Home › Blogs › Sean Oxendine's blog ›

This Apolcalyptic Rhetoric Is Getting Ridiculous

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 12:08

In the last couple weeks we've seen no shortage of sentiment implying that the GOP is in something akin to death throes, provided that it doesn't come to resemble something other than the modern GOP.  This post has been building in me for a while, but the latest piece by Ron Brownstein, titled The Bush GOP's Fatal Contraction, kind of set me off.

Look, I'm not going to say that nothing bad happened to Republicans on November 4.  I don't need to repeat the litany of losses we suffered that day.  If you've forgotten, read Brownstein's piece.  I've seen those numbers myself.

But I don't think its fair to say that "Bush leaves behind a party that looks less like a coalition than a clubhouse."  It is a pretty d*mn big clubhouse.  In the past few years, under a Republican President's watch, we've had two wars go badly, one of which a very large chunk of the country believes was unnecessary and founded on lies, a recession begin, instances of severe corruption, sex scandals, graft, massive deficit spending, and a city go under water, the financial system collapse, and a Republican President argue for a $700 billion bailout.  All that was missing was plagues of locusts, and I'd have signed up for Hal Lindsay's newsletter.  The Democrats nominated not just a political candidate, but a pop culture phenomenon, who raised three quarters of a billion dollars over the course of his campaign, who ran (at least in Virginia) on a platform of ending a foreign adventure, tax cuts for 95% of the American people, a health care plan in the middle of the free market and government-run plan, and good old fashioned mom and apple pie.

The result?  The Democrat got about 53% of the vote, about the same as the first President Bush got against Dukakis, and if 5% higher than Kerry performed.  Lest you think that this can all be chalked up to the racism of those darned West Virginians, Obama only ran about eight-tenths of a point behind Congressional Democrats.

In other words, about 9 in 20 voters voted for Republicans, versus 11 in 20 Democrats.  In similar circumstances like 1952 and 1920, the verdict against the in-party has been much more dramatic.  This is a bad result, but it is not a "chuck the social/fiscal/defense conservatives over the edge" bad result. 

Brownstein continues that "[t]he consistent thread linking the 2006 and 2008 elections was the narrowing of the playing field for Republicans even as Democrats extended their reach into places once considered reliably "red."  Pardon my colloquialisms, but "well duh."  The Republican party consistently failed to perform and to produce good results over the past four years, and when it did (in Iraq), it was too late for the 2006 elections, and just in time for the business cycle to swing negative.  When the Republican party was performing well, from about 2001-2003, it looked like reliably blue areas of the country like the upper midwest and the Pacific Northwest were trending their direction, while nothing was going right for Democrats.  When you have power and you govern well, the country swings your way.  When you have power and you don't the country does the opposite.  Very quickly, it turns out.

The results of this election should not have surprised anyone, and if they did it should have only surprised them by how well the Republicans performed given the circumstances.   When you have a President with 25% approval ratings, you don't make advances into blue states, you struggle to hold on to purple states, and you lose some ground in red states.  That's not partisanship talking, that's common sense. 

And Brownstein overlooks the most important fact of all when he writes: 

But to win the GOP nomination, McCain embraced Bush's core economic and foreign policies and then selected, in Sarah Palin, a running mate who waged the culture war with a zeal that made Bush and Karl Rove look squeamish. Both decisions weakened McCain's position with centrist voters; then the financial collapse deepened the hole.

The very important fact that he overlooks is that even with Sarah Palin and McCain's supposed embrace of Bush's economic and foreign policies, McCain was leading Obama before the financial collapse took place (and this was well outside the time of the regular convention bounce).  Obama was reduced to making snarky comments about lipstick on pigs and old dead fish and running commercials about how McCain couldn't send e-mails.   He was getting ready to drop Keating 5 ads.  In other words, up until September 15, this was a very winnable race for Republicans.  It wasn't just at the Presidential level either -- between the RNC and the financial collapse, every generic congressional ballot poll had the Democrats' lead in single digits; we also had the first poll showing Republicans leading in the generic ballot since 2004.  We were headed toward a three or four Senate seat loss, rather than the seven or eight one we're looking at today.  Given the overall condition of the country even pre-AIG/Lehman Brothers, that is astounding.

If McCain had pulled it off, and Obama had received only 49% of the vote and Democrats had made minimal gains in Congress or worse, the conclusion would be either (1) that Americans are racist or (2) that Democrats just can't win the Presidency.  Sorry, but the difference between a permanent Republican majority and a pup tent Republican party isn't 4% of the vote.

Anyway, the point of all of this is to go back to something very, very important that Patrick wrote about a week ago, and which conservatives should ponder carefully before they start excommunicating any branch of the party or otherwise seriously altering their message.  He writes:

American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office. This goes the same for when they win or we win -- whether it's 1980, 1994, or 2006/2008. The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

Because ideology doesn't matter in elections, and so much of politics depends on ephemeral characteristics like personality and who was in when the economy cycled south, the parties paradoxically have relatively wide latitude to govern ideologically without fear of public backlash once they get in. This is why cries of "socialism" were so ineffective during the campaign, and likewise why Bush got most of what he wanted in his early Presidency, even before 9/11. If Barack Obama is able to adopt far-left policies and make it look like he's making the trains run on time, the country will enter a new liberal era not by virtue of public opinion, but by acquiesence to what appears to be competent governance. In 1993-94, the Clintons tried to move the country to the left and looked incompetent in the process. It was the latter more than the former that opened a door for conservatives in 1994.

This is spot on.  Republicans didn't lose because they were too conservative, or not conservative enough, or didn't ban abortion, or wanted to ban gay marriage.  They lost because they were given the reigns of power, and they didn't perform.  If you look at the big party changes across recent American elections:  2006/08, 1994, 1982, 1980, 1974, 1966, 1958, they share a common thread:  The in-party screwed up.  It doesn't have much to do with what the out-party was doing.  If the Democrats screw up, all of those glowing internal exit poll numbers about Hispanics and youth and turnout and what-not will turn as depressing for them as they did in 2002 and 2004, when we were crowing about how Republicans had won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties.

That's the worst thing about this election for Republicans -- our fate is not really in our hands.  But in the meantime, we shouldn't act like the results from November 4 are a 1964/1984 "will we ever govern again" result, because they weren't.  What we're doing on this site is important, and the party does need to examine how it interacts with its online communities, how it presents its message, and how it attacks the incoming administration.  But that's ultimately for what happens when we are handed the reins of power.  At what point in time we're handed the reins depends as much on the results the incoming Administration is perceived as supplying as it does anything we do in the background, but in the meantime, we've got a pretty darned good bedrock to build upon.

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Comments

Its not the first time Doom has been proclaimed

Submitted by moqui on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 12:50.

When Bush the Elder lost to Clinton in 92, he garnered only 39% of the popular vote.  I remember watching the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour after the election, and the consensus was the GOP was doomed, it no longer existed as a national party when it could not muster even 40% of the electorate.  David Gergen was one of those pronouncing the patient dead, and not too long after, he deserted what he thought was a failed party.

Flash forward 2 years, and that "dead party" has re-taken the Congress for the first time in 40 years and holds it for over a decade and, oh by the way, manages to win 2 national presidential elections as well.

Similarly, after Bush the Younger's 2004 win, pundits were declaring a Permanent Majority for the GOP as well, a 51% McKinleyite majority that would dominate for decades.  Instead, they lose the Congress 2 years later and the Presidency 2 years after that.

One thing is for certain - pronouncements of doom in politics are always overblown and frequently dead wrong.

I agree, except for this...

Submitted by Captin Sarcastic on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 13:11.

 In other words, up until September 15, this was a very winnable race for Republicans.

I don't think this was ever winnable for the Republicans, short of a meltdown of the Democratic candidate. I think the timing of the financial collapse was coincidental.

Americans wanted to vote for a Democrat, the only reason it was ever close is that the American knew John McCain and didn't yet know Obama well enough to commit. The debates and the massive media attention gave people the information they needed to be comfortable with Obama, and I think that's the difference between September and November, not so much the economy.

I say this because of the earlier polls showing unnamed Democrat beating any named or unnamed Republican by about the margin Obama eventually won by. Obama just had to qualify himself as well as "unnamed" Democrat.

I'm not making an Obama is great and McCain sucked argument, rather that you are correct about the general favorable environment for Democrats, and Obama was able to convert. Just that I think this would have been the trajectory regardless of the economy, as long as Obama made people comfortable with himself as a candidate.

 

 

mccain ran one of the lowest campaigns in modern history

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:22.

you think that would have worked without the financial collapse that is just getting started?

Time for the tide to turn

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:40.

I realize this is supposed to be an open site and we should expect a certain amount of trolling and challanging debate from liberals who get on; but your meaningless and insulting posts are getting tiresome.  If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, stop gloating and go away.

i'm posing an honest question.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:42.

if the point of the OP was that obama managed to become a "generic democrat" ... I wonder if that would have happened without the financial collapse, given that McCain was running a dirty campaign....

Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I'm not actually hear to gloat.

You Need To Start From Truth

Submitted by APoxOnBoth on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 03:06.

Truth: McCain out-performed the generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat numbers right up until September when everyone knew who the nominees were and "generic" polling became meaningless, before the financial meltdown.  And he only led in two windows, mid-March through mid-April, and a week-long window that started on September 5 (the day after the end of the RNC) and closed by the 13th.  By the 15th, the most up to date polling data already showed him slipping back to a slight deficit, the convention bounces were over and it was back where it started a month earlier.  Then he stuck his foot in his mouth with the "economic fundamentals are strong" bit the same morning the stock market was crashing and Obama's numbers took off.

It's easy to tell yourself that it was just bad luck, or bad judgement, or whatever.  "Conservatism can't fail, it can only be failed."  But the reality is that you lost for the same reason Kerry and Gore did: The other side had better GOTV, a better ground game.  And that wasn't because the McCain ground game underperformed Bush, in every state it was active except Ohio, it pretty much equalled Bush's vote count from 2004, it just wasn't enough.  Had Obama equalled Kerry in every contested state, he would have won the squeaker in Ohio and been elected, but that's it.

And black turnout doesn't explain why Obama won states like Indiana, or Colorado, most of that turnout surge came in states that were never in doubt.  He simply out-hustled the GOP on the ground, the first time that has happened since 1960.  Until you face that reality, you're trying to fight the wrong battle.

He won the youth, early and hard, and he used that enthusiasm to beat you like a drum.  And every year you go without recapturing them, is two more years the GOP spends in the wilderness.

McCain didn't suck.  He wasn't the victim of circumstance.  He didn't succumb to Obama's rock-star status.  He didn't fail to "turn out the base".  The GOP did as well as was possible for them to do, and it wasn't good enough, because GOP victories for the last 30 years have been built on the engagement of a minority in the face of apathy by a majority that didn't agree with them, but wasn't showing up to vote.  Obama's qualities and leadership built the organization that beat the GOP organization, but it was an organizational defeat, not a transient one.

As an addendum...

Submitted by Evil Conservative on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 13:44.

We really don't know how bad or good things are in terms of perception of either party until the 2010 AND 2012 elections. The pundits and bloggers who argue about how we're center-left probably don't realize how foolish they will look if there is a 1994 or greater sweep of Rs in 2010 without having to hide in the Bushes, let alone Obama having to win re-election without the ability to promise a litany of things (without repeating 2008's promises) that need to be done lest he call attention to his Administration's shortcomings and without the ability to call for Change. Calling for Hope in 2012 with 9% unemployment that was 6.5% four years earlier when you took office might be tough too, but I digress. 

Captain Sarcastic,

I don't think this was ever winnable for the Republicans, short of a meltdown of the Democratic candidate.

You're right. But on the meltdown point: Obama made the "lipstick on a pig" comment on 9/10 and Biden was charging up to be the gaffe machine he has always been. Palin was IN Obama's head, she was in the whole Democratic party's head! Absent financial collapse, Mac would have been even or ahead going into a foreign policy debate that would have been solely about foreign policy instead of the first 40 minutes on the economy. Then Bill Ayers would have been mentioned on a day the Dow went down 70 where people would care about Ayers instead of down 700 making McCain look out of touch. It would have been an entirely different election.

Agree to disagree?

Submitted by Captin Sarcastic on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 14:39.

It would have been an entirely different election.

I suppose this is just a difference of opinion, not much either of us can do to prove our points, though I do suggest that the earlier opinion polls showing a general preference for Democrats supports my point, without proving.

Rhetoric is cheap

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 15:51.

This was not anything close to the earth shattering blow -out that one would have expected given Bush's popularity and an appealing candidate like Obama with unlimited funds. It took the financial crisis to seal the deal for Obama. It should not have been as close as it was, and the polls show that Hillary would have won by a wider margin.

 If the left thinks conservative principals are dead in America, let them, and let them plan accordingly. Congress still has a lower approval rating than Bush, and the Pelosi/Reid show is wearing thin. 2010 will be an opportunity for the GOP.

 

This is not a nation that

Submitted by Jampacked on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 19:01.

divides itself by 10-20 point swathes during elections. A 6 point election is exceptional and a 10 point divide is unheard of in the modern era. It is also important to realize that BOTH parties are incumbants to the system and for that reason supress 3rd parties while retaining some of the reins of power even in the worst of times. Of course the Republican party isn't falling apart, it is really a question of whether or not they continue to lose the hard won ground of the last 50 years or if they regroup and start to fight back.

Let me be very clear - McCain never had a chance. Not with Sarah Palin, not with the ridiculous "drill, baby, drill" (sadly just about the most effective slogan), and not by throwing out typical boogie man warnings of  "socialism/redistributer/big government." The reason is partly because of ineptitude in power, there is no doubt that that is a powerful factor. But, it is also the abject failure to identify what exactly Republican ideoligy is at the moment. If all it means is ultra specific policies like "lower taxes" and "family values" then there is no one looking to managing the fact that while such issues may turn out the votes they leave the ship of government stranded during the periods when these issues are not at the forefront.

By throwing stalwart principles like fiscal responsibility and prudent government instead of a bullying government out the window people felt that the Republican brand no longer stood for ideas that they themselves had endorsed. It was not a referendum on the platform as a whole, but rather a push back against the tendency of the past 8 years for Bush and the Republicans to get bogged down in menial issues that were not their writ (see Clinton, Don't Ask Don't Tell). If the leaders of the party can look past short term gains and try to encompass a broader and longer term plan they will keep finding themselves 2 steps forward and 3 back.

Bad history - presidential blowouts not uncommon

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 22:43.

A 6 point election is exceptional and a 10 point divide is unheard of in the modern era.

False. Reagan 84, Nixon 72, LBJ 64, Eisenhower (twice), won by double digit levels. That is 6 out of the last 15 elections since 1952. A 6 point win is hardly exceptional, as 1980, 1988, 1996,,  were at least 6 points each and 2004 was close to that at 5pts. 1992 was also electorally as much of a blowout as 2008 I believe, with a 5 pt divide. So at least 9 of the last 15 presidential elections were in the "exceptional" and "unheard of " category....

It's very clear that voters didnt want to give Bush a third term, and that was essentially Obama's campaign - "change" and 30 second ads of McCain with Bush. Not hard to win an election on that theme.

7pt divide. margins keep on growing

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:40.

heh.

So you point to something that was over twenty years ago, as a larger margin?

sorry, the parties got stuck in a rut for twenty years. and that rut is why the margin isn't bigger.

The rut? Culture War

Apolcalypse is down ticket?

Submitted by johnson springs on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 19:08.

I agree that the apocalypse has not arrived. Nevertheless, I find myself wondering what things look like below the presidential.

Do you have any historical comparisons for the back-to-back Senate and Congressional results in 2006 and 2008? I'm not a polling/numbers guy, but a broad view would appear to suggest that many GOP House and Senate seats are deep red, but that the ones that aren't are ever more threatened by demographics and disaffection.

I would love to hear your thoughts and/or analysis on the down ticket trends/prospects.

the Brownsteins and Schwarzeneggers of this world...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 20:06.

...are going to continue to make the case that the social conservatism  is dying or dead.  Of course the opposite is true.  The problem is that the GOP (led by McCain) opted to move back toward the center when the Base wanted it to move dramatically to the right.    The Brownsteins and Arnolds should be ignored.  The focus needs to be directed at the conflict between the GOP Hierarchy and the conservative Base.  Especially the segment of that Base that became frustrated, exasperated and opted to drop out of the process on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08.   Some 7 million Non-Voters on 11/4/08.  And I believe many more.   We need to focus on the troublemakers within our own party that are resisting the will of the Base.  Shine the light on them.  If we don't deal with these scoundrels, and soon, 2010 will be here and we'll be no further along than we are now.  Our priorities are horribly misdirected. DD

Wish-fulfillment of the elites

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 22:47.

They try to write off the social conservatives because that is what they want to see happen.

They want the SoCons gone.

They never run into such strange folks - folks who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, say - on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Such a person would be more strange to them than the local drug-addled homeless beggar.

The Liberals of course have that wish-fulfillment about the whole conservative movement, especially the conservatives who dont play by the rules of the potted-plant conservatives like say David Brooks.

A question about assumptions for DD

Submitted by johnson springs on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 21:31.

Darvin,

Your suggestion is that 7 million GOP voters stayed home this cycle because McCain is not conservative. Are you suggesting that if, say, Sam Brownback had been the nominee he would have won election?

It seems to me that a case can be made in the case of North Carolina, for instance, that ticket splitters voted for McCain and Kay Hagan who beat Dole by a much wider margin than Obama's squeaker over McCain. That could suggest that Hagan voters would be less likely to support a candidate more conservative than McCain. Your thoughts?

Also, can you link to something on the 7 million stay at homes? I would like to read up on that.

Can you link to something...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sun, 11/23/2008 - 20:15.

...that can give us some kind of indication of where those 7 mil voters went? I say they stayed at home or protest voted for some 3rd party or for Obama.  My opinion.  I mean Bush got 62 mil in 2004 and McCain garnered 55 mil.   ( link )     GOP voters are evaporating rapidly.    But few can really state dogmatically as to why the GOP is losing Middle American voters by droves.  We have our opinions and theories.  Mine is the "Stay at Home"/Protest voter.

As for Brownback, no, I don't think he could've helped.   Its the overall/ general condition of the GOP.  They're just so out of touch with the average Middle American.   I happen to believe that there are apprx 20 million dormant but eligible voters out there who, if properly motivated, would vote.  Add that to the solid 55 mil who voted on 11/4.  But who's going to motivate them? I say an ultra-nationalistic conservative.  And when I say nationalistic I am speaking of a new "inclusive" civic nationalism as opposed to some negative ethnic form.  Few agree w/me Johnson Springs.  Thats ok.   But if the GOP could get that 20 mil dormant voters motivated they would more than cancel out all of the "youth"/"undecided" votes that seemed to turn the tide for Obama.   Just kinda' generalizing here.

I don't keep up w/N. Carolina.  Sorry. NO comment there. DD

Thanks for the reply, Darvin.

Submitted by johnson springs on Sun, 11/23/2008 - 21:02.

I appreciate your comments and insight.

Le plus ca change . . .

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 20:35.

In 1994 voices on the right were saying the same things about Dems. Even smart and wise individuals like Michael Barone were saying that a suburban investor class would make the traditional Dem looters coalition as obsolete as full-blown pre-Progressive era corrupt urban patronage machines (not to be confused with the pale imitations of that particular beast that exist in some places).

Performance not ideology

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 22:32.

You make the contention that the Republicans lost for non-ideological reasons, #1 being performance. I agree.  I have opined that 'smartness' and 'coolness' non-ideological factors hurt the GOP:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/smartness-coolness-factors.html

Brownstein says this:

All of these trends expose the same dynamic: Democrats are effectively courting voters with diverse views, but the Republican capacity to appeal to voters beyond their party's core coalition has collapsed.

I believe he inadvertently is making your point about non-ideological factors. There is only one way for 'voters with diverse views' to vote for the same candidate, and that is either because they are voting AGAINST someone else, or because they have a NON-IDEOLOGICAL reason to vote (and/or are simply ignorant of ideas/agenda period). I have to hand it to Obama. 65 million people voted for 'change' and they have 65 million different versions of what that means.

So what happens when they wake up and find the change isnt what they wanted or expected?

That's really the GOP's job right now: To be the loyal opposition against the wrong-headed liberal Obama Democrat policies, and to define an alternative agenda and vision for the future. when voters realize 'this isnt the change I wanted' they will have a choice.  When we present a better alternative, we will be able to win back the confidence of the voters in the future.

The GOP will need intellectual confidence and future-oriented outlook to get in that frame of mind, and that would be more helpful to winning back independents than a 'woe is me' attitude.

FT I read your very excellent and well written...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 13:52.

...piece that you linked to. I recommend it. I have to say that Repub's could be the coolest, hip'est and most intellectual people in the world  and the left, the msm and the dem's would still hate our guts and try to minimize/destroy us at every opportunity.  The truth is,  true conservatives are the coolest, hip'est and most intellectual people in the world. We don't have to work at it like the dem's do. It just comes natural for us because of what we believe.  And we should absolutely not boast or gloat about that.  I know its hard, FT, for folks like you and I to remain humble but we must.  Remember, "...humble yourself and you will be exalted, exalt yourself and you will be humbled".  You see acceptance and embracement of Truth makes one "cool" &  "hip" and knowledge of the Truth makes one an  intellectual.  Not an education at some Ivy League University.  "You Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free".   Don't you see that written there on one of your buildings at UofT?   One can learn truth anywhere.   In a trash dump, in a factory, in a commercial kitchen, on and on.  Even a university although that possibility is at an all-time low.  There are some, however, that believe that any knowledge learned outside of the halls of some prestigious university is tainted and somehow an unworthy form of knowledge.  Not to be considered as useful in any way.  Hence this attitude is responsible for the "great gulf fixed" between the former GOP Base - the "estranged" and the GOP Elitist Hierarchy. 

We need to ignore the left/msm/dem's for now and concentrate our efforts at dislodging the elitist scoundrels that have "our" GOP in a strangle hold.                                  DD

who is your Lieberman?

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:43.

where is your Lamont? (and will he be just as geeky as the last one??)

Predictive Apocalyptic Language

Submitted by chrisbannon on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 23:10.

I am not sure that the ratcheted up language is not necessary to get people thinking and moving in the direction the party needs to go. I agree with Patrick, that the ideological stuff is much less important than the perception of the Republican party by the public at large. However, I don't agree with some of the comments here that we should try to look "cool" as the Obama campaign did. As of right now, it is not yet the apocalypse for Republicans. Like you point out, we still won 9/20 voters. However, with the Democrats in power, and such a progressive cabinet in the Obama administration leading a Democrat congress, if the Republican opposition in the House and Senate is not able to put forth a viable alternative and actually stand up to the progressive bills that will be coming their way, I fear we could be in for apocalyptic type races come 2010. Let me explain....

If the Obama administration and their co-horts in congress were to put forth a bill that expands th Head Start program to children of all ages in the form of child day care, do we have confidence that Republicans in congress under "new" leadership in Rep. Boehner would be able to mount a well thought out, reasoned, and tempered opposition to a bill such as this. Bills like this are going to pass, but Republicans are going to need to be able to tell the American people come 2010 why they "voted against education bills" in Congress. Similar things will need to be done in regard to healthcare proposals. I fear that the current Republican leadership will not be able to mount the necessary opposition and explain why they are opposed to bills like this. They weren't able to with Bush's Medicare Drug Program...why would they be able when they are in the minority?

I say this could lead to apocalyptic ends because when the questions on TV commercials leading to 2010 are "Why did Republican Rep. X vote against YOUR Healthcare?"  and Republicans don't have a valid explanation, while the Democrats know exactly what they want in Federal government control of healthcare, we are going to lose that battle because no matter what the message of the Democrats is, we don't have a cohesive opposing one. Further, if the Republicans in congress (or even some of them) decide to not mount an opposition to things such as the Federal government running healthcare and educaiton, etc. then we have already lost because the question is no longer "Should the Federal government run healthcare?" but instead becomes "What should Federal government run healthcare look like?" And THAT my friends is a very scary question in very unchartered waters.

So to come full circle, I think the apocalyptic language is more predictive of what could come if we don't get our act together now.

Getting our act togehter is exactly the point.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 10:37.

But how best to get our act together is the only real question before us at the present time. Since ideology is not the key determining factor in winning elections, it would seem to me we ought to give just a little more thought to organizing our base.  Fortunately, we have a new and  very powerful communicative tool at our disposal, specifically designed to accomplish just this kind of a task, and thanks to Obama's use of this tool, we don't even have to speculate as to just how powerful and effective this new tool can be at organizing the base.

Sadly, I can't see Ruffini's effort at Rebuilding the Party, which is simply an attempt to mimic the Left's attack strategy for personal and political gain, as being structured enough to actually organize the base into an effective politcal enity.

We need a web structure that will actually organize and support the growth of our base into an informed, organized political force. But we need to do more than that. People will soon realize they are simply being used as political cannon fodder if they are not actually given a voice, allow to speak and to actually have this voices heard by the organization. This is the web challenge our party faces today. And while many might not view this kind of change in apocalyptic terms, it is, in fact, exactly what it is.  Look it up.

           ex animo

 Operation Rednet  

           davidfarrar

 

Political Cannon Fodder...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 20:50.

...it does seem like we're becoming more fragmented, Farrar.  Like a grenade going off w/millions of pieces of shrapnel.  The Big Bang!  Everyone seems to have an idea of whats wrong and a  plan.  Meanwhile those forces that are responsible for the accelerated downward spiral of the GOP are still, quietly  maintaining control of   "our" party.  They're content to watch the rest of us cannon fodder out here stepping on landmines, etc.  Again, while they escape all responsibility for the destruction "they caused" to our party.  No one is singling them out by name and shining a spot light on them.  Or no one of any significance, that is.    Meanwhile the cannon fodder is stacking up like dead wood in a pile. DD

Relax...it's all part of the plan!

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 22:49.

The corporate class will continue to control the party until middle-America joins the party. I am really not interested in limiting any class from participating in the party. It's just that at the present time there is an imbalance of power within the party that needs to be corrected.  It is also important to understand nobody is going to willingly give up structural power. It has to be taken. This is why I hope we can facilitate empowering middle-America into the Republican Party at the grassroot level using the internet some how, some way for the good of the party.

With middle-America's participation in the party, the party will begin to reflect more accurately the political aspirations of its members and start working more closely towards the common good of all. It is not natural, nor morally or politically right, to have the leadership of both major political parties acting to divide the people as a means to maintaining or regaining political power. The common good of all will never to achieved in this manner.   And I am quite positive that middle-America's voice will not stay quite for long. It will speak out, choose its leader and change the political landscape for years to come.

ex animo

davidfarrar

How down is the GOP? I agree with many conflicting opinions

Submitted by mnmod on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 08:54.

First elections do seem to be  won or lost by general appeal of the candidate much more than ideology or party affiliation. For evidence look at how voters in my precinct split the ticket and  the great differences in margins of victory:

President-  D  +15%

Senate - R  +2%

House  - R  +1%

state house rep -  D   + 59%

I believe my district leans dem but primarily votes on general favorable perceptions of candidates.

Second data from gallop aout views of both parties does not look hopeful for GOP:

    "....The Republican Party's image deficit began well before 2008. In December 2005, the Republicans and the Democrats were rated about equally, with just under half of Americans viewing each party favorably. Shortly thereafter, the Republicans' favorable rating fell to 36%, and has since struggled to cross the 40% threshold. The Democrats' favorable rating gradually improved during 2006, and has not fallen below 51% since the spring of that year."

that's about a 15% gap in fav ratings.  see link for various graphs.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/112015/GOP-Takes-Another-Image-Hit-PostElection.aspx

Third crisbannon is right:

 "...with the Democrats in power, and such a progressive cabinet in the Obama administration leading a Democrat congress, if the Republican opposition in the House and Senate is not able to put forth a viable alternative and actually stand up to the progressive bills that will be coming their way, I fear we could be in for apocalyptic type races come 2010."

To have general appeal  candidates will  to offer something on  healthcare, energy and economic  policies besides lower taxes/smaller government.

Fourth sites like the next right and others are needed in rebuilding and modernizing your party.

     "With the GOP in tatters after heavy electoral losses, there is a lot of grumbling going on inside Republican circles. The criticisms are many and, at times, contradictory: The party has grown too tight with the social conservative base and must moderate to have broader appeal; it has lost touch with its conservative roots; it is clueless about the needs of working men and women.

Amid all the griping, a handful of tech-savvy Republicans are saying that the real problem isn't principle or politics; it's hardware. The GOP, they complain, is a complete dud when it comes to the Internet and using the tools of a 21st-century campaign. ....."

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/11/gop-internet-activists.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

This part...

Submitted by Caroline on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 09:08.

" Obama was reduced to making snarky comments about lipstick on pigs and old dead fish"

....makes you look silly. He wasn't "reduced" to anything and the intent of that comment was not how you portray it.

Other than that you make some interesting points - Jay Cost also seeks to minimize the perceived damage to the GOP ( I disagree with him, fwiw).

I think EC is right in saying we need to see how at least the '10 elections go. But it is interesting that Americans elected the guy the GOP called a "socialist", "Marxist" and "the most leftist, liberal candidate ever", yet are still clinging to the mistaken notion that "America is a center-right country.

 

 

Obama's a centrist

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:48.

pragmatic progressive.

Midwesterners tend to like to elect people like that. I like Midwestern representation. ;-)

Perception is key

Submitted by Teri C. on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 09:47.

The Dems have mastered the art of putting the GOP on the defensive. With their increasingly likely supermajority, it is imperative that the Dems have their feet held to the fire by the GOP. If the public is consistently made aware of the vast shortcomings of the left, it will be reflected in the upcoming election cycles.

Why do we care what Ron Brownstein thinks?

Submitted by smagar on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 11:06.

Because he's an LA Times columnist?  Please.

Does anyone really think Brownstein, or E.J. Dionne, or any one else in the MSM chattering class really wants to help the GOP succeed?

Um....no.  They may want to help us off a cliff...that's about it

Apocalyptic Rhetoric

Submitted by Chris L. on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 11:44.

Not bad analysis, Sean. Although, I would argue that  the GOP let the “culture war” stuff become excessive to the point that various elements of what had been a winning coalition were being set against one another [rural v urban; educated v less-educated; churched v unchurched, etc., etc.] rather than being leveraged together.  I believe that this was largely because they (particularly Rove) wanted to use "the Culture War" to distract from their failure or inability to perform in the important areas. Considering that your analysis may be largely on target, a good question to ask is: Why didn’t the GOP perform during the six years that they had total control of the government?  There are, I am sure, a number of different answers, but one is that the GOP/conservative movement post-Gingrich (late '90s) became devoid of any real intellectual capital.  Stoking a "culture war" became much easier than applying conservative principles to address contemporary issues of substance.

The Democrats did not have to

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 12:40.

The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

And the GOP conveniently provided an economic crisis and an unpopular war.  You make it sound like the Democrats lucked out, when in fact the GOP handed the weapons to their opponents.  After all, George W. Bush got economic advice from influential and educated economists who didn't see a housing crisis coming, "advisors" whose own businesses fell victim to their lack of foresight.  "Liberal" blogs and future Nobel economist Krugman were predicting the meltdown two years before the event, and they nailed the reasons why it would happen.  (No matter what you think of Krugman, being right long before everyone else is should get him some kudos.)
 
Compare Krugman's accurate predictions of economic meltdown to Rumsfeld's botched prediction that the war would be cheap, short and easy.  The GOP created for itself a credibility gap a generation wide by painting a long series of rosy scenarios and being wrong every time.
 
The hated liberals were right about the economy (AND the war!) and the president was wrong, and that is why the GOP is in decline.  For all the vaunted "CEO President" and "run like a business" rhetoric we heard in 2000, the government was run like a whorehouse, and the whores were giving the owner management advice.
 
I don't see anyone on the horizon for 2012 to change the direction of the party.  Of course no one saw Obama coming four years ago, so there is reason to hope a GOP savior will come along, but I sure don't see that person.  It would be refreshing if it were not a familiar and aging white guy.
 
I will shoot the next person who says it's Sarah Palin.  Her intellectual deficiencies are like nails on the blackboard to me.  She is the most embarrassing Republican to come along since Alan Keyes.

 

I think your coalition needs realigning, before

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:51.

you can really find a good next President.

BigBusiness and the Priests do not a coalition make.

Civil Service cheered for Obama -- and now they're glad to see Adults back in Charge.

I hope Obama can fix our military... It's in dire straights.

Maybe it´s not apocalyptic,

Submitted by ANDKEN on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 14:12.

Maybe it´s not apocalyptic, but it´s VERY dark scenario. After 1994 the Republicans made a net gain of seats in the Senate in just three occasions: 1996, 2002 and 2004. *All* these times they were helped by the retirement of conservative old school Democrats in the South. They also won the popular presidential vote just one time after 1988 - and barely beating John Kerry, a terrible candidate.

In 2008 the Democrats nominated a very liberal candidate with zero experience that probally would have lost without the financial meltdown. Had they nominated a sucessful governor of a red state(Someone like Phil Bredesen or Kathleen Sebelius) it would have been a mondalenesque defeat.These problems came before Bush.

If you lose almost 70% of the Hispanic vote you have zero chances of winning the presidency. That puts the entire Southwest, California, Florida and in the future Texas on Democrat hands. That´s 150 votes in the Electoral College. And if you lose 90% of the Black vote that enough to put much of the Northeast in the Democrat, no matter how the screw up themselves.

And that´s not a new perception.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jun/gop.htm