Where to for the GOP after this election?

[ponderingturtle]

So, correct me if I'm misreading this, but the consensus is that if the Romney loses, the GOP is most likely going to try to move even further from the center? That actually jibes with what the local conservative radio talk show guy was saying this morning.

*sigh*

I miss when the GOP stood for reasonable things.

I am not old enough to remember that.

 

[jj]

Didn't we have these "it's the end of the Republican Party" threads in 2006 and 2008? Heck, we may even have had some in 2010, but of course only prior to the elections. Which is why it may be a great idea to have another one now, because there may not be another chance for liberal triumphalism come November.

Actually, an Obama victory is a victory for a moderately right, moderate candidate over a candidate who wants to go back to the dark ages, literally, with the corporation replacing the Catholic church.

I take it from your attitude that you wish to go back to the times before science and engineering, and see 99% of humanity live in squalor and misery.

Suggesting that Obama is "liberal" is so very obviously dishonest as to utterly indict the liar who called him a "liberal". Obama is rather to the right of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Was Eisenhower a communist,then?

 

[jj]

Santorum 2016.

Maybe Santorum/Haley, you think?

 

[Brainster]

It's not the end of the party at all, but it is a wake up call to increase the base. Or are you still waiting for a win?

A reminder, in case one is needed, of September polls and eventual winners:

Since Labor Day, the media have released about 20 polls on the presidential race. Three show a dead heat, one shows George W. Bush leading by a single percentage point, and the rest show Al Gore leading by one to 10 points. In the latest polls, Gore leads by an average of five points. It's fashionable at this stage to caution that "anything can happen," that Bush is "retooling," and that the numbers can turn in Bush's favor just as easily as they turned against him. But they can't. The numbers are moving toward Gore because fundamental dynamics tilt the election in his favor. The only question has been how far those dynamics would carry him. Now that he has passed Bush, the race is over.

And I would also point out that some of those fundamental dynamics (like peace and prosperity) cited tilt against Obama this time around.

 

[SezMe]

So, correct me if I'm misreading this, but the consensus is that if the Romney loses, the GOP is most likely going to try to move even further from the center? That actually jibes with what the local conservative radio talk show guy was saying this morning.

I don't think that is going to happen. Of course, you hear that from the very vocal knuckle draggers but I am optimistic (naive?) and believe that the majority of non-baggers (which really is most of the party) will prevail and some semblance of sanity will return to the GOP.

 

[SezMe]

This article somewhat refutes my previous post.

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney and his team will be hit with a merciless barrage of friendly fire in the days after the November election if the presidential race continues its current trajectory and the carping from GOP analysts and strategists the past week is any guide.

 

[NoahFence]

Romney is a terrible candidate IMHO, the current GOP platform isn't very convincing (not out of Romney's mouth anyway), so for the sake of argument, I'll assume that Obama wins.

The party seems terribly split, and the fractions strongly ideological and unwilling to compromise.

Will they be able to pull the party more to the middle and regain the swing voters? Or will such an attempt cause the party to actually split?

Is there a conservative waiting in the wings with enough charisma to keep the party together and lead it back to success?

If they lose their version of the Taliban (Tea Party) then they'll be OK. They need to tone down their extremism views.

 

[Tricky]

A reminder, in case one is needed, of September polls and eventual winners:

A dose of reality, in case one is needed, that is one article in a left-leaning news carrier about a single election (which was eventually decided by the Supreme Court, not the popular vote). I'm sure if you looked you could find articles about how McCain was sure to win.

And I would also point out that some of those fundamental dynamics (like peace and prosperity) cited tilt against Obama this time around.

Indeed it is telling that such fundamental dynamics tilt against Obama, yet he is doing so well. Even with the weight of a lackluster economy and an unpopular war that drags on, he is still, at the very least, statistically even with Romney. What hope would any Republican incumbent have in such an election? How weak is a party that cannot pull out to a big lead even with all the odds stacked in their favor? Does that not suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the stratagies of that party?

 

[Tony]

How weak is a party that cannot pull out to a big lead even with all the odds stacked in their favor?

Well, if the liberal media wasn't in the bag for Obama, then conservatives would stand a better chance. If more people listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News instead of CNN, ABC and the New York Times then conservatives would do better in the polls.

Does that not suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the stratagies of that party?

It just means they're not conservative enough and the liberal media won't give them a chance.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm hoping TeaParty candidates 2014 and 2016.

Me too. I'd love to see a decade without significant "conservative" (by the current definition) officeholders.

 

[AlBell]

Santorum 2016.

Palin-Huckabee.

 

[SezMe]

Well, if the liberal media wasn't in the bag for Obama, then conservatives would stand a better chance. If more people listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News instead of CNN, ABC and the New York Times then conservatives would do better in the polls.

It just means they're not conservative enough and the liberal media won't give them a chance.

Poe?

 

[Tony]

Palin-Huckabee.

The comedy alone would be worth it.

 

[AlBell]

One would hope the fiscal conservatives would take back control of the party from the social conservatives.

GW etal demonstrated there are no fiscal conservatives.

One would hope they realize the futility of being the party of No and actually start working toward compromise.

You could throw your hat in the ring. Hmm. Maybe not; I don't recall you ever compromising.

Or they could continue to pander to the most extreme and uninformed voters in the country. . .

Democrats already do that with all the splinters they need to appease.

After the DNC abortion-contraception-abortion drumbeats, will they pass a law mandating pregnancy followed by abortion for every woman?

 

[Cleon]

Palin/Bachmann 2016! Let the crazy rolllllll!

 

[Piscivore]

After the DNC abortion-contraception-abortion drumbeats, will they pass a law mandating pregnancy followed by abortion for every woman?

Yes. Then they'll use all the stem cells they harvest to clone Stalin, Marx, and Lenin, who will destroy all businesses everywhere and start an atheist church of Evolution to stop Global Warming!

Palin/Bachmann 2016! Let the crazy rolllllll!

Oh please, if for no other reason than to give Tina Fey more television time!

 

[Cleon]

Oh please, if for no other reason than to give Tina Fey more television time!

An excellent reason indeed.

 

[Brainster]

A dose of reality, in case one is needed, that is one article in a left-leaning news carrier about a single election (which was eventually decided by the Supreme Court, not the popular vote). I'm sure if you looked you could find articles about how McCain was sure to win.

And Bush I in 1992, and Carter in 1980.

Indeed it is telling that such fundamental dynamics tilt against Obama, yet he is doing so well. Even with the weight of a lackluster economy and an unpopular war that drags on, he is still, at the very least, statistically even with Romney. What hope would any Republican incumbent have in such an election? How weak is a party that cannot pull out to a big lead even with all the odds stacked in their favor? Does that not suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the stratagies of that party?

It is indeed troubling to me that the GOP is not cruising to victory this time around with the wind at their backs. I attribute it to the essential conservatism of the American people. Conservative in the sense that they are not looking for dramatic change unless they feel it is absolutely necessary.

But Reagan was also behind in 1980 much later in the cycle:

Weeks before the election, Reagan trailed Carter in most polls. In the Gallup poll on October 26, Jimmy Carter was at 47 percent and Ronald Reagan at 39 percent.

And nobody had to assess "where to for the GOP" after that election.

 

[Denver]

...Anyway, that's the most likely scenario I see. Of course, what really happens depends on the economy, something that is only minimally affected by what US party is in power. If it improves greatly during the Romney presidency, something I find unlikely regardless of who wins, all rifts will be forgiven, at least temporarily. But if balancing the budget is to occur, then some hard choices are going to be made, and I do not expect the Tea Party to be rational about this. They do not have a history of being rational.

That is along the lines of my guess. When the market took its big dump during 2008, I felt then we were looking at a 5 year recovery, and I think we're on track for that. Whoever is in office this next term (all things being equal) will be the guys who are credited for job and economic recovery. If the GOP is not in office during that time, they will pretty much be stuck out of the pool until something bad happens, and from which everyone wants "a change".

There has been some talk of the GOP pulling away from its religious right entrenchment, but I cannot see that happening, since that is what informs their funding.

 

[Tricky]

It is indeed troubling to me that the GOP is not cruising to victory this time around with the wind at their backs. I attribute it to the essential conservatism of the American people. Conservative in the sense that they are not looking for dramatic change unless they feel it is absolutely necessary.

That seems unlikely. If it is true, then the talking heads of the GOP are doing a terrible job at getting their message out. I think it is more likely to be backlash against some of the truly horrible things conservatives, including Limbaugh and other non-politicians, have said. The women's vote is particularly lopsided.

But Reagan was also behind in 1980 much later in the cycle:



And nobody had to assess "where to for the GOP" after that election.

There are a couple of things to that. For one, it mentions only a single poll, Gallup. For another, polling has become much more sophisticated. We haven't seen any big surprises in the last few election cycles. And thirdly, Carter truly botched up the debates (or Reagan was brilliant, YMMV). There was an enormous swing after that. True, it is possible that Obama could do the same thing, but I'm doubtful. He's too smooth for that. Romney is the one more likely to emit a stray remark that is unhelpful to his campaign. Wanna bet?