With another lost election, would a party split into "fundamentalists" (Tea Party ilk) and "moderates" help the Republicans?
It would expose the lack of general support tea party might or might not have and allow for the Republicans to pursue the moderate voters and attract more minorities without having to reconcile their views with the extreme conservative wing in their party.
Fundamentalists would not include the tea party. The main two factions would be the fundies and the tea party actually.
Edit: But the third faction would be the east coast money men. They control the actual strings of party power (all the cash), so that faction would have to fall first.
They will all no doubt be confused as to what to do. Please at least stop nominating rapist crazies like Akin and Mourdock. I would wait to see what happens over the next few months, especially concerning this "fiscal cliff" and next debt ceiling deadline.
No
I dont know what they are, but they are not republicans.
That's not how things work in a two party systems. The factions will fight it out behind closed doors and in primaries.
I was talking to my Dad earlier in the evening, and while he has no real problem with Clintonian Democrats like Obama, he was bemoaning the loss of the "old" GOP; no more Doles, Fords, Rockefellers or Nixons to be found anymore: the only options nowadays are Budget Crazy, Abortion Crazy, and Batshit Crazy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2012, 02:53:26 AM
That's not how things work in a two party systems. The factions will fight it out behind closed doors and in primaries.
Yeah, but at some point in the mid-19th century the Republicans were a new party, too . . .
I think the days when they can win a majority on the social conservative coalition are ending right now. Something different will happen.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2012, 03:10:27 AM
I think the days when they can win a majority on the social conservative coalition are ending right now. Something different will happen.
To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, they've run out of angry white men. There just aren't enough to go around anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 03:13:54 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2012, 03:10:27 AM
I think the days when they can win a majority on the social conservative coalition are ending right now. Something different will happen.
To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, they've run out of angry white men. There just aren't enough to go around anymore.
The thing i've heard over and over tonight is how Bush the First got similar amount of White vote % as Romney and won 400 electoral compared to Mitt's just over 200.
Quote from: katmai on November 07, 2012, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 03:13:54 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2012, 03:10:27 AM
I think the days when they can win a majority on the social conservative coalition are ending right now. Something different will happen.
To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, they've run out of angry white men. There just aren't enough to go around anymore.
The thing i've heard over and over tonight is how Bush the First got similar amount of White vote % as Romney and won 400 electoral compared to Mitt's just over 200.
Reagan coat tails??
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2012, 03:10:27 AM
I think the days when they can win a majority on the social conservative coalition are ending right now. Something different will happen.
It's not a social conservative coalition, it's an economic conservative coalition. I'm not so sure that if a split happened the Randian wing would be more viable than the traditional values wing either, even if it were more palatable to certain Languishites.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 07, 2012, 02:21:27 AM
Fundamentalists would not include the tea party. The main two factions would be the fundies and the tea party actually.
.
You keep telling yourself that.
Susan Collins of Maine now the last New England Republican in Congress?
We're gonna get four years of Biden before the GOP gets their shit together. That party is a national disgrace: their Britain's National Front, without the charm, the intelligence, and the racial tolerance.
Quote from: Scipio on November 07, 2012, 06:55:47 AM
We're gonna get four years of Biden before the GOP gets their shit together.
Right now, the GOP is being driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down; every grass roots Tea Bagger operation and self-financed conservacrazy is driving the primary system, leading to the Christine O'Donnells, Todd Akins, Linda McMahons and all the other completely unelectable and unfit candidates.
There is no national party leadership. Certainly can't look to Congressional leaders for it, like the old days.
And no, Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist don't count.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 07:07:58 AM
And no, Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist don't count.
Limbaugh had a hell of a night last night though. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2012, 07:46:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 07:07:58 AM
And no, Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist don't count.
Limbaugh had a hell of a night last night though. :cool:
Got his hands on a bottle of oxy?
I bet Rush was popping so many Oxycotins, he was probably seeing Barry Goldwater as his spirit animal.
What? No, he had to have loved the outcome. Dems be good for bidness. :cool:
Some RedState.com post-mortem frothing
QuoteThe usual hand wringing is occurring now about social conservatives causing the GOP to lose.
Todd Akin lost because he swallowed his foot and kept gagging on it, not because he is pro-life.
Richard Mourdock was beaten by a Democrat who ran as a pro-lifer.
As for the so called "war on women," there is no war on women and women did not abandon Mitt Romney for Barack Obama because of their love of killing kids in the womb.
In fact, if you pull out black female voters, the Democrats and Republicans are tied among women. Are black women voting Democrat because they are women or in a consistent pattern with black voters in general.
Blame social conservatives if you must, but (A) you are lying to yourself and (B) if this is a fight you want to have, I'm happy to see you in the primaries in 2014. I like my chances.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
In fact, if you pull out black female voters, the Democrats and Republicans are tied among women. Are black women voting Democrat because they are women or in a consistent pattern with black voters in general.
And if you pull out black male voters, Republicans are well ahead among men. This is a pretty feeble attempt to explain away the gender gap.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
And if you pull out black male voters, Republicans are well ahead among men. This is a pretty feeble attempt to explain away the gender gap.
Yeah, losing 2/3 to 3/4 of the Asian, Hispanic, and Black votes regardless of gender seems to be the bit this frothing misses...
A lot of my Republican friends think that Romney lost because of issues like gay marriage and abortion, and that if we shed the religious positions on those issues we'll sail to electoral victory. I don't believe that is actually the case at all. I think long term gay marriage is a losing issue but all the exit polling in the important swing states I'm reading shows it was not an impact at all in the Presidential race in those states. It was not even in the top 5 things voters said they cared about (ranking below the 4% of voters who said their most important issue was foreign policy.)
Abortion is a bit mixed, the trend has been more moderation on the issue but the actual polls show support goes up and down. For example 2009 was the first year that pro-life respondents outnumbered pro-choice in a Gallup poll. I do think on the very long term, abortion is a loser issue too as I think things like abortion pill etc will mostly make abortion as we currently know it a non-issue. But I don't think abortion really decided the election.
In Virginia, Ohio, and Florida Romney actually won the white woman and white male votes. The reason he lost the Presidency, is he had one "large" issue (meaning lots of voters cared about it") where he won: the economy, he won about 53% of the voters who said the economy was their number one issue. But he lost basically all the other large "issue" voter blocks aside from the religious fundamentalist ones. How does that map to the minority vote? I don't really know, but I know the only way Romney ever had a chance to overcome a 95-97% black vote in States like Virginia with 20% black voters, or 65-70% Hispanic vote, would have been if he won that economic issues voter group by like 60-40.
You can get rid of all the religious stuff and the doesn't get the GOP the Hispanics and the blacks, and that's the only way Romney won this election without basically winning a landslide among the voters who were solely voting based on economic matters.
Assuming they keep their support in white middle class and wealthier, the only way the GOP wins Presidential elections going forward is if they find a way to at least get 10% of the black vote like they used to (15% in a really good year), and 40% of the Hispanic vote. The demographics just don't work in States like Florida if you only get 35% of the Hispanic vote, or in States like Virginia if you only get 3% of the black vote. Due to demographic changes the black vote does become less important every year, as their birth rate isn't particularly high and they have no external supply like the Hispanics do. Asians are another important demographic that in the 90s seemed to be trending Republican as they were somewhat traditionalist socially and conservative economically, but the Democrats have taken that group in a big way since then, and that is the fastest growing minority group.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 09:24:22 AM
as their birth rate isn't particularly high and they have no external supply
Such terminology. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
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.
So do taxes and government programs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
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.
So do taxes and government programs.
Meh. If taxes are your biggest concern, you're not doing your deductions correctly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 02:55:53 AM
I was talking to my Dad earlier in the evening, and while he has no real problem with Clintonian Democrats like Obama, he was bemoaning the loss of the "old" GOP; no more Doles, Fords, Rockefellers or Nixons to be found anymore
I vote in an affluent suburb that is full of doctors, bankers, lawyers, mid-level execs, small business owners. It should be prime territory for the GOP. Back in the Rockefeller days and even for years after it was. But yesterday when I went to the polls, the choice for state assemblyman and state senator was very easy - there was only one candidate. No one was willing to waste the time to run under the GOP banner.
That's a big problem. If a party is going to basically write off the Black and Latino vote wholesale, which is what the GOP has done the last 10 years, it doesn't leave much room for error with what remains. As the self-proclaimed party of business, an organization that pitches itself as the party of achievers, of educating strivers, of pillar-of-the-community Rotary Club types, of upwardly mobile professionals - how can they systematically shut themselves out of this demographic and expect to succeed?
It is the flip-side of the Democrats' "Kansas problem" but the last two election cycles have demonstrated that it is a bigger problem. Because Kansas is small population and electorally speaking. But lots of people live in periphery of big metro areas and they have big impact in large value potential swing states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. And by eschewing the Doles, Lugars, and Snowes for the bomb throwers, Norquist fanatics, "macaca"-baiters, vaginal probers and rape apologists, the GOP has surrendered its natural advantages with those vote rich constituencies in exchange for running up even bigger majorities in the deep South, Texas, Utah, Idaho, etc.
Bad trade, guys.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
QuoteBlame social conservatives if you must, but (A) you are lying to yourself and (B) if this is a fight you want to have, I’m happy to see you in the primaries in 2014. I like my chances.
LOL
Well right that is whole point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 10:38:19 AM
GOP has surrendered its natural advantages with those vote rich constituencies in exchange for running up even bigger majorities in the deep South, Texas, Utah, Idaho, etc.
Bad trade, guys.
Well...Clinton won 43% of the vote in Texas in 1996 and Obama got 41% in 2012. Their majority didn't get that much bigger.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2012, 10:51:30 AM
Well...Clinton won 43% of the vote in Texas in 1996 and Obama got 41% in 2012. Their majority didn't get that much bigger.
The trend I am talking about dates back to the 1994 midterms, and hence Clinton's performance in 96 is part of the illustration. Clinton actually did no better in Texas in 96 than Duakakis in 88.
It's also true that this is a diminishing returns kind of strategy, which only reinforces its foolishness.
To go back to the original question - no a party split would not benefit the Republicans. In a first past the post system like the US has there is no benefit to coming in second in any given election. You have to win. If you split the Republicans into the religious conservative party and the fiscal conservative party then all you will do is ensure Democratic majorities for a generation.
Building a national political party is all about building a "big tent". You don't make your tent bigger by kicking people out of it.
Now that being said... do Republicans need to give less emphasis to certain elements of their party? Well sure. They need to get sensible about immigration to stop alienating the growing not-white population. Unfortunately, they need to realize that the gay marriage issue is over and that they lost. They do need to move more to the centre on certain issues - but all while maintaining the base that they have.
No the Republicans have already suffered enough by booting people out of their party. I am amused by their attempts to marginalize the Ron Paulites and the Gay Republicans. These groups are often told to go join the Democrats.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 09:20:40 AM
A lot of my Republican friends think that Romney lost because of issues like gay marriage and abortion, and that if we shed the religious positions on those issues we'll sail to electoral victory. I don't believe that is actually the case at all. I think long term gay marriage is a losing issue but all the exit polling in the important swing states I'm reading shows it was not an impact at all in the Presidential race in those states. It was not even in the top 5 things voters said they cared about (ranking below the 4% of voters who said their most important issue was foreign policy.)
Abortion is a bit mixed, the trend has been more moderation on the issue but the actual polls show support goes up and down. For example 2009 was the first year that pro-life respondents outnumbered pro-choice in a Gallup poll. I do think on the very long term, abortion is a loser issue too as I think things like abortion pill etc will mostly make abortion as we currently know it a non-issue. But I don't think abortion really decided the election.
In Virginia, Ohio, and Florida Romney actually won the white woman and white male votes. The reason he lost the Presidency, is he had one "large" issue (meaning lots of voters cared about it") where he won: the economy, he won about 53% of the voters who said the economy was their number one issue. But he lost basically all the other large "issue" voter blocks aside from the religious fundamentalist ones. How does that map to the minority vote? I don't really know, but I know the only way Romney ever had a chance to overcome a 95-97% black vote in States like Virginia with 20% black voters, or 65-70% Hispanic vote, would have been if he won that economic issues voter group by like 60-40.
You can get rid of all the religious stuff and the doesn't get the GOP the Hispanics and the blacks, and that's the only way Romney won this election without basically winning a landslide among the voters who were solely voting based on economic matters.
The reason the Republicans are losing is because, while the social agenda may not be the top five things people vote on, when trying to decide between the two, the social agenda will tip the scales. In addition, their conservative bent makes them appear out of touch with the average American, which means that while Romney may have had the better economic plan (which is up for debate), those not white and upper-middle class didn't trust him to actually take them into account with his economic plans.
Well, the South is rapidly becoming more Latino, especially in places like Texas. They may be picking up more angry white males in the South and are only running in place as far as majorities are concerned. I disagree that the Republicans have been writing off the Latinos for the last ten years. Bush made a real effort to get Latinos and made some good headway. Unfortunately it made the angry while male portion of the party furious and there has been a backlash against Latinos in the GOP for the last four or five years.
I imagine that in 20 years Texas will be a toss up state along with some other southern states. If they want to be competitive in the long term they are going to have to get the Latino vote. Perhaps a Rubio nomination will help that.
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html)" 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:
QuoteRep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are "78 to 81" Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it's not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West's comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.
It's not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
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.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.
The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.
What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California's Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.
I'm not sure why the GOP if held up as a fig leaf over the real issue which is that a great many Americans want those who are spouting backwards ideas to rule over them. After all the GOP's legitimacy stems from people who vote from them not simply though their own force of will. Of course, it probably isn't easy for that to roll off the tongue as you'd be saying that "47%" of Americans are the problem.
And before the inevitable finger pointing at myself, I've only voted for moderate Republicans and in races below presidency - only because I'd like some balance in these overly powerful Dem enclaves in which I live.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
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.
That's really a great comparison.
Texas may someday flip blue but I don't think it will be because of Demographics. We have been a minority majority state for awhile but our Republicans know how to kiss up to the Tejanos.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2012, 12:48:26 PM
Texas may someday flip blue but I don't think it will be because of Demographics. We have been a minority majority state for awhile but our Republicans know how to kiss up to the Tejanos.
They want their houses and pools cleaned.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 12:38:44 PM
I'm not sure why the GOP if held up as a fig leaf over the real issue which is that a great many Americans want those who are spouting backwards ideas to rule over them. After all the GOP's legitimacy stems from people who vote from them not simply though their own force of will. Of course, it probably isn't easy for that to roll off the tongue as you'd be saying that "47%" of Americans are the problem.
And before the inevitable finger pointing at myself, I've only voted for moderate Republicans and in races below presidency - only because I'd like some balance in these overly powerful Dem enclaves in which I live.
I think that we need Republican fiscal conservatism to temper the Democrats liberal spending of money. The balance is essential. The problem with an awful lot of Republicans today, though, is that they have made it their primary goal to stop Democrats from doing anything at all. They don't want to work to balance things. They don't want to find a way to make good policy that is fiscally intelligent and still socially compassionate.
I think that's what Norm Ornstein is trying to say in that article. It isn't that Republicans are bad. It's that too many Republicans refuse to be adults.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
I think that we need Republican fiscal conservatism to temper the Democrats liberal spending of money. The balance is essential. The problem with an awful lot of Republicans today, though, is that they have made it their primary goal to stop Democrats from doing anything at all. They don't want to work to balance things. They don't want to find a way to make good policy that is fiscally intelligent and still socially compassionate.
I think that's what Norm Ornstein is trying to say in that article. It isn't that Republicans are bad. It's that too many Republicans refuse to be adults.
But it isn't just Republicans as in the elected officials but rather anyone who is voting for said officials. The wider base aren't the ones who would do any of the things that you outline but are the reason that we have officials who are so uncompromising.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 12:54:08 PM
But it isn't just Republicans as in the elected officials but rather anyone who is voting for said officials. The wider base aren't the ones who would do any of the things that you outline but are the reason that we have officials who are so uncompromising.
I disagree. I would argue that those in the base who are demanding it, are doing so because their leaders - the Republicans in office - aren't putting a stop to it. If a prominent, popular Republican came forward and said, "Look. In order to bring this country back to the top of the world economy, we need to work together to make it happen. We can't have a stagnant government anymore. We stand with our elected leader - whoever he or she is - and we will work together to make sure that we are fiscally responsible while we meet the needs of those who most need our help." then the base would balk at first, but it wouldn't take long for them to come around. Especially not if the majority of Republicans came forward and said, "Yeah, we agree."
For all of the gnashing of teeth about how Obama hasn't been a good leader by smashing into the Republican House, the Republicans use their party base as an excuse not to be useful leaders themselves. Quite frankly, while I disagree with how things have gone under Obama, at the end of the day, he did a lot of things his base didn't love but was the right thing to do under the circumstances. I just haven't seen that from the Republicans.
But it doesn't need to be a prominent position that were discussing but rather Republicans picked for smaller positions like state rep or members of state legislature (who might then go on for positions in senate or presidency). After all, base has opportunity to pick good/better candidates during primary phase but it seems like they are not.
Additionally, if the base has a problem with the current leadership, why do they keep electing back the same individuals?
A GOP split would bring a few too many Demo controled election cycles, but if the demos don't destroy the country completely in that time, we may get a more moderate three party system. I can always dream right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
Some RedState.com post-mortem frothing
QuoteBlame social conservatives if you must, but (A) you are lying to yourself and (B) if this is a fight you want to have, I'm happy to see you in the primaries in 2014. I like my chances.
So RedState is taking the stance that it is better to nominate ideologically pure candidates who lose by larger and larger margins every time?
Well, I guess if that's how they want to do it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 08:23:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
In fact, if you pull out black female voters, the Democrats and Republicans are tied among women. Are black women voting Democrat because they are women or in a consistent pattern with black voters in general.
And if you pull out black male voters, Republicans are well ahead among men. This is a pretty feeble attempt to explain away the gender gap.
Not really. The Republicans can only get the votes that it is possible for them to get. It is not possible for the Republicans to get the votes of racist blacks.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
I disagree. I would argue that those in the base who are demanding it, are doing so because their leaders - the Republicans in office - aren't putting a stop to it. If a prominent, popular Republican came forward and said, "Look. In order to bring this country back to the top of the world economy, we need to work together to make it happen. We can't have a stagnant government anymore. We stand with our elected leader - whoever he or she is - and we will work together to make sure that we are fiscally responsible while we meet the needs of those who most need our help." then the base would balk at first, but it wouldn't take long for them to come around. Especially not if the majority of Republicans came forward and said, "Yeah, we agree."
And then they're all defeated in primaries. No, maybe they shouldn't take your advice.
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2012, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
I disagree. I would argue that those in the base who are demanding it, are doing so because their leaders - the Republicans in office - aren't putting a stop to it. If a prominent, popular Republican came forward and said, "Look. In order to bring this country back to the top of the world economy, we need to work together to make it happen. We can't have a stagnant government anymore. We stand with our elected leader - whoever he or she is - and we will work together to make sure that we are fiscally responsible while we meet the needs of those who most need our help." then the base would balk at first, but it wouldn't take long for them to come around. Especially not if the majority of Republicans came forward and said, "Yeah, we agree."
And then they're all defeated in primaries. No, maybe they shouldn't take your advice.
I'm talking about the ones who were just elected, not those campaigning. They've got a good two years to make it work before the next election.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2012, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
I disagree. I would argue that those in the base who are demanding it, are doing so because their leaders - the Republicans in office - aren't putting a stop to it. If a prominent, popular Republican came forward and said, "Look. In order to bring this country back to the top of the world economy, we need to work together to make it happen. We can't have a stagnant government anymore. We stand with our elected leader - whoever he or she is - and we will work together to make sure that we are fiscally responsible while we meet the needs of those who most need our help." then the base would balk at first, but it wouldn't take long for them to come around. Especially not if the majority of Republicans came forward and said, "Yeah, we agree."
And then they're all defeated in primaries. No, maybe they shouldn't take your advice.
I'm talking about the ones who were just elected, not those campaigning. They've got a good two years to make it work before the next election.
But that gets at what I said - it's clear that the base wants those intractable individuals.
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
Not really. The Republicans can only get the votes that it is possible for them to get. It is not possible for the Republicans to get the votes of racist blacks.
Fact remains, they're doing better among white men than white women. Black women have nothing to do with that.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 01:42:14 PM
But it doesn't need to be a prominent position that were discussing but rather Republicans picked for smaller positions like state rep or members of state legislature (who might then go on for positions in senate or presidency). After all, base has opportunity to pick good/better candidates during primary phase but it seems like they are not.
Additionally, if the base has a problem with the current leadership, why do they keep electing back the same individuals?
Lack of other options? There were pretty slim pickings across the playing field, even during the primary phase. I seem to recall some commentary about the lack of viable contenders leading disenfranchising moderate voters prior to the nomination, e.g. Romney wasn't picked because he was the best candidate, but because he was the least bad.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 07, 2012, 02:52:37 PM
Lack of other options? There were pretty slim pickings across the playing field, even during the primary phase. I seem to recall some commentary about the lack of viable contenders leading disenfranchising moderate voters prior to the nomination, e.g. Romney wasn't picked because he was the best candidate, but because he was the least bad.
Huntsman and Johnson were less bad.
I'm not sure I buy that as we're not just talking presidential. To what you said, people could have picked Huntsman if they wanted - and also Romney isn't really an example of the type of Republicans being discussed here.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 07, 2012, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
I disagree. I would argue that those in the base who are demanding it, are doing so because their leaders - the Republicans in office - aren't putting a stop to it. If a prominent, popular Republican came forward and said, "Look. In order to bring this country back to the top of the world economy, we need to work together to make it happen. We can't have a stagnant government anymore. We stand with our elected leader - whoever he or she is - and we will work together to make sure that we are fiscally responsible while we meet the needs of those who most need our help." then the base would balk at first, but it wouldn't take long for them to come around. Especially not if the majority of Republicans came forward and said, "Yeah, we agree."
And then they're all defeated in primaries. No, maybe they shouldn't take your advice.
I'm talking about the ones who were just elected, not those campaigning. They've got a good two years to make it work before the next election.
Do you think that people go through the abject humiliation that is a congressional campaign because they only want one term?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 12:10:30 PM
. I disagree that the Republicans have been writing off the Latinos for the last ten years. Bush made a real effort to get Latinos and made some good headway.
That was 8 years ago, and the party (as you say) repudiated it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:35:18 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html)" 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:
Quote
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.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
(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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 06:06:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
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? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 06:06:34 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 06:33:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2012, 06:06:34 PM
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.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.wix.com%2Fmedia%2F013e78_5add1aecd84dabfd573d6ccab53e73cd.jpg&hash=1f6b392d2bbf0ccc0afa927460fb6a417d123c5d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fmodern_whig_party_button-p145094295251890717en8go_400.jpg&hash=5f2d2370a045219bf2f3a05e370c45a6a4a2fba3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F90%2FWhig_primary_1848d.jpg%2F413px-Whig_primary_1848d.jpg&hash=08812837dba27ec96ecd37d9d7fa7e019a931cd5)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 08:01:55 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 08:21:53 PMI 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 08:21:08 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 08:01:55 PM
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.
I don't think dumping them would be completely necessary by the party: the conservative positions on certain social issues is as attractive to voters as their opposites with liberal agendas. Poppy, Dole and Dubya ran a GOP that had those social issues under their umbrella as much as Romney did.
However, they knew when to raise the curtain on them, and they knew when not to flaunt it--and when to keep other members of the party from going off the reservation and message by opening their mouths and fanning the flames. The GOP can have their stances on issues, it's important to them. But they don't have to use a megaphone and a laser pointer to put them to the forefront when it's not necessary.
This election was to be about the economy; every day the Romney campaign wasn't talking about the economy--and letting the goofs they couldn't control take the news cycle away from it--was a day they lost. And picking a Veep nomination known as much for his social issues positions as much as, if not more so, than his economic policies didn't help.
I think a substantial segment of independent voters would've sided with Romney despite their positions on social issues, and that includes decent percentage of minorities as well. People don't mind crossing the aisle on social issues--and for this discussion, I include immigration as a social issue for Latinos--as long as parties and candidates don't portray themselves as unconscionably intolerable zealots.
Substantial percentages of minorities can be won by the GOP as long as 1) you actually treat them as participatory citizens on some issues that can tangibly impact them, and 2) you don't scare the living hell out of them.
I was actually reflecting today just how much better Bush was at campaigning than Romney. Now, I don't think Bush was doing campaign strategy himself but he had a far better ran campaign in both '00 and '04.
Looking back, Bush was able to get all the fundamentalists, not just to begrudgingly vote for him but to fall in love with him. He did that without antagonizing other groups too much directly. Bush was really good at being magnanimous personally and keeping his hands clean, and letting back alley men do the dirty stuff (like getting gay marriage amendments on the ballot to drum up conservative turnout in battleground states.) Bush knew how to get religious conservatives happy with "nothing" issues like his "faith based initiatives" that, while most people found them stupid, they weren't something most people gave a shit about. But it gave the religious right a hard on. Stuff like gay marriage isn't like that, it's a thing you can rail on to get that same demographic but not without alienating some people.
I was looking over the 2004 exit polls and am just stunned by how much stronger Bush was in non-mainstream GOP groups:
44% of Latinos
52% of people who supported civil unions for gays (22% for those wanting full marriage, and 70% for those wanting no rights in this regard)
45% of 18-29
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 08:45:35 PM
45% of 18-29
That's not really all that good. From 1972 through 1988 IIRC, the Republican Presidential candidate carried that age group every time (to the shock of Democratic strategists, which was understandable in 1972, but you'd think that by the 80s they'd have gotten used to it).
Latinos are a very conservative group, in a normal world they should staunchly vote Republican. George and Jeb Bush understood that and were very careful with their immigration rhetoric and policies. Seems the current GOP have completely forgotten that.
I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though. The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich. I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 09:06:42 PM
I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though. The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich. I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.
Yeah, but it all starts with immigration. Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.
And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older. May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.
Fucking Cubans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 09:06:42 PM
I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though. The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich. I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.
Yeah, but it all starts with immigration. Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.
And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older. May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.
Something else, too. Count's attitude in the Puerto Rico thread reminds me that even at least as recently as 2000 there were still some pretty prominent Democrats who were fairly anti-immigration. The Democratic party seems to have effectively muzzled those guys.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 09:06:42 PM
I think it's overly reductive to just talk about immigration with the Hispanic vote though. The Republicans don't have a healthcare policy, they have a vague economic policy and (fairly or not) have been painted as a party who's mainly wanting to help the rich. I think they need to address those areas as well as immigration to get non-Cuban Hispanic (is there any more doleful phrase to Republican ears?) votes.
Yeah, but it all starts with immigration. Healthcare and other issues are secondary when the primary concern is whether you're going to have to stew in a detention center for 2 years awaiting your deportation hearing.
And Cuban Latinos are going to dissipate over time as a GOP crutch as its demographics get older. May have mattered in 1988 when there were still a lot of refugees around, but newer generations of Americans of Cuban decent aren't going to give a shit about what Grandpa did for the Bautistas after a while.
Something else, too. Count's attitude in the Puerto Rico thread reminds me that even at least as recently as 2000 there were still some pretty prominent Democrats who were fairly anti-immigration. The Democratic party seems to have effectively muzzled those guys.
But he loves Puerto Rico. He just doesn't want poor Spanish speaking people voting in national elections...
Cd- nationally Ryan was known for one thing, his austerity plan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 07, 2012, 08:45:35 PM
I was actually reflecting today just how much better Bush was at campaigning than Romney. Now, I don't think Bush was doing campaign strategy himself but he had a far better ran campaign in both '00 and '04.
Looking back, Bush was able to get all the fundamentalists, not just to begrudgingly vote for him but to fall in love with him. He did that without antagonizing other groups too much directly. Bush was really good at being magnanimous personally and keeping his hands clean, and letting back alley men do the dirty stuff (like getting gay marriage amendments on the ballot to drum up conservative turnout in battleground states.) Bush knew how to get religious conservatives happy with "nothing" issues like his "faith based initiatives" that, while most people found them stupid, they weren't something most people gave a shit about. But it gave the religious right a hard on. Stuff like gay marriage isn't like that, it's a thing you can rail on to get that same demographic but not without alienating some people.
I was looking over the 2004 exit polls and am just stunned by how much stronger Bush was in non-mainstream GOP groups:
44% of Latinos
52% of people who supported civil unions for gays (22% for those wanting full marriage, and 70% for those wanting no rights in this regard)
45% of 18-29
Bush had to run against McCain in the primaries. Romney had to run against a bunch of nutters and find some way of traingulating.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2012, 04:25:10 AM
Cd- nationally Ryan was known for one thing, his austerity plan.
There are plenty of national organizations that keep their eyes on fetus lovers and their legislative agendas on the state and federal level. I get their emails.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2012, 08:30:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2012, 12:53:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2012, 08:30:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 08, 2012, 08:01:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 08:07:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 08, 2012, 08:52:35 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 08:50:11 PM
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? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:36:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 08:50:11 PM
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? :blink:
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:36:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 08:50:11 PM
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? :blink:
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Nuts from the same tree.
No, I want nothing from that tree.
You registered with them didn't you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
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.
Actually isn't that more like most of us are only peripherally touched by the GWOT so we tend not to think about it much?
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Oh I know. But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy. They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
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.
Actually isn't that more like most of us are only peripherally touched by the GWOT so we tend not to think about it much?
I wasn't referring to Obama's strategy on the GWOT.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
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.
Actually isn't that more like most of us are only peripherally touched by the GWOT so we tend not to think about it much?
I wasn't referring to Obama's strategy on the GWOT.
Oh gotcha. Sorry I'm rather tired. :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Oh I know. But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy. They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.
At their core, I think a lot of republicans just don't want to pay taxes.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:50:25 PM
Oh gotcha. Sorry I'm rather tired. :blush:
S'aight. Should've been more explanatory.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Oh I know. But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy. They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.
At their core, I think a lot of republicans just don't want to pay taxes.
Isn't that generally true of everyone? Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:36:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 08:50:11 PM
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? :blink:
I'm a social and economic conservative. But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 09:53:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:50:25 PM
Oh gotcha. Sorry I'm rather tired. :blush:
S'aight. Should've been more explanatory.
I fucked up and had a G&T around 5:30 with no follow-up alcohol. I'm fading fast and my take out still isn't here!
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
I fucked up and had a G&T around 5:30 with no follow-up alcohol. I'm fading fast and my take out still isn't here!
Face plant into the moo goo gai pan in 15 minutes, on my mark *click*
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
I'm a social and economic conservative. But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.
Okay. But your issue was with the GOP 'pandering' on social issues and immigration. Surely the assumption's that they stay the same on economic issues. So to protest their incorrect social views, you'd support a far more socially radical party that supports your economic views too, even though that hurts the big tent party with acceptable views on economic policy?
Again I'm confused.
Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2012, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 07:58:44 PM
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.
Not in North America they haven't.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Oh I know. But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy. They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.
At their core, I think a lot of republicans just don't want to pay taxes.
Isn't that generally true of everyone? Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.
Basing your entire ideology around avoiding doing what you need to do seems a bit irresponsible. I was going to make an analogy that lots of kids don't like going to school, but you don't make that a national issue to indulge that childish desire, but then I realized, Republicans do make that a national issue with their home schooling bullshit.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
Isn't that generally true of everyone? Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.
Yeah. As a general rule people like few taxes and but all sorts of government programs.
But I think there is a large subset of republicans that sees government as a money sinkhole and doesn't balance tax and spend issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
I'm a social and economic conservative. But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.
Okay. But your issue was with the GOP 'pandering' on social issues and immigration. Surely the assumption's that they stay the same on economic issues. So to protest their incorrect social views, you'd support a far more socially radical party that supports your economic views too, even though that hurts the big tent party with acceptable views on economic policy?
Again I'm confused.
I'll admit to not being totally coherent tonight, but my point is that if the GOP becomes just a shadow of the Democrat party (sort of how it was headed in the mid to late 70s) I'll jump ship.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2012, 10:04:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
The libertarian party often draws in Repubs.
Oh I know. But for a conservative to vote Libertarian in protest at the Republicans modernising their views on social issues and immigration is like a leftie voting Libertarian because the Democrats are modernising theirs on the economy. They both agree with a bit of the Libertarian party's views, but not the bit they're unhappy about.
At their core, I think a lot of republicans just don't want to pay taxes.
Isn't that generally true of everyone? Like California's recent election where they voted to put taxes on the rich but then thoroughly defeated the prop to raise everyone's taxes.
Basing your entire ideology around avoiding doing what you need to do seems a bit irresponsible. I was going to make an analogy that lots of kids don't like going to school, but you don't make that a national issue to indulge that childish desire, but then I realized, Republicans do make that a national issue with their home schooling bullshit.
Well good thing that Republicans don't base their whole ideology around that and that it isn't really a need that "wealthy" people pay more and more of their income in taxes.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 10:05:54 PM
But I think there is a large subset of republicans that sees government as a money sinkhole and doesn't balance tax and spend issues.
Because it is. :huh:
That's fair. But as I said in the other thread I'm a Blairite. So I see Republicans over the last couple of days and it sounds a lot to me like Tony Benn calling the 1983 defeat '16 million votes for socialism'. When the public's views change you should follow them because it's the public, not the parties, who define where the centre ground of politics is. As an aside I sort of worry the current Labour party are making similar mistakes to the Republicans.
I think Republicans need a Blair-ish approach. It's not about becoming Democrats-lite, or Tories-lite but about reforming a party by stripping back and reflecting were people are so that it can win.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2012, 08:10:55 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 08, 2012, 08:01:47 PM
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.
Given that. Which republican leaders have experience running companies? Apart from Boehner and Cain I can't think of anybody who actually ran a business. Romney as Bain didn't actually run any of the businesses they acquired but rather hired people to do that. The Republican leadership seems to consist much more of people who went to seminary or theology school and then ran for office straight after graduation, there is alot of them.
If these "Eisenhower" republicans do exist, they certainly don't have much influence and get primaried when they do run.
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 08:50:11 PM
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.
That is simply crazy talk.
They almost won as it is - so yeah, SOME amount of actually addressing the issues that a huge number of Americans care about (i.e 'Pandering on immigration and social issues") would in fact get them right into the place where they can win again.
This idea that the Republicans MUST be dominated by the crazies and never ever accommodate the middle is the best plan the Democrats have ever come up with.
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2012, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2012, 09:55:28 PM
I'm a social and economic conservative. But if forced to choose in these times I'll go with economic.
Okay. But your issue was with the GOP 'pandering' on social issues and immigration. Surely the assumption's that they stay the same on economic issues. So to protest their incorrect social views, you'd support a far more socially radical party that supports your economic views too, even though that hurts the big tent party with acceptable views on economic policy?
Again I'm confused.
I'll admit to not being totally coherent tonight, but my point is that if the GOP becomes just a shadow of the Democrat party (sort of how it was headed in the mid to late 70s) I'll jump ship.
I don't buy it - I've never bought the basic argument from the fringe that if the party doesn't cater to their fringiness, they will leave.
Leave and go where? By definition your the fringe, there isn't anywhere to go.
I think buying into the argument that the religious nuts or homophobes won't vote if you don't cater to them has been gravely damaging to the Republican Party. They've lost many times more voters in the middle than they gain from supposed right wingers who would stay at home. Hell, if nothing else, every person who doesn't vote at all, or votes for a third party, is really only a half vote lost, since they certainly are not voting for the other guy...whereas every moderate who refuses to vote for you is in fact likely voting for the other guy.
I simply don't understand why political parties don't understand this.
Cause it might not be true, and they actually believe those things that make them fringy in your opinion. It's not just Republican voters who believe these things, it's Republican leadership. If they abandon the things they believe in, what's the point in running for office anyway? The goal is not to win elections, that's the means to an end. It's to get your ideas in government. To make it better.
QuoteThey've lost many times more voters in the middle than they gain from supposed right wingers who would stay at home. Hell, if nothing else, every person who doesn't vote at all, or votes for a third party, is really only a half vote lost, since they certainly are not voting for the other guy...whereas every moderate who refuses to vote for you is in fact likely voting for the other guy.
This..bravo