I feel like the GOP has just swung SO far to the right and are appeasing a vocal but SMALL group of people. These may be powerful people w/ $$$, but in the end, as we are a democratic country where it's ALL the people that vote, you can't control all of us.
DH read an article about how the GOP analyzed why they lost the last election and, in simple terms, a big part of it was that they lost the Hispanic and female vote. And the Hispanics are largely religious and conservative! But the GOP just mis-stepped so far that they lost them.
And what are they doing this time? It seems like the same bullshit and they are losing the same exact people.
They have disenfranchised the party moderates and the conservative independents, which is a significant chunk of the voting population.
I just hope the Dems don't follow suit and disenfranchise the party moderates and liberal independents.
That's kind of ridiculous. She's a symptom. You have to go back to Karl Rove, and then back to Reagan, and then back to Nixon, really.
Reagan for sure.
Lee Atwater.
I dunno, I still feel like the mainstream Democratic party and pretty much anyone except Sanders (and Kucinich, in his day) is still much closer to the moderate/centrist scale than to the far left.
That's kind of ridiculous. She's a symptom. You have to go back to Karl Rove, and then back to Reagan, and then back to Nixon, really.
I don't think its ridiculous at all. I think most people agree that the GOP of the last 8 years is vastly different from the GOP of the 90s or even 80s. Look at the front runners for the Presidential nom. The old school establishment guys have virtually no support. Karl Rove does not support the tea party/extremist wing. Things really didn't go off the rails until the Sarah Palin/tea party wing took over and gave people like Ted Cruz an opening to shut down the government.
Ehhhhhhh....yes and no. Nixon and Reagan built the weird coalition of rural white Christian supremacists and business interests. Those two things were always headed on a collision course with each other. Sarah Palin was definitely a pivotal person in the party's demise, because she didn't bother with the dog whistle politics that had dominated for 30 years, but instead was the first national politician who really put the interests of the rural white Christians before anything else, and gave that section a voice.
Palin empowered the crazies, and got an enormous boost from the fact that she was running against the first black president and there was an economic collapse. But Nixon and Reagan invited them to the party in the first place. Blame goes all around.
I'm not saying they shouldn't change their trajectory, but this seems overly pessimistic. They won two elections in the beginning of this century and held the White House for 8 years. They lost in 2008, which makes sense, since people often want a change after 8 years. They lost in 2012, which makes sense because the incumbent usually has the advantage. It's kind of anyone's game, in theory, in 2016. Let's also remember that they won back the house in 2010 and the senate in 2014, which is no small deal, and I *believe* a majority of governors and state legislatures are Republicans. So crying about not having a Republican head of state for possibly 12 years is... not really something I care about. Remember, the Democrats were in power for 20 years during the FDR/Truman administrations.
You are oversimplifying it.
In 2000, they lost the popular vote. They only won the electoral college by violating the due process clause of the constitution. All nine justices agreed that there was an equal protection violation, but five of them just shrugged their shoulders and said "too bad, so sad." That's how they "won" in 2000. Votes from Florida were later counted under a variety of methods, and under a number of those, Gore would have won the state.
In 2004, they won big. Rove put gay marriage bans on ballots in a number of critical swing states, and the party played clips of Gavin Newsome in rural, Christian towns, creating a pandemic of people fearing their children would be rounded up and gay married off. That, combined with a boost from 9-11 fear mongering got them the win.
So you've got one real victory this century, not two. They lost in 96 and 92. Since 1998, they've won the popular vote exactly once. The last time they won an election without a Bush on the ticket was 1972, so it's really no wonder the establishment was praying so hard for Jeb! to succeed.
They lost the House and Senate in 2006 and couldn't retain them in 2008. They had a great midterm year in 2010, a low turnout midterm election in which the non-incumbent party typically does well. They didn't take back the Senate, even though everyone predicted that they would. They couldn't even topple the very vulnerable Harry Reid.
Nor did they take back the Senate in 2012.
As for the house, the 2010 census resulted in the need for redistricting; states with Republican governors did some gerrymandering. So by 2012, the Republicans were able to retain control of the house even though more people voted for Democratic reps than Republican reps. In 2014, they got won a low turnout election that would have favored them anyway, given a boost through new and complicated voter ID laws.
Their successes aren't that impressive.
When you look at where their wins have been, it starts to look even worse for them. They are increasingly monopolizing the South, and losing big in the North east and the west coast.
They've done well in getting governorships, so I'll give them that. But they are losing liberal ballot initiatives for things like minimum wage and gay marriage.
Things are even worse for them on the city level. I can't find the article I read a while back, but I believe of the top 10 largest cities, only one has a Republican mayor, and of the top 30, there's maybe 5. It didn't used to be like that. Cities are growing fast, rural America is dying, so this seems like it should be a major warning sign for the party.
ESF, I don't dispute that (and when I mentioned their two presidential wins, I did consider putting in an asterisk!), but I also don't think the cluster due to gerrymandering will be resolved any time soon. I think the next opportunity to do so will be after the 2020 census, and I'm not optimistic that the damage will be undone even then.
ESF, I don't dispute that (and when I mentioned their two presidential wins, I did consider putting in an asterisk!), but I also don't think the cluster due to gerrymandering will be resolved any time soon. I think the next opportunity to do so will be after the 2020 census, and I'm not optimistic that the damage will be undone even then.
Right but that only gives them a bit of a boost in the House.
They are at a major electoral college disadvantage. All evidence supports the idea that straight ticket voting is on the rise, which means they will continue to have Senate problems.
I feel like the GOP has just swung SO far to the right and are appeasing a vocal but SMALL group of people. These may be powerful people w/ $$$, but in the end, as we are a democratic country where it's ALL the people that vote, you can't control all of us.
DH read an article about how the GOP analyzed why they lost the last election and, in simple terms, a big part of it was that they lost the Hispanic and female vote. And the Hispanics are largely religious and conservative! But the GOP just mis-stepped so far that they lost them.
And what are they doing this time? It seems like the same bullshit and they are losing the same exact people.
They have disenfranchised the party moderates and the conservative independents, which is a significant chunk of the voting population.
I just hope the Dems don't follow suit and disenfranchise the party moderates and liberal independents.
... In 2004, they won big. Rove put gay marriage bans on ballots in a number of critical swing states, and the party played clips of Gavin Newsome in rural, Christian towns, creating a pandemic of people fearing their children would be rounded up and gay married off. That, combined with a boost from 9-11 fear mongering got them the win. ...
ESF, I don't dispute that (and when I mentioned their two presidential wins, I did consider putting in an asterisk!), but I also don't think the cluster due to gerrymandering will be resolved any time soon. I think the next opportunity to do so will be after the 2020 census, and I'm not optimistic that the damage will be undone even then.
Right but that only gives them a bit of a boost in the House.
They are at a major electoral college disadvantage. All evidence supports the idea that straight ticket voting is on the rise, which means they will continue to have Senate problems.
I'm not a political scientist. Is this related to increasing polarization of the country that we've discussed, or something else?
To me, the Tea Party will always be the reaction to the Black president. That made people lose their minds. It was never supposed to happen
I think you're right. I mean, sure, there are some Tea Partiers who may be in it for economic reasons alone, but I think there are a substantial number who are motivated by racism (conscious or subconscious).
To me, the Tea Party will always be the reaction to the Black president. That made people lose their minds. It was never supposed to happen
So true. And I'm getting the feeling that Berners* are a response to not being able to imagine a woman as president. There seems to be a crossover between these rabid supporters of Bernie* and MRAs or other young angry white men and it's making me increasingly uncomfortable/nervous.
*the radical, extremist supporters of Sanders, not the reasonable ones who would vote for Hillary if she ends up the nominee or even a third party candidate because their politics are closer than anyone on the Republican side
Right but that only gives them a bit of a boost in the House.
They are at a major electoral college disadvantage. All evidence supports the idea that straight ticket voting is on the rise, which means they will continue to have Senate problems.
I'm not a political scientist. Is this related to increasing polarization of the country that we've discussed, or something else?
Probably.
Here's an article that talks a little about the trend.
Honestly I think an R massacre in 2016 will be the best thing for politics in this country. They need their asses handed to them and even then I'm not confident they will get the message.
Honestly I think an R massacre in 2016 will be the best thing for politics in this country. They need their asses handed to them and even then I'm not confident they will get the message.
Seriously. I predict a lot of them will blame it on their mess of a primary season, not their candidates, ideas, and party. They are going to be dithering around with their primaries for a while, living hand to mouth, waiting for a win or a surge in the polls so they can get enough money to think two or three states ahead. Major donors like Koch are waiting to see who gets the nomination before pouring money in. They are already months behind and don't have the benefit of a unified army of party supporters ready to do the work regardless of what candidate wins.
The longer that primary drags on, the worse it's going to be for them. A six month Rubio/Trump showdown isn't going to do for the GOP what the Hillary/Obama 2008 race did for the democrats. It'll be an easy scapegoat.
Honestly I think an R massacre in 2016 will be the best thing for politics in this country. They need their asses handed to them and even then I'm not confident they will get the message.
Seriously. I predict a lot of them will blame it on their mess of a primary season, not their candidates, ideas, and party. They are going to be dithering around with their primaries for a while, living hand to mouth, waiting for a win or a surge in the polls so they can get enough money to think two or three states ahead. Major donors like Koch are waiting to see who gets the nomination before pouring money in. They are already months behind and don't have the benefit of a unified army of party supporters ready to do the work regardless of what candidate wins.
The longer that primary drags on, the worse it's going to be for them. A six month Rubio/Trump showdown isn't going to do for the GOP what the Hillary/Obama 2008 race did for the democrats. It'll be an easy scapegoat.
You're giving them a lot of credit. I think they will blame it on the liberal media and voter fraud.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Oct 16, 2015 16:15:38 GMT -5
The party actually did some pretty introspective & decent soul-searching after the last election & wrote up a pretty good postmortem from what I can recall. Now, they've completely ignored everything they suggested & continued on their same trajectory as before.
I imagine it's very difficult to be a smart, informed, passionate, small c conservative right now who wants to have a party that isn't a hot mess.
I'm in the boat that this has been brewing for years (decades) to get to the point where they are at. Rove was a major architect, yes Palin played a huge role elevating ignorance & Christianity above all else, the advent of Fox news & the online echo-chambers where these extreme messages are propagated, the election of our 1st black president, the economic crises, and the threat of a first female president have all eleated the crazy.
The party actually did some pretty introspective & decent soul-searching after the last election & wrote up a pretty good postmortem from what I can recall. Now, they've completely ignored everything they suggested & continued on their same trajectory as before.
I imagine it's very difficult to be a smart, informed, passionate, small c conservative right now who wants to have a party that isn't a hot mess.
I'm in the boat that this has been brewing for years (decades) to get to the point where they are at. Rove was a major architect, yes Palin played a huge role elevating ignorance & Christianity above all else, the advent of Fox news & the online echo-chambers where these extreme messages are propagated, the election of our 1st black president, the economic crises, and the threat of a first female president have all eleated the crazy.
I don't think the autopsy was good. Their conclusion was they needed to get their message out more so that people could hear it. Their conclusion *needed* to be that people heard their message just fine and thought the messaged utterly fucking sucked.
I'm in the boat that this has been brewing for years (decades) to get to the point where they are at. Rove was a major architect, yes Palin played a huge role elevating ignorance & Christianity above all else, the advent of Fox news & the online echo-chambers where these extreme messages are propagated, the election of our 1st black president, the economic crises, and the threat of a first female president have all eleated the crazy.
I don't think the autopsy was good. Their conclusion was they needed to get their message out more so that people could hear it. Their conclusion *needed* to be that people heard their message just fine and thought the messaged utterly fucking sucked.
This. They just refused to believe that people *heard* the message and didn't like it.
I don't think the autopsy was good. Their conclusion was they needed to get their message out more so that people could hear it. Their conclusion *needed* to be that people heard their message just fine and thought the messaged utterly fucking sucked.
This. They just refused to believe that people *heard* the message and didn't like it.
IIRC (which it's totally possible that I'm not), I thought it said they needed to be more inclusive of women & minorities? Among other things...
"To be clear, our principles our sound, our principles are not old rusty thoughts in some book," Priebus said, but the "report notes the way we communicate our principles isn't resonating widely enough."
Priebus added: "I think our policies are sound, but I think in many ways the way we communicate can be a real problem."
The longer that primary drags on, the worse it's going to be for them. A six month Rubio/Trump showdown isn't going to do for the GOP what the Hillary/Obama 2008 race did for the democrats. It'll be an easy scapegoat.
Are you counting out Bush? I was discussing this the other day with a friend that considers himself a political junkie. His argument was that Bush will ultimately pull off the nomination, or at least has a shot, because money. I think that he's showing himself to be a dead fish and he can't compete.
I am genuinely curious what will happen as the boomers start to pass on over the next 15-30 years. Until then I fear that we're going to be more or less in a permanent stalemate situation (pending a war of course).
The longer that primary drags on, the worse it's going to be for them. A six month Rubio/Trump showdown isn't going to do for the GOP what the Hillary/Obama 2008 race did for the democrats. It'll be an easy scapegoat.
Are you counting out Bush? I was discussing this the other day with a friend that considers himself a political junkie. His argument was that Bush will ultimately pull off the nomination, or at least has a shot, because money. I think that he's showing himself to be a dead fish and he can't compete.
This question goes for anyone. Bush - is he done?
Well, I think Bush is toast, but I threw out Rubio/Trump just as examples. Substitute anyone in the race for those two names, and you get the same thing. Obama/Clinton was a great race to watch, and it helped Obama build a strong network for the general. I think it helped racist and sexist America see both of them as "presidential." And it energized people. You had people all over this country wanting the race to go on until it was their state's turn just so they would have a chance to cast a vote in a history making primary, and say they voted for a woman or a black person. It was exciting.
If the GOP race comes down to the wire, it's going to be because there's a major establishment/tea party battle going on, and the party will tear each other apart. It's not going to be this great, historic exciting event. It will be a shit show.
I think it's possible things get tied up early-ish, but I cannot imagine that Jeb! is going to be that guy. He's a hot mess.
And Bush doesn't have that much money because he spent it all:
he former Florida governor spent 86 percent of the money he collected over the past three months, burning through $11.5 million of the $13.4 million that he raised. “He should have (raised) at least $25 million,” a major Republican fundraiser told Matea Gold and Philip Rucker.
Jeb’s third quarter report, filed hours before last night’s deadline, showed Bush with less cash on hand right now than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson.
I think the problem with the Republican Party is that it is a party for the rich to maintain riches. I don't think it's always been this way but that's the way it's been since the New Deal era. But hoarding wealth is not a winning platform in a democracy where you have to win elections by appealing to people who will never have those riches. So, around the time of Nixon, they came up with the ingenious strategy to play on white fears of "others", from uppity women, minorities, gays, and unions and the like. "The Republican Party is here to save your white way of American life. Ignore what's going on behind the curtain. We're not consolidating our wealth, raiding your pensions, shipping your jobs overseas, and slashing the social services you may need." Bait and switch. Classic con game. Now those people, who have been duped for decades, are waking up. They are demanding that the GOP make due on their promises of a social agenda to eradicate the other. Unfortunately it's 2015 and eradicating the other, as those Rs versed in math already know, eradicates all hope of the Rs ever being able to win a national election. It was a devil's threeway and the devil won. Smart Rs can ignore the crazy Frankenstein base they created and nurtured and lose. Or they can placate their base and lose. They lose either way. The GOP has lost.
Are you counting out Bush? I was discussing this the other day with a friend that considers himself a political junkie. His argument was that Bush will ultimately pull off the nomination, or at least has a shot, because money. I think that he's showing himself to be a dead fish and he can't compete.
This question goes for anyone. Bush - is he done?
Well, I think Bush is toast, but I threw out Rubio/Trump just as examples. Substitute anyone in the race for those two names, and you get the same thing. Obama/Clinton was a great race to watch, and it helped Obama build a strong network for the general. I think it helped racist and sexist America see both of them as "presidential." And it energized people. You had people all over this country wanting the race to go on until it was their state's turn just so they would have a chance to cast a vote in a history making primary, and say they voted for a woman or a black person. It was exciting.
If the GOP race comes down to the wire, it's going to be because there's a major establishment/tea party battle going on, and the party will tear each other apart. It's not going to be this great, historic exciting event. It will be a shit show.
I think it's possible things get tied up early-ish, but I cannot imagine that Jeb! is going to be that guy. He's a hot mess.
I think we agree. I've had my eye on Rubio for a little while, but it's just a gut feeling (not to vote for, no way am I voting for any Republican, but just as an observer). As for Bush, the second he walked out on that stage for the first debate, I said "Bush is nervous". And then one of the moderators asked the candidates how they were doing or something, and Bush said "I'm nervous". And he's been like a wet noodle any time I've seen him ever since.