As the demographics of the rest of the U.S. begin to resemble the current demographics of DC, Chicago, or LA, there will be nothing that can happen that will keep the Republican relevant.

If anyone has a strategy that will increase the number of blacks and Hispanic that vote Republicans without losing more white conservative voters, they would be rich selling the idea.

I would say the answer to the question is a resounding yes. Between his abysmal approval numbers and his constant pushing of this atrocious amnesty bill that almost everyone outside the Democrat leadership and the White House hate, yeah, hes in big tro...

Exactly, writing off the opposition party generally leads to over confidence, which leads to the belief that you are invinisble and don't need to worry about accountability, which invariably leads to corruption.

The GOP not only started writing off the opposition party, they also started heading down the road to corruption with the idea that nobody would hold them accountable.

Not to mention that the US voter doesn't tolerate one party rule of all three branches for very long-Bush's first 6 years in the white house with a GOP controlled congress were the exception not the rule.

Ask yourself what is more likely, that the Republicans start getting a higher percentage of minority voters or start getting more 55% of the white vote. Bush has basically destroyed the chance of the Republicans being the party that most whites want to support.

To those who say that party's adapt, look up how Republicans perform in Chicago, Manhattan, or Los Angeles. There is no position, strategy, or idea that is going to increase the performance of the Republican party is those cities. For parties to adapt, there has to be demographic groups big enough to appeal to when they do adapt. Such demographic groups just do not exist after President Bush destroyed any credibility that the Republican party should have on fiscal issues.

j.

I don't think the immigration bill has anything to do with it.

I think superdestroyer's argument that the GOP is a lame duck is pretty stupid though. If the voters thought they didn't like one party rule with the GOP in charge of congress and the White House, I think it is doubtful they are going to like the democrats, especially given that the average voter is well to the right of the majority of democrat politicians.

I do think the GOP probably won't see much power over the next several years, and I strongly suspect, that '08 is going to be bad for the GOP, but I don't think it is going to stay that way for long.

If the Republican Party collapsed, some new party would form to take its place or more following history, a bunch of disaffected Republicans now would start to build a new party to appeal to the conservative base, and would be followed by defections from the voter base as well as current Republicans unhappy with their party.

Most Presidents ending their terms were concerned with at least one last big win, Bush doesn't seem to be that way. Someone leaving a job and not concerned with going along to get along can push outlandish ideas. Some of which might be the change needed. In the end it is the others who have play to the polls, Bush can play to the future.

The only problem with your arguments is that half of the Republican politicians problems are generated because they took the Democratic view on immigration reform.

The Dems who took Republican seats in the last election did so by appearing more hawkish on the war and immigration than the incumbents.