Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Could the growing split over Donald Trump bring about the end of one of our major political parties?
The truth is that American politics doesn’t offer many points of comparison. The first two parties to vanish, the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats, were proto-parties that lacked much of the organization that really makes parties succeed. A later party, the Whigs, which collapsed in the 1850s, was similarly loosely organized, and its members had decidedly mixed feelings about how things like patronage and campaigns should work.


Since the Republicans formed in 1856, the two major parties have bent but not broken. But, as incredulous commentators consider the possibility that 2016 could be the end of the GOP, they are missing the issue about which they should be most incredulous: Our two political parties are still, in some sense, vestiges of the parties they were in the 1850s. Despite changes in coalitions and ideology — to say nothing of revolutions like industrialization, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, two world wars, and the changing composition of the electorate — the two parties have proved immensely adaptable.
Asking whether the GOP is not long for this world is, in a sense, the wrong question. Here’s the right one: Are the parties too resilient for their own good?
Democracy needs political parties to function. But our two major parties have become constrained by holding onto more than 100 years of ideas, constituencies and practices that can come into conflict with what those parties need right now to be competitive.
Perhaps the starkest example of this is in the area of race relations: The parties have historically been structured to accommodate racism and racial conflict. Neither one was created with our current norms about racial equality in mind.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4HUy18cqq

Another identity crisis happened as the era of Ronald Reagan unfolded and a group of moderate Democrats organized under the banner of the Democratic Leadership Council to promote an approach to governing that was neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a “third way.” This movement culminated with the presidency of Bill Clinton, whose support for traditionally Republican stances like welfare reform led some on the left to question what the Democratic Party stood for at all.

Ibanez wrote:

Could the growing split over Donald Trump bring about the end of one of our major political parties?
The truth is that American politics doesn’t offer many points of comparison. The first two parties to vanish, the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats, were proto-parties that lacked much of the organization that really makes parties succeed. A later party, the Whigs, which collapsed in the 1850s, was similarly loosely organized, and its members had decidedly mixed feelings about how things like patronage and campaigns should work.


Since the Republicans formed in 1856, the two major parties have bent but not broken. But, as incredulous commentators consider the possibility that 2016 could be the end of the GOP, they are missing the issue about which they should be most incredulous: Our two political parties are still, in some sense, vestiges of the parties they were in the 1850s. Despite changes in coalitions and ideology — to say nothing of revolutions like industrialization, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, two world wars, and the changing composition of the electorate — the two parties have proved immensely adaptable.
Asking whether the GOP is not long for this world is, in a sense, the wrong question. Here’s the right one: Are the parties too resilient for their own good?
Democracy needs political parties to function. But our two major parties have become constrained by holding onto more than 100 years of ideas, constituencies and practices that can come into conflict with what those parties need right now to be competitive.
Perhaps the starkest example of this is in the area of race relations: The parties have historically been structured to accommodate racism and racial conflict. Neither one was created with our current norms about racial equality in mind.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4HUy18cqq

It's not a bad article. There are some brief, historical insights into both parties about times when they could've dissolved (for instance, those horrible Democrats led by Strom Thurmond in the 1940s). It remind us of some things that people either forgot or chose to ignore like

Another identity crisis happened as the era of Ronald Reagan unfolded and a group of moderate Democrats organized under the banner of the Democratic Leadership Council to promote an approach to governing that was neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a “third way.” This movement culminated with the presidency of Bill Clinton, whose support for traditionally Republican stances like welfare reform led some on the left to question what the Democratic Party stood for at all.

houndawg wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

It's not a bad article. There are some brief, historical insights into both parties about times when they could've dissolved (for instance, those horrible Democrats led by Strom Thurmond in the 1940s). It remind us of some things that people either forgot or chose to ignore like

They call it the Southern Strategy -works well unless somebody else figures out the the carefully crafted base of pinheads will follow anybody that has a good rap about how the white man be losing all his stuff to them uppity niqqers in the White House.

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
They call it the Southern Strategy -works well unless somebody else figures out the the carefully crafted base of pinheads will follow anybody that has a good rap about how the white man be losing all his stuff to them uppity niqqers in the White House.

Both parties have a very loyal base of pinheads who follow the party no matter what they say or do. Both Dems and GOP rely on these voters to blindly pull the party lever.

I disagree with the one phrase in the article, "Democracies need political parties to function". I think political parties are something that happens because it makes advocacy for things easier, but they aren't necessary, just convenient.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Both parties have a very loyal base of pinheads who follow the party no matter what they say or do. Both Dems and GOP rely on these voters to blindly pull the party lever.

I disagree with the one phrase in the article, "Democracies need political parties to function". I think political parties are something that happens because it makes advocacy for things easier, but they aren't necessary, just convenient.

I can see both sides to that enlargement. Parties allow like minds to unite. The danger is in the parties growing to powerful too drown out other voices.

DSUrocks07 wrote:We aren't a democracy, we WERE a republic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

SDHornet wrote:The greatest hope for America's future is the disintegration/splintering of the GOP. As evidence of the last 2 years of their Congressional majority, they have no fucking clue about anything and bring zero solutions to the table.

Pwns wrote:After Trump gets curb-stomped in the general election by the most vulnerable candidate the Democrat party has ran in a while, no will even think of running like Trump any time soon.

SDHornet wrote:

Pwns wrote:After Trump gets curb-stomped in the general election by the most vulnerable candidate the Democrat party has ran in a while, no will even think of running like Trump any time soon.

If that's all you are getting from Trump's run then you are just as clueless as all the other establishment conks and a great example of why the GOP is a complete dumpster fire.

Pwns wrote:

SDHornet wrote: If that's all you are getting from Trump's run then you are just as clueless as all the other establishment conks and a great example of why the GOP is a complete dumpster fire.

What am I supposed to "get" from this election, then? That insiders are bad?

That's why Trump could possibly take the worst beatdown in the electoral vote since 1988 to someone who is the establishment within the establishment who has a historic level of negative public opinion matched only by Doofus Trump?

Pwns wrote:

SDHornet wrote: If that's all you are getting from Trump's run then you are just as clueless as all the other establishment conks and a great example of why the GOP is a complete dumpster fire.

What am I supposed to "get" from this election, then? That insiders are bad?

That's why Trump could possibly take the worst beatdown in the electoral vote since 1988 to someone who is the establishment within the establishment who has a historic level of negative public opinion matched only by Doofus Trump?

93henfan wrote:

Pwns wrote:
What am I supposed to "get" from this election, then? That insiders are bad?

That's why Trump could possibly take the worst beatdown in the electoral vote since 1988 to someone who is the establishment within the establishment who has a historic level of negative public opinion matched only by Doofus Trump?

Be sure to make your cute moral stand and vote for Gary Johnson. Which accomplishes nothing, and aids Hillary Clinton and the next 40-50 years of liberal supermajority on the Supreme Court.

The only thing hurting the Republican Party right now are men without testicles.

SDHornet wrote:The greatest hope for America's future is the disintegration/splintering of the GOP. As evidence of the last 2 years of their Congressional majority, they have no fucking clue about anything and bring zero solutions to the table.

Pwns wrote:

SDHornet wrote: If that's all you are getting from Trump's run then you are just as clueless as all the other establishment conks and a great example of why the GOP is a complete dumpster fire.

What am I supposed to "get" from this election, then? That insiders are bad?

That's why Trump could possibly take the worst beatdown in the electoral vote since 1988 to someone who is the establishment within the establishment who has a historic level of negative public opinion matched only by Doofus Trump?

Ibanez wrote:

SDHornet wrote:The greatest hope for America's future is the disintegration/splintering of the GOP. As evidence of the last 2 years of their Congressional majority, they have no fucking clue about anything and bring zero solutions to the table.

Same for the Democrats.

Pwns wrote:The time to talk about the Supreme Court was while the GOP was still deciding who to nominate. You can't nominate some reckless, inept moron and then complain no one wants to think of SCOTUS.

I agree the Supreme Court might actually be even more important than congress this year but the race for the White House is over and all that's left is to try and hold on to congress.

SDHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Be sure to make your cute moral stand and vote for Gary Johnson. Which accomplishes nothing, and aids Hillary Clinton and the next 40-50 years of liberal supermajority on the Supreme Court.

The only thing hurting the Republican Party right now are men without testicles.

Careful, pwns will comeback with how conks have X amount of governor seats, X amount of state legislature majorities, and x amount of congressional seats since 200X...and yet he will fail to realize that none of that matters if a leftist SCOTUS will turn down any and all of their piddly legislation attempts.

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote:
Careful, pwns will comeback with how conks have X amount of governor seats, X amount of state legislature majorities, and x amount of congressional seats since 200X...and yet he will fail to realize that none of that matters if a leftist SCOTUS will turn down any and all of their piddly legislation attempts.

No, I don't think he will. You don't want to be pointing out your majorities in Congress and your lead in governorships while you're sniveling about the collapse of the nation's government..

SDHornet wrote:

houndawg wrote:
No, I don't think he will. You don't want to be pointing out your majorities in Congress and your lead in governorships while you're sniveling about the collapse of the nation's government..

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote:

You can't make this stuff up, folks: 54% of the Senate, 57% of the House, 64% of the governorships, total control of 60% of State legislatures, total or split control of 76% of State legislatures (!), 55% of the Supreme Court, (until Scalia died in the arms of his boy toy anyway), but this is the end of of western civilization because there's a negro in the White House and its all his fault and has nothing to do with eight years of scorched-earth tactics.

Is it really any wonder that nobody takes conks seriously? All this and then they nominate the on ly asshoile in the nation with higher negatives than Hillary? The conks were handed this election on a silver platter... they clearly never wanted to win and have to put up or shut up... conks.