Would a party split benefit the Republicans?

[Neil]

Mitt Romney was not the problem here.
Mitt Romney having to say ludicrous things in the primary to get a nomination and then turn on a dime and run from those things was a problem.

Definitely.  Mitt might have lost on his own, but having to define himself as being in the same sort of area as the snake-handlers during the primary, and then having to change his story for the election certainly didn't help him.  If anything, it made him seem even more like a guy who would say or do anything to become president.  That's a quality that doesn't engender a lot of love in people.

[dps]

I admit that I love Norm Ornstein, mostly because he often says what I feel, only he backs it with solid evidence and analysis that I can't match. Last April, he wrote an article called "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem" that I thought was incredibly well-written. For those who don't know him, Mr. Ornstein is reknowned for being a non-partisan political analyzer who works for the American Enterprise Institute.

The article is too long to post, but here's the first bit of it:

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Let's see--the Presidential nominee of this "insurgent outlier" party just got 48% of the popular vote, give or take a bit.  That's better than its nominee did 4 years ago (and does anybody here really want to argue that Mitt Romney was a better or more attractive candidate than John McCain?), so how does this election signal a trend to the demise of the party as it is at present?  And the party has a pretty solid majority in the House.  How the hell exactly is it an "outlier"? 

A lot of people here, in rejecting many of the values held by conservatives, are fooling themselves to believe that the majority of the voting public rejects those values, too.  That doesn't necessarily follow.  I'm reminded of my 12th grade social studies teacher--I've posted about this before, but the guy was a politically prominent liberal (he had been a long-time member of the WV House of Delegates, and had been the one who introduced the bill in the state legislature abolishing the death penalty in the state) who simply couldn't comprehend that his fellow liberals were out of touch with the electorate, and spent the spring of 1980 telling us that the leadership of the Republican Party would rally around George Bush or some other moderate to deny the party's Presidential nomination to Ronald Reagan, because they knew that Governor Reagan was far too conservative to win the general election.

I'm not saying that the conservatives who control much of the Republican Party right now aren't out of touch;  it's more complicated than that.  In a certain sense, both conservatives and liberals are out of touch right now.  Well, "right now" isn't really exactly the term--it's always been true, to a greater or lesser extent.  A better, though still over-simplified, way to put it might be to say that the more ideological the differences between the 2 parties, the more the party leadership will be out of touch with the average voter--and the ideological differences are more pronounced right now than they have been since the 1930's.  The real problem for the Republicans right now isn't ideology, it's that they don't have any really appealing, charismatic leaders.  Barack Obama has a certain amount of charisma, but compared to past Presidents like JFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon (even), Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, he comes up noticably short.  Fortunately for him, he's had to deal with Republicans who are even less charismatic, whatever their other qualities.

[garbon]

A lot of people here, in rejecting many of the values held by conservatives, are fooling themselves to believe that the majority of the voting public rejects those values, too.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. They can freely espouse those ideas as there are voters that will support them.

[merithyn]

A lot of people here, in rejecting many of the values held by conservatives, are fooling themselves to believe that the majority of the voting public rejects those values, too.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. They can freely espouse those ideas as there are voters that will support them.

Tell that to Mourdock and Akin.

[The Minsky Moment]

(and does anybody here really want to argue that Mitt Romney was a better or more attractive candidate than John McCain

Mitt Romney had a far, far better environment to run in than McCain.

McCain was running as the heir apparent to a party whose last Presidential administration had just succeeded running the country right into the ground, and halving the S&P 500.  Romney was running against the guy who was perceived as failing to clean up that mess with unemployment at 8 percent (higher than when he took office).

McCain was running as a foreign policy expert in the middle of a massive financial crisis that he clearly knew nothing about.  Mitt ran (plausibly) as a business/econ guy in an election where the state of the economy and business was the # 1 issue.

McCain got his clock cleaned in the funding battle; his campaign was badly outspent.  Mitt had Citizens United and Superpac Wall of Cash.

McCain had Sarah Palin.  Self-inflicted perhaps but a gaping wound nontheless.

[garbon]

A lot of people here, in rejecting many of the values held by conservatives, are fooling themselves to believe that the majority of the voting public rejects those values, too.

Yep, that's what I'm saying. They can freely espouse those ideas as there are voters that will support them.

Tell that to Mourdock and Akin.

So because there are examples of where it isn't applicable (both individuals mind you who were challengers not incumbents) it means that the base doesn't support the ideas of the people they elect?

[The Minsky Moment]

Tell that to Mourdock and Akin.

Mourdock got over 44%.  And it's not like he was running against Dennis Kucinich; his opponent had a pretty conservative voting record for a Democrat.
But 44% heard those comments and still pulled the lever for the guy.

[dps]

Tell that to Mourdock and Akin.

Mourdock got over 44%.  And it's not like he was running against Dennis Kucinich; his opponent had a pretty conservative voting record for a Democrat.
But 44% heard those comments and still pulled the lever for the guy.

Yeah, generally, about 40some percent of the voters are going to vote Republican regardless of who's on the ballot, and about 40some percent are going to vote Democratic regardless of who's on the ballot.  This isn't even entirely ideological;  you still find people who vote for one party or the other simply because their parents and grandparents did, though that seems less common than it did even 20 years ago.  (Of course that 40some figure is nationwide;  obviously in certain "safe" areas one party or the other routinely gets 70%+ of the vote.)

[Tonitrus]

[OttoVonBismarck]

I courteously disagree, Otto, re: the impact of social issues.

For the vast majority of voters, the impact of fiscal issues like taxes don't make a tremendous impact on someone's life unless you're in the highest brackets, where conservative policies can make a marked impact, or the lowest brackets, where liberal policies make a difference.  The average voter can't or won't wrap their noodle around the immensity of the deficit, or all the convoluted numbers that come into play with a critical evaluation of policy like Obamacare, where connecting the dots for both sides is incredibly difficult to sustain.

But social issues are day-to-day issues; they're lifestyle issues, they're tangible.  The deficit doesn't bring out the voters, it's boring and incomprehensible and doesn't lend itself to passion for anybody but a Randian or the University of Chicago Alumni Association; but social issues do.

It's incredibly similar to gun control with the Democrats.  For most of the 80s and throughout the 90s, they banged their heads against the wall on an unpopular subject, and it took them years of losses to finally figure out it was an election loser and to jettison it as a high-profile platform plank.  The GOP needs to learn the same lesson.

I agree the social issues are important, for sure. But my point is you drop abortion and gay marriage, maybe that would give Romney just enough of a boost in say, young white voters and other white voters to win the election. But dumping those issues does not, I don't think, improve his vote in the black or Hispanic communities. There was an analysis out there by some Republican today where he pointed out if you take the "unassailable" coalition of black and latino that Obama had, plus his very strong group of young voters that's 35% of the electorate before anything else is even looked at. Romney could have trimmed it down a little bit, as ostensibly you could get some young white voters coming your way by dropping the social stuff...but I do think it goes back to getting 3% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote. I don't know that anything much matters with those margins, you're losing.

[Sheilbh]

I've not read this thread but I will later.

To answer the question, no.  Party splits never benefit the parties.  The Huntsmans and the (2004) Romney's and the Jeb Bushes are far better off fighting to change or expand the Republican party than wasting their energy with a new party.  They'll split the right and cause acrimony for the moderates who remain.

Similarly the hard-liners are needed.  They're normally the most enthusiastic, willing volunteers every election campaign needs.  A party that tries to do without a base is a sad thing.  Also they'd split the base etc.

What's needed is for the Republican party to split from their media wing - Fox, NRO, the conservative blogosphere - that's touting people who are lying to the base and putting off independents.  Their interests are not the same.  The media want clicks and viewers, the Republicans should be about building a national conservative movement.

[dps]

I do think it goes back to getting 3% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote. I don't know that anything much matters with those margins, you're losing.

I think that a Republican Presidential candidate can overcome only getting 3% of the black vote, but you're right about the Hispanic vote.

[Sheilbh]

I think that a Republican Presidential candidate can overcome only getting 3% of the black vote, but you're right about the Hispanic vote.

It's interesting that I don't think anyone 30 years ago would have guessed that Reagan's 15% of the black vote would be a high in the modern era.

Here I think tone matters as much as substance.

[dps]

What's needed is for the Republican party to split from their media wing - Fox, NRO, the conservative blogosphere - that's touting people who are lying to the base and putting off independents.  Their interests are not the same.  The media want clicks and viewers, the Republicans should be about building a national conservative movement.

I think you're on to something here.

[DGuller]

Agreed.  The problem is that the media from the conservative echo-chamber bought their own divorced-from-reality sales pitch.  Unfortunately for them, elections still occur outside of that echo chamber.