's campaign and voting and I suspect it was the same for many on the left. It sure as hell wasn't a gaggle of "sensible centrist" working on the campaigns that I talked to.
Just like the TeaPubliKlans, the "centrist" types blame the left for the ills of the country while counting those dollar bills, cheering on the MIC, crapping out real national health care, avoiding taxes, and standing behind the destruction of civil liberties.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I don't "blame the left." I am the left, chief. Any leftist worth a shit has a grasp of history, and understands that leftward movement has a long tradition of going against the tide in American politics, resulting in small, piecemeal steps. People on the left understood that no, we're not going to get universal healthcare in a single sweeping instant. No, we're not going to jettison a hundred years of corporate-government integration in two. No, we're not going to fill a ballot one day and march into a socialist paradise the very next day.
We on the left understand that reality does not fucking work that way.
I blame dumbfucks. In particular, a subset of dumbfucks who happen to trend Democratic. Don't feign surprise, dithering stupidity is a trait all humanity has in common, so you're going to get some real doofuses who share your political party. Now, the problem with these dumbfucks is... they're not leftists. They're "progressives" so long as they can be "progressive" while looking good and not working too hard at it. They lack any sort of real perspective on the situation; for them, it's just a fad.
These dumbfucks are the ones who were clutching their pearls and squawking about "teaching the democrats a lesson," because they really, honestly, truly do not get it. Like I said, this is a fad for them, a fashion accessory.
Folks out on the left, they can loathe that Obama and the Democrats just aren't far enough to the left for their tastes. But htye're also rational to realize that out of the options, if leftist stuff is going to happen, it's not going to be from the fucking tea party's hands.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Biggest midterm turn since at least the 80's, perhaps of all time depending on how you count it.
I have to wonder why other States did not do the same. What happened in your State? Do you think calling Democrats 'dumbfucks' increases your turn out? If the namecalling and division making worked, I'd guess your State would turn out voters in droves. How was your 2010 turn out? How about Primary this year?
This rant that folks go on about how Democrats did not vote simply does not apply to all States. Just some of them.
Where do you live, and what sort of turn out do you get?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In order to "teach the democrats a lesson," then they are not a democrat. They are a dumbfuck.
I'm sorry if this upsets you. But it's the truth.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)cred...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)the fucking shit Ed and Cenk were saying leading up to the 2010 election. They and their crowd didn't get 100% of fucking everything they wanted, so they are cheer-leading democratic leaning voters to sit at home and not vote. NOW, LOOK AT THE FUCKING MESS WE ARE IN!!!!. After we win this election, we must keep the hammer down, our goal must be to eliminate every radical republican from Congress and eliminate those republicans that were complicit with them. We can't fucking sit on our hands because we don't get everything or most of what we want. I am a MODERATE-progressive, President Obama gave me only some of the changes that I wanted, but I have backed him for re-election with everything that I have because he is the best hope for our country. I donate to and vote lockstep for liberal politicians, even when I disagree with them on many issues, simply because the alternative is unacceptable to me.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)in print and media from all kinds of authors and pundits. This dance will go on forever.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)It's a life or death struggle for both Parties, in my opinion.
If the Grand Bargain goes down under Obama, I have to wonder what is left. Social Security and Medicare are the core of the Democratic Party. What's left if those are comprised?
SubgeniusHasSlack
(276 posts)and is setting himself up as a moderate leader who will work with The President.
I would never vote for Christie, but admit he is far sighted and sees the disastrous landslide that is about to engulf rMoney and sweep The President back in.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)He knows BO will do the right thing regardless.
Christie is doing his job, I hate to say that, because he is overrated, but here is sincere in that.
But, beyond that, he knows that while the people of his state can accept politics that have him campaigning for his party's presidential candidate, it would NOT look kindly on his mixing that with a disaster of this level.
He simply is looking out for his own butt.
Cigar11
(549 posts)
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)Right wing religious ideologues have annihilated the Republican party, And it's just breaking my little heart, You REAP what you sow fukwads
oswaldactedalone
(3,491 posts)I think that demographics will ultimately lead to the GOP demise as there is no way they'll ever win back the minority vote.
The problem I see in the future for Dems is how does the party get minority voters to be as enthused about future elections as they have been for '08 and '12. We still have to get 80% of the minority vote to stay competitive with the wingnut party, but what matters is the overall number of voters from which you get 80%.
barnabas63
(1,214 posts)I mean as long as republicans can run their mouths....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)1) Party that was going extreme regains sanity. Normalcy returns pretty quickly.
2) Party that was going extreme whithers away and is replaced by new party at old party's sane position. Takes longer than #1.
3) Party that was going extreme whithers. Opposing party keeps trying to move into the ground held by sane parts of crazy party, in an attempt to vacuum up the sane supporters of the crazy party. This causes the opposing party to stop representing it's base, and that base seeks a new party. Normalcy returns after a very long time - the parties are effectively switching places on the left-right spectrum.
#1 is not going to happen. Republicans show absolutely no interest in turning back from insanity, and when they lose they claim the loss was due to insufficient purity instead of their extreme position.
I don't see any evidence of #2 happening. Libertarians don't have anywhere near enough support to displace the religious fundamentalists, for example. So it doesn't look like there's any moderate party who can expand to become the "new Republican party".
So, we're working on #3. the Democrats have been moving to the right to pick up the "sane end" of the Republican party. That's going to be a problem in the long run, because doing that requires leaving the left feeling unrepresented. Do that long enough, and the left will switch to a "new" party. (That party may already exist, the "new" part is becoming one of the two major parties).
There's some evidence that Democratic strategists are starting to realize they actually have a left flank to protect. It would be wonderful if they did, since that would cause us to drift towards #2 instead of #3.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)Romney would not be tied with Obama.
I thought that after they nearly destroyed the country and were routed in '08 the country woke up. But that they have given the Tea Party a majority in Congress makes me pessimistic that America will ever realize what worthless sh*ts the Rep. party is.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)I thought the demographics would get them after 06/08, but after they country gave these lunatics 70 house seats and darn near control of the senate just two years later, I resigned myself to the fact that the republican party will always be a major force.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)I've heard it all before.
But Romney is not tied with Obama. He's going to lose by 40+ EV.
The popular vote may be close, but guess what? It doesn't count for anything.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)though a couple of the swing States concern me.
But in this case we are talking about people turning from the GOP and the fact that Romney is tied or ahead in some polls in the popular vote is more indicative of the continued strength of the Rep.s.
Look at some of the Senate races with batshit crazies running neck and neck. Some of them would have easily won if they didn't say something stupider than normal.
Some are winning by wide margins.
former9thward
(32,013 posts)A close vote means the House will probably stay Republican and we may lose a Senate seat or two. With a landslide neither would happen.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)Basically you have the robber barons that want rules and regulations, just rules and regulations that favor them and NOT YOU. But rest assured there will be rules and regulations in their society. Then you have the theocracy people. They are the ones afraid of Islamic law, atheism and science but want to replace it with a fantastical version of biblical law that is not even in the bible. Then come the Ron Paul libertarians. They want a fantastical society that does not exist, has never existed and isn't likely to ever exist. However they are so scared to death of the other two versions of Republican society they'd rather live in total anarchy than rule by the 1 % or rule by the theocracy. Finally you have the Eisenhower republican. People that think somehow the other three don't really represent the modern Republican party and if you keep voting for them somehow a mythical Ike or Teddy will appear and whisk the Republican party back to the Lincoln era of progressive values.
The only thing that keeps them together is there dead fast resolve that it is the Liberals and Democrats that are the reason the 4 types of Republicans can't come together and create the society that they deserve.
mil_5529dem
(37 posts)Though I'm not holding my breath..
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)that water fluoridation was a communist plot.
Fear, anger, division have sold for politics since the beginning of time.
It is not going to ever end, and that means republicans will always be a major force in politics.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The LaRouches did. They were ostracized from the Republican party.
Until now.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)They've always been a little bit greedy, but they haven't always been wack-job crazy until recently.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)it is the party now ...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They had been thrown out of the Republican party for being too crazy.
They're now the base.
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)People including Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Margaret Chase Smith and yes, even Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, would have no place in today's hate-filled Rush Limbaugh-run GOP.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...In 1974.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Their base of older White Males who were told everything that went wrong in their lives can be blamed on other people is dying off.
The Republican Party for years now has been battling facts with lies, numbers with money, and progress with stasis, but their is one monstrous enemy looming waiting on the edge of the field that is both implacable and undefeatable...
Demographics.
They cannot bullshit their way past that cold, hard reality, and it will defeat them.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...that is the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Abortion policy was limited to "a position on abortion that values human life." There was no mention of personhood for fertilized eggs. That platform was in keeping with GOP positions back to about 1940.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25843
The 1980 platform had a bizarre ambivalence on the ERA: "We acknowledge the legitimate efforts of those who support or oppose ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment," and it explicitly mentions a right to life for unborn children.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25844
Subsequent editions have had no support whatsoever for an ERA for women, and the language on abortion has been consistently strident.
I would say the takeover of the GOP by ultra-conservative religious zealots had just begun in 1976, and was complete by 1980. The sell-out worked well for them, at least for a while. Now they are paying the price.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)WHEN Obama wins re-election- it's only going to steel their resolve even further.
They'll double down on their hatred.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)next democrat who gets the nomination.
Baitball Blogger
(46,715 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You're the one millionth DUer to post that since 2001
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)They still control the south and a large number of small states in the west. They still have more money and more wealthier donors. They have their own cable channel and they're organized. All they need is to create a message and people will buy it because it'll go out. Their only flaw will be the short term disagreement on how to proceed but don't fool yourself into thinking that they won't fall in line once a choice has been made. In terms of 2016, they'll have better challengers probably the kinds of conservatives who aren't far right but still conservative enough to get elected like Jeb. By 2016 there will be no tea party because Obama won't be on the ballot and they may still have the house.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)
LeftInTX
(25,348 posts)Are there any Eisenhower Republicans left?
Gerald Ford was the last one.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Possibly better, possibly worse. Most likely better.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Problem is, they have no soul. eom
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)all the seedy issues and left over human bullshit from the beginning of humanity resides and is owned by Republicans...and they like owning it and feel that is what it is to be human...
ellie
(6,929 posts)I hate these people with the red hot intensity of a thousand suns.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)It is barely possible that the party dies and is reborn (ala whigs), but fundementally we will always have 4 major divisions in this country, social and economic splits on the right and left. Sadly, the republicans "own" the economy despite being dead wrong about how to run it. They do preach the simplistic and attractive (to many) "freedom to succeed" economic message. The progressive message is much more nuanced, difficult to sloganize, and for what it matters, workable.
The reality is that there really is a balance between the two viewpoints (you can chase investors away with punitive taxation vs. tax rates can be too low). We're at the point right now that it is extremely foolish and disingenious when the fiscal conservatives say we need lower taxes--any sane look at our fiscal policies say they are too low already. Someday (if the Repubs continue to lose influence) the tax code may once again verge on the punitive and "voila'" the repubs will be relavent again.
The social divide is really more intractable in many ways, but also much more open to morphing over time. Unlike fiscal ideology which is and always will be essentially binary, social issues are all over the place. New technologies are going to open the door to new social issues. Being "right" doesn't really matter politically--it wasn't long ago that the republican party could hurt democrats at the polls by bringing gay rights into the equation. Ultimately, though we having yet "won" those battles, it isn't an issue the republicans can depend on--the tide is shifting to the democratic platform.
Genetic science is likely to be a polarizing topic--if you can bestow disease resistance in children through gene manipulation, would you? should you? What if a byproduct of that therapy was a 20% increase in IQ for the child? Which party is going to choose which side? Could it be that choosing the "right" side of that or other battle actually costs us votes for a few elections?
The rupubs are down, but there will always be an opposition.
mick063
(2,424 posts)That is when the headstone can be engraved.
Kill Fox and the wackiness willl quickly cease.
RepublicansRZombies
(982 posts)We must get the money they looted from the economy for their evil plans.
In order to pay for the War on Terror, it is perfectly reasonable to ask people who have done well in this economy to pay 91% tax rate, just as Eisenhower did to pay for WWII.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as long as the entirety of the nation's radio stations spread the same lies and hate 24/7/365, the fascists will sustain.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)But otherwise, you are right. Romney will lose and when he does, a bloodbath is going to ensue in the republican party. Moderates have to wrestle their party back from the extremes. or leave the republican party and form a moderate-conservative party that can attract disaffected former republicans, conservative democrats and moderate-conservative independents. An alternative to sane republicans is to join the democratic party and attempt t split it into two big centered parties that will contest future elections. I am not happy about the last option because I don't want to see the democratic party split. The extremists in the modern republican party will contest one, may be two more elections, but the party will die fast as it's aging and hate filled base dies off.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)The GOP has to move back toward the center now that my parents generation is leaving the playing field...
People my age and younger are much more liberal but don't think they are because they have accepted same sex marriage, open gay folks, less racial bias, open marriages and all the other things that the radical right sees as enemies against the status quo.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)The Republican Party is all right wing nutjob all the time now. The Democrats have rushed in to take the place of the "moderate" Republicans and we have less progressives than ever. A guy like Kucinich was a basic mainstream Democrat as recently as the 80's. Now he's a fringe "extremist". I think the Democratic Party is the party that is going away.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So someone 'like him' might have been mainstream in the 80's, I sure don't know who that might mean. To me, 'mainstream' Democrats were the sort who were voting for DOMA, a conservative hate law.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I didn't mean Kooch himself. Old school FDR pro-labor types is what I mean. They're nearly extinct, replaced by pro-corporate 80s and 90s style republicans. The Democratic party is the party that has gone/is going away. The Republicans are running to their natural base, the Democrats are running further away from theirs.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The moderate republicans and progressive democrats have both been chased off. The progressive democrats have been told you can't win a general election so go away. I think Jill Stein is a fantastic Green Party Presidential candidate, but voting for her would give the election to Romney. I feel like we're all being held hostage by a broken system.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I actually saw a moderate republican on my ballot. I was astonished. I didn't think they existed anymore. I thought they were extinct. We desperately need some moderate republicans that we can work with. Republicans that are willing to raise taxes and not insisting on women getting a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. Believe it or not there are actually one or two of them still out there. It's like seeing a UFO.
LeftInTX
(25,348 posts)When the Republicans absorbed the Southern Democrats this caused the GOP to swell. (1980) Causing them to become a majority.
Maybe we need to absorb Moderate Republicans, so that the remaining Republicans can form some type of Conservative Party.
This way, there is a possibility that we can then become a majority. I think Moderate Republicans and Moderate Democrats can work together. In our city politics, San Antonio, we have Moderate Republicans, Moderate Democrats and a few Liberal Democrats that all seem to work quite well together. We have a few strong conservatives, but they don't seem to work well in city/county politics.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)on its present course, becoming more hateful, intolerant, angry, and extreme right wing. People like Huckabee, Santorum and Ryan will take over as leaders. Its happening.
