Does the Republican Party need to GTFO??

[Longhornfan1234]

Yeah, cause who would want to vote for the first female President, who also happens to be the well-liked former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and is married to perhaps the most well-liked living former President? No one, I'd guess.

She lost the primary to a community organizer . She was a huge favorite to win. Don't bring up McCain and Romney. They're weak candidates. 2016 GOP candidates are much stronger. Llulz...Dems future is Clinton, Warren, and Castro. Embarrassing.

[b1e9a8r5s]

The republicans have some work to do with their own house. I don't think there's any denying that. However, thinking they are done as a national party is wishful thinking. This was a 50/49 or maybe 51/48 election when the dust settles. Granted, this was a tough landscape for Obama and he still won. Some of the republicans wounds were self inflicted and therefore correctable. Not ever mentioning the word rape would be a good start. The day after the election everyone wants to make bold proclamations about the future of one party or another, but the truth is usually not as "sexy". Politics shift back and forth and the party needs to learn from it and adjust.

[CityofTreez]

Republican party will always remain.

We are a nation of many cultures, and one of those cultures being political parties. We live by our parties, and the principles that envelop them. Yes, these parties create discource within society, but that discourse gives us a sense of identity. You can't just eliminate history, and that is what the Republican party is.

[jayjay33]

Did anybody see the article on yahoo about. Arpaio getting re-elected and read the commnets. lol Even after Hispanics voted 70% Dem. Worte that there human beings and have righs as human beings, an got all tumbs down, I mean like 100. For basic human rights? Got damn. lmao...... it's going to be 90% for dems in 4 years I guarantee. lol

[Bravo95]

She lost the primary to a community organizer . She was a huge favorite to win. Don't bring up McCain and Romney. They're weak candidates. 2016 GOP candidates are much stronger. Llulz...Dems future is Clinton, Warren, and Castro. Embarrassing.

Mighty confident/arrogant for someone whose party just lost 4 of the last 6 general elections, and it would have been the 5th if not for the Supreme Court. Last time the GOP won without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket was 1928.

[jayjay33]

She lost the primary to a community organizer . She was a huge favorite to win. Don't bring up McCain and Romney. They're weak candidates. 2016 GOP candidates are much stronger. Llulz...Dems future is Clinton, Warren, and Castro. Embarrassing.

You are so far past delusional it's scary.........you might be my new favorite poster.

[GGGGG-Men]

She lost the primary to a community organizer . She was a huge favorite to win. Don't bring up McCain and Romney. They're weak candidates. 2016 GOP candidates are much stronger. Llulz...Dems future is Clinton, Warren, and Castro. Embarrassing.

What's embarrassing about that anymore than the Republican 2016 candidates which are "stronger" but you didn't name?


Scratch that. I don't want to know. We've got 4 years for that and every contender on a day-to-day basis is just one major gaffe away from being politically irrelevant.


The day after Bush won in '04, the DNC was already hyping up Evan Bayh who is now politically extinct.

[behindmydesk]

She didn't, but I don't think anyone was beating 2008 Obama. I think she's more well-liked now than she was back then even, though.

Hell, my crazy birther grandma and aunt said they would've voted for Hillary.

I agree that she's more likeable now. But man I just am not sure she's going to run. Especially another 4 years at her position or even 2 years. That position seems more stressful lately then being president.

But what would be an interesting election Hillary vs Condi

[hoosiercubsfan]

That's the GOP mind set. An the REAL reason the Pres has had such a hard time getting things done. There whole way of thinking is backwards as hell. Lol

Why because the don't fall over and agree to whatever the Democrats want? There is going to have to be some serious compromise coming from both sides to get anything done the house isn't any different than it was before the election.

[FOBolous]

Why because the don't fall over and agree to whatever the Democrats want? There is going to have to be some serious compromise coming from both sides to get anything done the house isn't any different than it was before the election.

it takes two to compromise and the Republicans aren't willing partners. take health care reform for example...Obama comprised from the one payer system he wanted to a public option and finally to individual mandate and the Republicans are STILL *****ing and moaning. c'mon now.

[stephkyle7]

Major voter fraud allegations in Ohio. And who does it favor that states don't require voter ID? What type of person doesn't have ID? What political leaning does a person lean toward that lacks even a basic form of ID?

The international voting inspectors were stunned that we didn't require IDs and had no national standard for voting. And why is that? So that corrupt political machines can fraudulantly manipulate the system like they did in Ohio yesterday when Republicans came into poling stations to vote and were informed some one already submitted an absentee ballot in their name...

The red smiley face indicates embarassment.
if you were following the thread you would have seen that I had to be corrected becasue i hadnt attentively read a post addressed to me.

Now THIS is addressed to you.
This post is indicitive of the lack of criotical thinking and blind alegiance that gets republicans laughed out of the room.

No one really is against Voter Id pal.
what they were upset about is that the republicans instituted the attempts to change the law so close to the election.
See, if it was REALLY about votre fraud, they would have been pushing for it right after the 2010 elections.

that was just one of the supresion attempts. then they tried to linit early voting, then they tried to purge the registration rosters , then they tried to limit the hours of operation in Democartic counties, then they tried to disqualify any ballot with any grammatical error in spelling on it.

See it has long been known that when you limit the numbers of Voters, republicans seem to win.
How you could try and twist this into a Rigging issue on the DEMS just shows how led you are by the Murdoch news empire...wake up Neo

[LAKERMANIA]

Unless Obama ****s up bigtime in his second term, if Hillary runs in 2016, she has an amazing chance to become the first female president.. And if that's the case, then that would be 3 general election losses in a row for the GOP..

[Jerry34]

It happened because serious candidates play it safe and wait until a more winnable election. It's very tough to beat incumbents. That's really how Bill Clinton slipped through in 92 - he was a relative unknown.

Bill Clinton beat George HW Bush who was an incumbent. I wouldn't say that was an easy election to win either.

[papipapsmanny]

its because the conservatives love to harp on issues like gay marriage, and all that **** no one cares about. Not only are their more minorities. There are more people who aren't religious as in more logical people. They aren't going to vote based off a big book.

[homestarunner93]

The Republican Party is going nowhere. That's simply a pipe-dream. They'll have to readjust their strategy (read: pander to Latinos a little more nationally), and they'll be just fine.