That's actually just a Canadian thing. In the UK and Australia selection of parliamentary leaders and thus Prime Ministers is solely the domain of the party caucus.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Analysis of Romney's defeat
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
That's actually just a Canadian thing. In the UK and Australia selection of parliamentary leaders and thus Prime Ministers is solely the domain of the party caucus.
The t'tinternet is for schadenfreude... 
I understand "breaking the two party system" as establishing a permanent third party in the political system that consistently wins Congress seats and has an actual shot at the Presidency, not just winning some EVs that don't amount to anything.
There is difference between 2010 and 2014,
Psst, the Koch brothers aren't going to throw good money after bad.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Either the Republican party is falling apart or it is not. It cannot be both. The reason why third parties fail, is because they give up and do not stay consistent. I cannot see things getting any better for the GOP. They have consistently been loosing ground since 9/11. Maybe the libertarians do not have the answer, but I don't see the Republicans as having one any more either.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
It's not that conservatism is so upalatable to America.
It's extremist, no holds barred, obstructionism TO THE MAX Teahadism that is unpalatable. Ditch that and stop pandering solely to whites and they can have a shot.
Why didn't anybody on the right think "Hmm, we're in the middle of a recession with a looming debt crisis and other serious problems - why don't we work on those and find some common ground instead of focusing on making Obama a one term President?"
If they had done that, they could have scored major points from Americans disallusioned with our political process and maybe even won the Presidency.
Yeah, that could happen in a FPP system.
Well, they certainly did this year!
I bet 2014 has a lot more in common with 2010 than 2012. Midterm electoral populations are a lot whiter and older than presidential years.
The Republican party isn't "failing" per se, it lost a close national election because of demographic problems. They're going to control the US house for the next several years.
They aren't bleeding votes to Libertarians...and I don't even think 20% of this country really has libertarian-like views anyway. .
I've read a couple of articles which suggest that Romney shot himself in the foot in the primaries when he tried to outflank Perry (who was then in the lead) on immigration. 'Self-deportation' apparently didn't play too well with Latinos, which is largely why you see such a high percentage voting for Obama. Apparently even Cuban-Americans in Florida were evenly split between the two parties, whereas they're normally Republican-leaning. Now, it seems unlikely that Romney was sincerely to the right of Perry on immigration issues, but why was it considered a winning strategy in the Republican primaries? The reason must be that there is genuine conviction amongst the Tea Party base that Romney was trying to win over from Perry. So long as that base remains powerful, or worth winning for anyone vying for the GOP nomination, it's hard to see how the Latino vote can be won. Even if the vast majority of Republicans are far more moderate on immigration issues than hardline rhetoric would suggest, there would remain a perception that the GOP is anti-Latino if there is a vocal minority that is won over by playing to prejudices.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
The Main Theme
The very bottom line is that the Republican Party is positioned as the rich old white man party. The era of the rich old white man dominating electoral politics on the national level is over. The Republican Party is going to have an internal ideological struggle now over the direction the party is going to take heading into the mid-term elections of 2014. If Congress can move past the fiscal cliff and if the economy continues to recover over the next two years (which is likely) then Republicans are going to have to return to the center-right in order to stem further losses. If they decide to take another step further to the right, they risk losing whatever remains of the more moderate wing of their party to the independents and to the Democratic Party.
House Races
The Republicans started off the night doing well. They picked up a few seats that they might not have expected to, but that winning streak wore off as the night went on. As it stands, last time I checked, the Democrats already have the 193 seats that they started out with and there are nine more to be settled. No matter what happens, the Republicans are basically going to maintain the status quo. Frankly, I'm surprised that given the results of the Senate races and the Presidential race, that they didn't lose more seats. There is a real disconnect here between how you interpret the public's mood in the country given those races and the fact that House Republicans fared relatively well, by comparison.
Senate Races
But for the word 'rape', the Senate would be divided between, at best, 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 47 Republicans. I happen to think that those two colossal gaffes could have propelled Democrat Heidi Heitkamp to victory in North Dakota by a slim margin. Even so, that would have left Democrats with 50 seats plus two independents and the Vice-Presidency. I don't think that anyone could make an honest argument that John Tester (D-MT) or Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) ran in competitive races given the margins they won by. These races were tipped in the favor of Democrats for more than a month or so, now, and followed a trend that had been ongoing for roughly three months or more.
Presidential Race
Mitt Romney lost this race because he was viewed as a rich old white man in a party of rich old white men and because no one could really pin down where he stood on the issues. Everyone knew he was the alternative to President Obama, they just didn't know what kind of alternative he was. The water was extremely murky in that regard and due in no small part to Romney's flip-flopping, but like some of my fellow posters said, this is what it has come to with the Republican Party. You have to be far-right to win the nomination and move too far to the center to go unnoticed to win the general election. At the end of the day, some of the last polls to come out before the election showed that more than 1/3rd of Romney "supporters" were simply voting against the President. Like John Kerry before him, that is the kind of campaign that loses elections, because not everyone of those voters shows up to the polling place.
Conclusion
The Republicans do have some very serious long-term problems with the minority vote, but in the meantime, they could do a lot in the short-term to address the female vote and the youth vote. That would be enough keep Republicans competitive until they could rehabilitate their image with minority voters, but the key here is going to be whether or not tea-party Republicans can agree to come to the center on the national level during the primaries. If not, more mainstream Republicans are going to have to be brave and shed the far-right, otherwise they risk the flight of moderates. I really don't know how this is going to pan out, but the Republican Party has a real chance to disintegrate here, if they're not careful.
The very bottom line is that the Republican Party is positioned as the rich old white man party. The era of the rich old white man dominating electoral politics on the national level is over. The Republican Party is going to have an internal ideological struggle now over the direction the party is going to take heading into the mid-term elections of 2014. If Congress can move past the fiscal cliff and if the economy continues to recover over the next two years (which is likely) then Republicans are going to have to return to the center-right in order to stem further losses. If they decide to take another step further to the right, they risk losing whatever remains of the more moderate wing of their party to the independents and to the Democratic Party.
House Races
The Republicans started off the night doing well. They picked up a few seats that they might not have expected to, but that winning streak wore off as the night went on. As it stands, last time I checked, the Democrats already have the 193 seats that they started out with and there are nine more to be settled. No matter what happens, the Republicans are basically going to maintain the status quo. Frankly, I'm surprised that given the results of the Senate races and the Presidential race, that they didn't lose more seats. There is a real disconnect here between how you interpret the public's mood in the country given those races and the fact that House Republicans fared relatively well, by comparison.
Senate Races
But for the word 'rape', the Senate would be divided between, at best, 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 47 Republicans. I happen to think that those two colossal gaffes could have propelled Democrat Heidi Heitkamp to victory in North Dakota by a slim margin. Even so, that would have left Democrats with 50 seats plus two independents and the Vice-Presidency. I don't think that anyone could make an honest argument that John Tester (D-MT) or Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) ran in competitive races given the margins they won by. These races were tipped in the favor of Democrats for more than a month or so, now, and followed a trend that had been ongoing for roughly three months or more.
Presidential Race
Mitt Romney lost this race because he was viewed as a rich old white man in a party of rich old white men and because no one could really pin down where he stood on the issues. Everyone knew he was the alternative to President Obama, they just didn't know what kind of alternative he was. The water was extremely murky in that regard and due in no small part to Romney's flip-flopping, but like some of my fellow posters said, this is what it has come to with the Republican Party. You have to be far-right to win the nomination and move too far to the center to go unnoticed to win the general election. At the end of the day, some of the last polls to come out before the election showed that more than 1/3rd of Romney "supporters" were simply voting against the President. Like John Kerry before him, that is the kind of campaign that loses elections, because not everyone of those voters shows up to the polling place.
Conclusion
The Republicans do have some very serious long-term problems with the minority vote, but in the meantime, they could do a lot in the short-term to address the female vote and the youth vote. That would be enough keep Republicans competitive until they could rehabilitate their image with minority voters, but the key here is going to be whether or not tea-party Republicans can agree to come to the center on the national level during the primaries. If not, more mainstream Republicans are going to have to be brave and shed the far-right, otherwise they risk the flight of moderates. I really don't know how this is going to pan out, but the Republican Party has a real chance to disintegrate here, if they're not careful.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
I agree with this and I think that it might be the new normal for the next few cycles. What could threaten the Republican Party is the internal ideological struggle that they're going to have over the course of the next year or so. Depending on how ugly that gets, it may cost them in the mid-terms. A lot is also going to depend on how the economy recovers over the next year or so.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Well, they are a strange hodge podge of religious extremists, tea party like extremists (I suppose the first 2 groups probably overlap quite a bit), your run of the mill conservatives, a lot of moderates, a couple libertarians, and what else have you..
It must be hard to try to put together a coherent message that will appeal to all those groups at the same time. It must be a nightmare to manage, really.
I am curious what their strategy is going to be in 4 years. It seems like they really have to focus on their larger support blocks and maybe ignore some of the extremists.. then again..
It must be hard to try to put together a coherent message that will appeal to all those groups at the same time. It must be a nightmare to manage, really.
I am curious what their strategy is going to be in 4 years. It seems like they really have to focus on their larger support blocks and maybe ignore some of the extremists.. then again..
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Waiting four years is the democratic strategy. We vote again in two years.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
Obama's turn out machine needs to work over the weekend
Imagine poor Karl Rove's blood pressure if 2014 has 2012 turnout
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
What gets decided in 2 years? senate? house?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The 2014 United States elections will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. During this midterm election year, all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested in this election along with 38 state and territorial governorships, 46 state legislatures (except Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia), four territorial legislatures and numerous state and local races.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Every house seat, 1/3 of senate seats, several governorships and state legislatures
Berzerker
Deity
i'm sure its been said, immigration and women
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I just think that with all the emotion of the loss, they shouldn't make rash decision and wait a few months before deciding what to do. Losing the US presidency is not the be all and end all of politics.
