Would a party split benefit the Republicans?

[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.

I don't even know that they bought it. I think they just know that is what their viewership wants to hear.

Well, the second part is a given.  However, my point is that at some point they forgot that they're just feeding bullshit to people desperate to hear it, and convinced themselves.  Sort of like how investment bankers convinced themselves that mortgage securities were the shit rather than shit.

[alfred russel]

Republicans losing an election to an incumbent president 50%-48% hardly seems a good reason to blow up or splinter the party.

Keeping a solid majority in the house reinforces that. I'm not sure how they lost ground in the senate, but that probably has more to do with them running incompetent candidates rather than a long term brand issue.

[Phillip V]

Republicans losing an election to an incumbent president 50%-48% hardly seems a good reason to blow up or splinter the party.

Keeping a solid majority in the house reinforces that. I'm not sure how they lost ground in the senate, but that probably has more to do with them running incompetent candidates rather than a long term brand issue.

Agree. There is no need for severe counterreaction in the Republican Party "right now", or any reaction in any party after every election. Every party and every citizen needs to change, but let more time bring the right message. Just relax and work.

Let's take a look at post-2004 Democrats. Bush had just been reelected and increased majorities in Congress. People cried. But then Iraq worsened, the economy began to slow, and scandals erupted. All these events could not be "predicted" at the time.

However, the Dems did change how they chose their down-ballot candidates, especially in red states. First, they decided to run a controversial "50-state Strategy" spearheaded by Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009. Many questioned why Dems should even bother trying to build precious resources and infrastructure in "red America". Second, Dems ran more conservative Senate and House candidates, including ones that were pro-life and pro-guns.

In 2006, the Dems won both houses of Congress. 2008 culminated in supermajorities and Obama winning states like Indiana and North Carolina.

Interestingly, Howard Dean was given hardly any credit or recognition for his work, not even being asked to have any part in the new Democratic administration. He thus retired from politics into obscurity after 2008.

Finally, the the big whipping Dems gave in 2008 led to a big "shellacking" Reps gave in 2010. Already, there is no honeymoon period after this election. Two days of steep market drops have brought the Dow to a more than 3-month low. In exit polls on Election Day, 77% of voters said that the economy was "not so good" or "poor". 40% of them decided to trust Obama to continue working on the economic to-do list. Let's see where this goes.

One thing that Republicans can do right away? Stop nominating rape candidates like Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. Or a witch candidate like Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in 2010.

[Sheilbh]

Republicans losing an election to an incumbent president 50%-48% hardly seems a good reason to blow up or splinter the party.

Keeping a solid majority in the house reinforces that. I'm not sure how they lost ground in the senate, but that probably has more to do with them running incompetent candidates rather than a long term brand issue.

I agree that they shouldn't split, but this is more than one election.  For a start they've lost against a President who doesn't have great approval ratings, during an economically difficult period - this is when oppositions should win.  What's more as someone on NRO pointed out the Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections.  In that time their successful elections have generally been mid-terms when there's significantly lower turnout.  They've two elections in a row thrown away the chance of winning the Senate because the base chose unelectable purists (O'Donnell over Castle) or dumped respected incumbents (Dick Lugar).  I'd also say that even where they didn't lose the seat I think the habit of primarying Senators who work with Democrats, even if they're quite conservative, is just ridiculous - Bennett of Utah springs to mind. 

It's a serious problem for the party.  I was trying to think of a similarly troubled period for the Democrats and, on a Presidential scale, I could only think of 68-88.  During that time though I think they always kept the House and Senate.  And I can't think of Northern or Midwestern Republican equivalents to Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the DLC trying to reform the party so they can win again.

Edit:  Not even so they can win again, but so they can update the Republican message so that it appeals to a majority of people as it did in the 70s and 80s.

[alfred russel]

One thing that Republicans can do right away? Stop nominating rape candidates like Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. Or a witch candidate like Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in 2010.

That is what I was getting at with the competence issue.

I think a big problem the republicans have is that their natural leadership base--businessmen--in the modern world have built careers around leading inclusive workforces that have blacks, hispanics, women, and gays. I think there are solid (at least short term) reasons for Republicans to have the anti inclusive positions they have, but many businessmen won't be comfortable with them in their stump speeches.

[alfred russel]

Edit:  Not even so they can win again, but so they can update the Republican message so that it appeals to a majority of people as it did in the 70s and 80s.

I don't know that it is possible for a party to update a message in the American system without a president or presidential candidate. There are 250-300 republican senate and house members, who are each going to be driven by either their convictions or local constituency more than what the RNC tells them to do.

[Sheilbh]

As I say the DLC was working from the mid-80s on to adopt their message and arguing that the Democrats needed to move away from the leftie positions they'd held from 68 onwards in favour of a more centre-left position.  It was led by and made up of credible figures like Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Clinton and Sam Nunn.  I can't think of a Republican equivalent.

Apparently there is an RLC.  Their board is entirely made up of former politicians, not one of whom has held office since 2007.

Edit:  And arguably the DLC's work really helped the Democrats develop their message for 1992.

[celedhring]

Republicans losing an election to an incumbent president 50%-48% hardly seems a good reason to blow up or splinter the party.

Keeping a solid majority in the house reinforces that. I'm not sure how they lost ground in the senate, but that probably has more to do with them running incompetent candidates rather than a long term brand issue.

For a start they've lost against a President who doesn't have great approval ratings, during an economically difficult period - this is when oppositions should win. 

This has to be stressed. Incumbents in most western nations have been swatted like flies since the recession began. Obama was in a weak position.

[derspiess]

Any Democrat president is going to he tough to defeat when the Democrat Party has its turnout machine running in full gear.  No amount of GOP pandering on immigration and social issues would overcome that.  Unless the GOP just becomes another Democrat Party, in which case I officially become Libertarian.

[Phillip V]

Republicans losing an election to an incumbent president 50%-48% hardly seems a good reason to blow up or splinter the party.

Keeping a solid majority in the house reinforces that. I'm not sure how they lost ground in the senate, but that probably has more to do with them running incompetent candidates rather than a long term brand issue.

For a start they've lost against a President who doesn't have great approval ratings, during an economically difficult period - this is when oppositions should win. 

This has to be stressed. Incumbents in most western nations have been swatted like flies since the recession began. Obama was in a weak position.

The recession has ended. Reagan also got reelected during bad economic times (unemployment above 7%?), but people felt that the economy was getting better. Same goes for Obama.

[Sheilbh]

The recession has ended. Reagan also got reelected during bad economic times (unemployment above 7%?), but people felt that the economy was getting better. Same goes for Obama.

I think the key issue is blame actually.  The leaders in the West who have survived (Harper, Keys, Labour in Australia, Merkel, the Latvian internal devaluation guy) aren't blamed for causing the crisis and the crash and the subsequent slow or fast recovery.  For those leaders it was that this was perceived as an American recession - Brown tried this line too.

The economy was improving quite rapidly under Brown in 2010, but that didn't matter, he and the Labour party were blamed.  I think the exit polls showed that over 50% of voters (rightly) blame Bush more than Obama for the economic situation.

[Sheilbh]

Any Democrat president is going to he tough to defeat when the Democrat Party has its turnout machine running in full gear.  No amount of GOP pandering on immigration and social issues would overcome that.  Unless the GOP just becomes another Democrat Party, in which case I officially become Libertarian.

In response to the GOP 'pandering' on immigration and social issues you'd switch to a party that wants to legalise drugs, supports open immigration laws and is far more radically pro-gay than even most Democrats?

[garbon]

Any Democrat president is going to he tough to defeat when the Democrat Party has its turnout machine running in full gear.  No amount of GOP pandering on immigration and social issues would overcome that.  Unless the GOP just becomes another Democrat Party, in which case I officially become Libertarian.

In response to the GOP 'pandering' on immigration and social issues you'd switch to a party that wants to legalise drugs, supports open immigration laws and is far more radically pro-gay than even most Democrats?

The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the key issue is blame actually.  The leaders in the West who have survived (Harper, Keys, Labour in Australia, Merkel, the Latvian internal devaluation guy) aren't blamed for causing the crisis and the crash and the subsequent slow or fast recovery.  For those leaders it was that this was perceived as an American recession - Brown tried this line too.

The economy was improving quite rapidly under Brown in 2010, but that didn't matter, he and the Labour party were blamed.  I think the exit polls showed that over 50% of voters (rightly) blame Bush more than Obama for the economic situation.

Exactly, and there's something to be said about continuity in crisis;  just as Dubya got a pass to maintain the GWOT, Obama's been given the benefit of the doubt to let his strategy continue to develop.   Americans don't hold the President responsible for the crash, they know he's done certain things to improve the situation, and they're going to give him a 2nd term to see how things pan out.  I know some of our more conservative members don't think so, but things are slowly gaining traction.  Americans really don't like to dump incumbents unless it's absolutely necessary, in good times or bad, unless it's at such an intolerable point.

Carter, on the other hand, was in the middle of an immediate high-profile crisis with no conceivable end, and that was simply the nail in the coffin.  Among quite a few nails actually, but the American people had had their fill of the hostage situation, and an immediate change in direction was necessary.  Some of you are too young to remember it, but it was all over the place, on the news, in the Super Bowl, it was the reason Nightline was created...it was an ongoing soap opera that simply drained an already drained America.

[Razgovory]

Any Democrat president is going to he tough to defeat when the Democrat Party has its turnout machine running in full gear.  No amount of GOP pandering on immigration and social issues would overcome that.  Unless the GOP just becomes another Democrat Party, in which case I officially become Libertarian.

In response to the GOP 'pandering' on immigration and social issues you'd switch to a party that wants to legalise drugs, supports open immigration laws and is far more radically pro-gay than even most Democrats?

The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.

Nuts from the same tree.